The Whitehall Mystery

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

As I've said numerous times Dr Phillips states that the mutilations were carried out for purposes of disposing of the Pinchin Street Torso. And Dr Hebbert infers as much in respect of Liz Jackson: see post 877.

I understand your argument about the killer losing his dismemberment site, but the simplest explanation is that there were different killers. As I've noted before, once you start speculating to that degree almost any solution is possible: Rose Mylett, for instance, may have been a Ripper victim, even though she was strangled, because he didn't have his knife with him at the time. It's clearly a possibility, but not the simplest solution. Emma Smith may also have been a Ripper victim, I.e he may have been part of the gang that attacked her. And no, I'm not being facetious, I honestly think this a possibility, and have argued so before, although it's clearly unlikely. And, of course, it doesn't explain why he only targets the genitals as JtR, or why Kelly wasn't decapitated. Or Nichols, Chapman Eddowes for that matter: I believe Jon pointed out that Chapman's killer may have attempted a decapitation.

I apologize if you think I was being facetious. In all honesty, I actually have great respect for you as a poster, and always consider your opinions seriously, even though we may disagree on occasion!

Thanks JohnG
No worries. appreciate the reply.

And, of course, it doesn't explain why he only targets the genitals as JtR

,

But that's the point ive been making the whole time! He emphatically does NOT only target the genitals as JTR! there is the evidence that in some of the torsos the vagina was cut and or organs of reproduction targeted (Close enough in my opinion to "genitals").
And the ripper didn't only target the genitals-he dam near cut everything else! with the primary FOCUS apparently on genitals, abdomen and internal organs.

or why Kelly wasn't decapitated. Or Nichols, Chapman Eddowes for that matter: I believe Jon pointed out that Chapman's killer may have attempted a decapitation.

as ive said before-hes not going to bring a saw with him out into the streets!! and again, he may have tried to decapitate Chapman with just his knife and found it wasn't feasible, so stopped really trying with subsequent victims.

if you boil it down to its base aspect-what we have are two (or one) serial killers who like to cut up, take out organs, remove body parts post mortem of prostitutes they've killed (probably strangled or knocked out first) and display victims for shock value. Add to that operating at the same time and place.

Amazing similarity IMHO and if they are different men then an amazing coincidence!

[Abby Normal]

This has been a fascinating thread!

Has anyone followed up more on the whole board of works connection? I find it very interesting.

[Fisherman]

None of the Ripper murders remotely resemble the Torso Murders with the exception of Mary Jane Kelly so perhaps the question everyone should be asking is not wether The Ripper were one and the same but wether the Torso Killer murdered Mary Jane Kelly? I don't believe he did but find it plausible.

But how can bodies being cut open from sternum to groin NOT resemble Ripper murders in any way?

How is it that missing uteri should not make us think of the Ripper´s exploits?

Why do the two series not compare victimologywise - when we know that they both involve prostitutes?

Why is a vagina cut by the torso killer not the same as a vagina cut by the Ripper?

Is it not more than a tad odd to claim that there are no resemblances whatsoever - when we know that they are there in numbers? Why the need to go to such lengths to deny the obvious likenesses? There are differences a plenty involved, why not stick to them instead of inventing a false picture?

[Abby Normal]

But how can bodies being cut open from sternum to groin NOT resemble Ripper murders in any way?

How is it that missing uteri should not make us think of the Ripper´s exploits?

Why do the two series not compare victimologywise - when we know that they both involve prostitutes?

Why is a vagina cut by the torso killer not the same as a vagina cut by the Ripper?

Is it not more than a tad odd to claim that there are no resemblances whatsoever - when we know that they are there in numbers? Why the need to go to such lengths to deny the obvious likenesses? There are differences a plenty involved, why not stick to them instead of inventing a false picture?

Amen Brother!

If I was debating from the other side Id be hammering the difference of MO (not sig), which, gun to head, is why I still lean toward two killers.

[John Wheat]

But how can bodies being cut open from sternum to groin NOT resemble Ripper murders in any way?

How is it that missing uteri should not make us think of the Ripper´s exploits?

Why do the two series not compare victimologywise - when we know that they both involve prostitutes?

Why is a vagina cut by the torso killer not the same as a vagina cut by the Ripper?

Is it not more than a tad odd to claim that there are no resemblances whatsoever - when we know that they are there in numbers? Why the need to go to such lengths to deny the obvious likenesses? There are differences a plenty involved, why not stick to them instead of inventing a false picture?

To Fisherman

Okay maybe I was overstating things slightly but still there seems to me very few similarities between the first four of the C5 and The Torso Killers murders except for Mary Jane Kelly.

Your comment about them both involving prostitutes is negated by the fact that many serial killers target prostitutes possibly more than not as they tend to be easy targets.

We don't know for 100% that the Uteri in either sets of murders was taken by the killer. There are other possibilities as argued numerously by Trevor Marriot.

It was not my intention to deny obvious similarities but to suggest that aspects of Mary Jane Kelly's murder seem much more similar to The Torso Murders than the previous four of the C5.

Cheers John

[Dane_F]

Hello Dane,

The cut towards the vagina indicated that the knife had slipped (Keppel, 2005). Donald Swanson concluded that there was no genital mutilations in the Torso cases. In fact, th s is what he said in a report to the Home Office after the Pinchin Street Torso inquest had finished: "What becomes most apparent is the absence of the attack on the genitals as in the series of Whitechapel murders beginning at Bucks Row and ending in Miller's Court". Considering he was leading the investigation his opinions should be taken extremely seriously.

As I've stated many times now Dr Phillips was of the opinion that the mutilation were carried out for purposes of disposing of the body. However, as I have also noted, Commissioner Monro argued that the wound leading to the vagina was intended to simulate the Whitechapel murders, which is why I have also argued that Pinchin Street may have been intended as a parody of the earlier Whitechapel crimes.

Here's another quote from Evans and Rumbellow (2006), referring to the Pinchin Street Torso: " There was a gash to the abdomen but this appeared to have been inflicted when dismemberment had taken place"

I have cited this before, about the Pinchin Street case, but i'll do so again: "The trunk was full of blood indicating that a haemorrhage had not occurred. This also indicated that the throat could not have been cut. (Keppel, 2005, citing Evans and Skinner (2000)

No medical professional at the time attempted to link these crimes, quite the reverse. Dr Clarke, who assisted Dr Phillips, for example, was adamant that the Pinchin Street victim was not linked to the Whitechapel crimes.

Hi John,

There seems to be so much opinion flying around that some very simple facts have been lost in the discussion. Hence, I went back to the Hebbert Autopsy reports that Debra was so very kind to link to earlier in this thread and read what they had to say about the Pinchin St. Torso.

Fact #1: From just below the neck there was a long gash that cut through the skin and the muscle of the abdomen all the way down past the pubes opening the vagina and stopping slightly past it in the left inner thigh area.

Fact #2: The neck was very clearly cut. Two incisions were made. One starting from behind beginning opposite the spine and moving left to right ending in the front on the right side. The 2nd beginning in the front right and continuing to the back meeting the other incision. The muscle and tissue down to the spine were cut to the same level. In the report he states that the neck and leg incisions had very clear-cut edges. The edges of the cuts show a very sharp knife was used.

Fact #3: The autopsy report states (and I will direct quote this to be clear), "The incisions were evidently made with design, and were skillfully performed. . ."

So we have the autopsy report by Hebbert (with permission of Dr. Bond to reproduce) stating, 1) the vagina was in fact cut. 2) the neck was in fact cut. 3) these cuts were made with design and skillfully performed.

I am perfect happy to listen to opinions of others, except when those opinions fly in the face of the facts. Donald Swanson was of the, opinion, no genital mutilations took place. His opinion does not outweigh the fact that in multiple cases there was genital mutilation.

John, you seem to again be confused. I am not arguing that the ripper cases and torso cases were committed by the same person. I am simply laying out the facts of what was reported and then discussing the similarities. Simply because you do not like the direction these facts lead the discussion does not mean that we should ignore them, pretend they aren't true, argue against them, and listen to opinions instead of accepting the facts.

Suppose I spent my entire life working at a Crayon factory, I was the lead producer and in charge of the entire production. One day we are talking and I pull out a crayon. That crayon is very clearly red but when I show it to you I say it is blue. Does my opinion (based on years of working and running a crayon factory) somehow outweigh the fact that the crayon is actually red and not blue? No. So similarly we cannot ignore clearly stated facts found during the autopsy simply because someone who worked the case had an opinion that was different than the facts.

[John G]

It seems that Rocky and myself are somehow connected in a telepathic way.

Yes your obviously both world class experts! As I've said before, I'm extremely impressed by how many posters choose to ignore the medical experts, respected crimonologists, and authors such as Stewart Evans, who have been researching these cases for years, as they are obviously far more knowledgeable.

However, just out of interest, perhaps Rocky and yourself would care to cite your relevant qualifications, so that posters can then make an objective decision on how much weight they should give to your opinions.

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

Okay maybe I was overstating things slightly but still there seems to me very few similarities between the first four of the C5 and The Torso Killers murders except for Mary Jane Kelly.

Your comment about them both involving prostitutes is negated by the fact that many serial killers target prostitutes possibly more than not as they tend to be easy targets.

We don't know for 100% that the Uteri in either sets of murders was taken by the killer. There are other possibilities as argued numerously by Trevor Marriot.

It was not my intention to deny obvious similarities but to suggest that aspects of Mary Jane Kelly's murder seem much more similar to The Torso Murders than the previous four of the C5.

Cheers John

That´s a lot better, John, if I may say so. Although I would argue that the fact that prostitutes are often targetted by killers is in no way something that we can say negates the point that this seemingly happened here too - there are many a serialist who target other groups too, and so the prostitution factor is of consequence.
As for the uteri, they were absent in a number of torso cases, and they would therefore have been cut loose by the killer - whether by design or accident is impossible to say with certainty. But we DO have a contemporary example where we know that the abdomens were opened up to give access to the viscera inside...

[Debra A]

I am perfect happy to listen to opinions of others, except when those opinions fly in the face of the facts. Donald Swanson was of the, opinion, no genital mutilations took place. His opinion does not outweigh the fact that in multiple cases there was genital mutilation.

John, you seem to again be confused. I am not arguing that the ripper cases and torso cases were committed by the same person. I am simply laying out the facts of what was reported and then discussing the similarities. Simply because you do not like the direction these facts lead the discussion does not mean that we should ignore them, pretend they aren't true, argue against them, and listen to opinions instead of accepting the facts.

Well said, Dane! Discussing the similarities is useful.
it might even happen that a few more people could even be persuaded that there was no JTR because it must be the case that JTR wasn't unique in killing with a knife, mutilating his victims, targeting their genitals, removing flaps of skin from their abdomen, removing and retaining their internal organs such as the uterus and heart if all the torso cases are separate domestics, failed abortions etc. etc. all in late 1880's London and look like their perpetrators did the same also!

[Fisherman]

Well said, Dane! Discussing the similarities is useful.
it might even happen that a few more people could even be persuaded that there was no JTR because it must be the case that JTR wasn't unique in killing with a knife, mutilating his victims, targeting their genitals, removing flaps of skin from their abdomen, removing and retaining their internal organs such as the uterus and heart if all the torso cases are separate domestics, failed abortions etc. etc. all in late 1880's London and look like their perpetrators did the same also!

So, Debra... from a Jack of many trades to a trade of many Jacks, eh?

[John G]

Hi John,

There seems to be so much opinion flying around that some very simple facts have been lost in the discussion. Hence, I went back to the Hebbert Autopsy reports that Debra was so very kind to link to earlier in this thread and read what they had to say about the Pinchin St. Torso.

Fact #1: From just below the neck there was a long gash that cut through the skin and the muscle of the abdomen all the way down past the pubes opening the vagina and stopping slightly past it in the left inner thigh area.

Fact #2: The neck was very clearly cut. Two incisions were made. One starting from behind beginning opposite the spine and moving left to right ending in the front on the right side. The 2nd beginning in the front right and continuing to the back meeting the other incision. The muscle and tissue down to the spine were cut to the same level. In the report he states that the neck and leg incisions had very clear-cut edges. The edges of the cuts show a very sharp knife was used.

Fact #3: The autopsy report states (and I will direct quote this to be clear), "The incisions were evidently made with design, and were skillfully performed. . ."

So we have the autopsy report by Hebbert (with permission of Dr. Bond to reproduce) stating, 1) the vagina was in fact cut. 2) the neck was in fact cut. 3) these cuts were made with design and skillfully performed.

I am perfect happy to listen to opinions of others, except when those opinions fly in the face of the facts. Donald Swanson was of the, opinion, no genital mutilations took place. His opinion does not outweigh the fact that in multiple cases there was genital mutilation.

John, you seem to again be confused. I am not arguing that the ripper cases and torso cases were committed by the same person. I am simply laying out the facts of what was reported and then discussing the similarities. Simply because you do not like the direction these facts lead the discussion does not mean that we should ignore them, pretend they aren't true, argue against them, and listen to opinions instead of accepting the facts.

Suppose I spent my entire life working at a Crayon factory, I was the lead producer and in charge of the entire production. One day we are talking and I pull out a crayon. That crayon is very clearly red but when I show it to you I say it is blue. Does my opinion (based on years of working and running a crayon factory) somehow outweigh the fact that the crayon is actually red and not blue? No. So similarly we cannot ignore clearly stated facts found during the autopsy simply because someone who worked the case had an opinion that was different than the facts.

Hello Dane,

Thank you. This is obviously a well thought out post, and objectively reasoned. Okay, Pinchin Street Torso. I think the starting point should be Dr Phillips' opinion, giving at the inquest, concerning the mutilations: " The mutilations in the Dorset Street case were most wanton, whereas in this case it strikes me that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body."

Dr Clarke carried out the post mortem on the Pinchin Street Torso. In 1910 he gave an interview to the East London Observer: " He pointed out that during the scare all sorts of stories were spread through the newspapers, and every murder that was perpetrated was attributed to "Jack the Ripper". For instance, a headless and armless woman was found and her death attributed to him. But this case, Dr Clarke points out, in no way resembled those in Dorset-Street and Hanbury Street." He also remarked on the wounds inflicted by JtR: "There was nothing of a professional character about these wounds. The bodies were simply slashed from head to foot." You will note that Dr Hebbert believed that the Torso Killer had demonstrated a great deal of skill when dismembering the bodies.

Nonetheless, Commissioner Monro believed that the wound leading to the vagina was made to simulate the Ripper crimes. That is one of the reasons why I have argued that the Pinchin Torso may have been intended to parody JtR's murders, despite the significant differences.

Dr Hebbert made these remarks about Liz Jackson: "that the mutilations were carried out after death by some person with a considerable technical knowledge of the speediest mode of cutting up animals." You will note, firstly, that he credits the perpetrator with a great deal of skill, unlike Dr Clarke's opinion of JtR, who was simply a "slasher". He also refers, in respect of the mutilations, to the "speediest mode of cutting up animals." I think we can reasonably infer from this that the mutilations were carried out to expedite the dismemberment/disposal process, in as efficient a manner as possible. This is also supported by his reference to "technical knowledge". This is also supported by other comments Dr Hebbert makes, when comparing Liz Jackson to the other torso murders:"The mode of dismemberment and mutilation was in all similar, and showed very considerable skill in execution..." He also notes: "It was clear from the direction and manner of the cuts that no ordinary surgical or dissecting operation had been carried out, but the system of division of the parts gave evidence of design and skill,-the design probably being for the purpose of concealment of the crime and easy carriage of the parts." In other words, exactly the conclusion that Dr Phillips made in relation to the Pinchin Street Torso.

Importantly, at no point does Dr Hebbert suggest that the mutilations were undertaken for any "weird" purpose, or for any purpose other than the disposal of the body. Now, I've no idea why JtR inflicted mutilations, but he clearly was not trying to "skilfully" dismember and dispose of the body!

Now I know that a number of posters have eagerly dismissed signature analysis, but it is accepted by the courts as a means of linking murders. If we take Rainham and Whitehall, we have a killer who is clearly determined to prevent the bodies from being identified. He is clearly careful, and organized. Are we then to believe that he suddenly transforms himself into JtR, a killer murdering victims in public places, and who make no attempt to disguise their identity? What's all the more remarkable is that he then apparently transforms himself back into the Torso killer, deciding that Plan A was a better option after all! In my opinion, we are dealing with two very different personalities, and therefore two very different killers.

[John G]

Well said, Dane! Discussing the similarities is useful.
it might even happen that a few more people could even be persuaded that there was no JTR because it must be the case that JTR wasn't unique in killing with a knife, mutilating his victims, targeting their genitals, removing flaps of skin from their abdomen, removing and retaining their internal organs such as the uterus and heart if all the torso cases are separate domestics, failed abortions etc. etc. all in late 1880's London and look like their perpetrators did the same also!

Hello Debra,

Yes, I'm beginning to have doubts about some of the Whitechapel murders myself, i.e. Kelly, Tabram. However, did the Torso killer retain organs or specifically target the genitals?

[John G]

John you seem to think that citing OPINIONS overrides the FACTS for some strange reason. Just because Evans and Rumbelow wrote " There was a gash to the abdomen but this appeared to have been inflicted when dismemberment had taken place" doesn't mean that information is anyway accurate. Rumbelow and Evans are pulling that out of their asses. " The cut towards the vagina indicated that the knife had slipped (Keppel, 2005) Dude that isn't worth ****. **** Keppel. You can cite all the Ripper authors opinions you want but that doesnt make you any less wrong then when you quote Swanson saying "There was no genital mutilation to any of the torsos". And frankly I'm not surprised to be Swanson making glaring inaccuracies about the case he's in charge of. If he couldn't see the obvious similarites between the torsos and ripper victims its clearly because he didnt even have the basic facts straight.

Dr Clarke didn't think there was any "obvious similarities" between the JtR victims and the Torso victims. Mind you, what does he know, he was only Dr Phillips' assistant, who carried out the post mortem on the Pinchin Street Torso!

Can you actually cite a single expert, i.e. qualified doctor, who thought these murders were connected?

[John G]

Thanks JohnG
No worries. appreciate the reply.

,

But that's the point ive been making the whole time! He emphatically does NOT only target the genitals as JTR! there is the evidence that in some of the torsos the vagina was cut and or organs of reproduction targeted (Close enough in my opinion to "genitals").
And the ripper didn't only target the genitals-he dam near cut everything else! with the primary FOCUS apparently on genitals, abdomen and internal organs.



as ive said before-hes not going to bring a saw with him out into the streets!! and again, he may have tried to decapitate Chapman with just his knife and found it wasn't feasible, so stopped really trying with subsequent victims.

if you boil it down to its base aspect-what we have are two (or one) serial killers who like to cut up, take out organs, remove body parts post mortem of prostitutes they've killed (probably strangled or knocked out first) and display victims for shock value. Add to that operating at the same time and place.

Amazing similarity IMHO and if they are different men then an amazing coincidence!

Hi Abby,

But you have to consider motive. It does appear that the mutilations inflicted by the torso killer were simply for purposes of efficient dismemberment, not so JtR. As for the missing organs, only one uterus was missing from the torso victims, and could have been lost during disposal. And no kidneys were missing. I believe Liz Jackson's lungs were also missing. Seriously? You think a serial killer intent on collecting trophies would elect to retain the lungs?

[Dane_F]

Hello Dane,

Thank you. This is obviously a well thought out post, and objectively reasoned. Okay, Pinchin Street Torso. I think the starting point should be Dr Phillips' opinion, giving at the inquest, concerning the mutilations: " The mutilations in the Dorset Street case were most wanton, whereas in this case it strikes me that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body."

Dr Clarke carried out the post mortem on the Pinchin Street Torso. In 1910 he gave an interview to the East London Observer: " He pointed out that during the scare all sorts of stories were spread through the newspapers, and every murder that was perpetrated was attributed to "Jack the Ripper". For instance, a headless and armless woman was found and her death attributed to him. But this case, Dr Clarke points out, in no way resembled those in Dorset-Street and Hanbury Street." He also remarked on the wounds inflicted by JtR: "There was nothing of a professional character about these wounds. The bodies were simply slashed from head to foot." You will note that Dr Hebbert believed that the Torso Killer had demonstrated a great deal of skill when dismembering the bodies.

Nonetheless, Commissioner Monro believed that the wound leading to the vagina was made to simulate the Ripper crimes. That is one of the reasons why I have argued that the Pinchin Torso may have been intended to parody JtR's murders, despite the significant differences.

Dr Hebbert made these remarks about Liz Jackson: "that the mutilations were carried out after death by some person with a considerable technical knowledge of the speediest mode of cutting up animals." You will note, firstly, that he credits the perpetrator with a great deal of skill, unlike Dr Clarke's opinion of JtR, who was simply a "slasher". He also refers, in respect of the mutilations, to the "speediest mode of cutting up animals." I think we can reasonably infer from this that the mutilations were carried out to expedite the dismemberment/disposal process, in as efficient a manner as possible. This is also supported by his reference to "technical knowledge". This is also supported by other comments Dr Hebbert makes, when comparing Liz Jackson to the other torso murders:"The mode of dismemberment and mutilation was in all similar, and showed very considerable skill in execution..." He also notes: "It was clear from the direction and manner of the cuts that no ordinary surgical or dissecting operation had been carried out, but the system of division of the parts gave evidence of design and skill,-the design probably being for the purpose of concealment of the crime and easy carriage of the parts." In other words, exactly the conclusion that Dr Phillips made in relation to the Pinchin Street Torso.

Importantly, at no point does Dr Hebbert suggest that the mutilations were undertaken for any "weird" purpose, or for any purpose other than the disposal of the body. Now, I've no idea why JtR inflicted mutilations, but he clearly was not trying to "skilfully" dismember and dispose of the body!

Now I know that a number of posters have eagerly dismissed signature analysis, but it is accepted by the courts as a means of linking murders. If we take Rainham and Whitehall, we have a killer who is clearly determined to prevent the bodies from being identified. He is clearly careful, and organized. Are we then to believe that he suddenly transforms himself into JtR, a killer murdering victims in public places, and who make no attempt to disguise their identity? What's all the more remarkable is that he then apparently transforms himself back into the Torso killer, deciding that Plan A was a better option after all! In my opinion, we are dealing with two very different personalities, and therefore two very different killers.

Hi John,

Why do you keep quoting me to post about how JTR and The Torso Killer were different people? I have never made the claim they were the same.

All I have attempted to do is post the facts of what the autopsy stated and then noticed similarities between it and the other torso victims and some of JTRs. My original post on the Pinchin St Torso was simply to point out that people seemed to have forgotten that she also had abdominal and vaginal mutilation.

Please keep in mind, I don't have a Ripper suspect I believe in and I'm not even sure which victims can be counted in his number. To me it is of the utmost interest that in this same relative timeframe, in this same relative area (London), there appears to possibly be another serial killer who demonstrates through his victims some of the same traits shown in some of the alleged Ripper Victims.

Are there differences as well? Quite clearly there are. Should we ignore the facts of these torsos and pretend they are so different from Kelly they couldn't have been committed by the same hand? To what benefit is that?

To me this seems like one of the last few areas that people haven't throughly explored. Isn't it of the most extreme importance that we kick over every stone to see if there is any possible link at all to JTR since this could lead to additional understanding and knowledge in the overall case?