Whitehall Inquest Testimony

[Joshua Rogan]

Hmmm....here's the Times' report of his inquest testimony from the 23rd;

"The first witness called on this occasion was Mr. William Brown, of Hornsey, a builder, foreman for Messrs. Grover, the contractors of the new building. He stated that he was engaged on the works at the Victoria Embankment, and that he had on Friday, the 28th ult., to go into the place where the body was found on the 2d inst. He was down there measuring up for the surveyors on Friday, the 28th of September, and had a light there. If the parcel had been there on that Friday he thought he must have trodden upon it. The premises were left after the work was finished each day without any watchman. He did not examine the recess. The body might have been in the corner without his seeing it."

[jerryd]

More info on the vault and why the workmen might not have noticed it's presence, from The Times, 19th Oct;


"Mr. Bond has given his opinion that the leg just found belonged to the body and the arm already discovered, as it matches them. The period fixed for its having been underground, some six weeks, corresponds to the condition of the arm of the body. The suggestion has been raised that the leg has been buried since the discovery of the body; but as the place has been under constant police guard this is impossible. Moreover, it was seen that the earth was in the same condition as it was when the body was found 16 days ago, and the opinion is confirmed that the body itself must have lain there more than the days declared by the men. It is to be remembered that even when it was discovered it was not by the smell, for that was altogether unnoticed, and it is easy to account for the non-observance of any smell by the workmen when it is brought to mind that in such places deserted and starved animals frequently crawl to die, and, moreover, in the excavations of old foundations like those about Westminster there are frequently cesspools, which are all taken as a matter of course. A board leaning across the angle in the wall in which the body was found would have effectually concealed the parcel altogether, and it would not now have been brought to light but for the fact that some lost clothes were thought to have been discovered by an accidental survey of the dark recess. Thus the men may have given honest testimony, to the best of their belief, in saying that the parcel was not there on the last Friday and Saturday in September, the fact being that they had not observed it, and anyone who has seen the place can bear testimony that it would be easy to overlook anything so hidden in that darkest recess of a dark vault."

JR,

The testimony of William Brown is what baffles me regarding when the torso was in place. On September 22nd he was charged with making a ground plan of the vaults and roads leading to the vaults. He was in the exact corner where the torso was deposited on that day [Sept 22nd] making measurements with the aid of a paraffin lamp and doesn't recall seeing the body.

Morning Advertiser, 23 October 1888 [Inquest as reported by the MA]

William Brown was the first witness called. He stated, in reply to questions from the coroner, that on the 22nd ult., when engaged with two others in making out the quantities of completed work, he visited the vault where the remains were found subsequently, and in the particular corner, though he made measurements, he did not notice anything particular or observe that the earth had been disturbed. If there had been a parcel there at the time he must have trod upon it. Light was afforded by a paraffin lamp, and the trench in the vault to which frequent reference had been made was dry so far back as the middle of June. He had made a ground plan of the several vaults and of the road leading to them. He saw, on Tuesday, the vault after the discovery of the remains, when the earth was lower in the corner than in the other parts.

[RockySullivan]

Apparently, according to this snippet from The Star 30th Oct, a photo of the remains once existed!

"The Whitehall Remains Buried."
"To-day the remains of the body found recently at Whitehall were interred at Woking. They were removed from the mortuary in Millbank-street, Westminster, where they have been lying to await identification, to Wallis's-yard Workhouse, and placed in a coffin. Among the persons who called yesterday at the mortuary was an old woman, who thought she recognised in the photograph of the remains some trace of her daughter, who has been missing since August, but she could not be positive."

Nice catch man! Any follow up to this? It makes sense a victims family would recongize the clothes, which is why it was strange the killer dumped the remains in their clothes...like the LE Fisher undies

[Joshua Rogan]

More info on the vault and why the workmen might not have noticed it's presence, from The Times, 19th Oct;


"Mr. Bond has given his opinion that the leg just found belonged to the body and the arm already discovered, as it matches them. The period fixed for its having been underground, some six weeks, corresponds to the condition of the arm of the body. The suggestion has been raised that the leg has been buried since the discovery of the body; but as the place has been under constant police guard this is impossible. Moreover, it was seen that the earth was in the same condition as it was when the body was found 16 days ago, and the opinion is confirmed that the body itself must have lain there more than the days declared by the men. It is to be remembered that even when it was discovered it was not by the smell, for that was altogether unnoticed, and it is easy to account for the non-observance of any smell by the workmen when it is brought to mind that in such places deserted and starved animals frequently crawl to die, and, moreover, in the excavations of old foundations like those about Westminster there are frequently cesspools, which are all taken as a matter of course. A board leaning across the angle in the wall in which the body was found would have effectually concealed the parcel altogether, and it would not now have been brought to light but for the fact that some lost clothes were thought to have been discovered by an accidental survey of the dark recess. Thus the men may have given honest testimony, to the best of their belief, in saying that the parcel was not there on the last Friday and Saturday in September, the fact being that they had not observed it, and anyone who has seen the place can bear testimony that it would be easy to overlook anything so hidden in that darkest recess of a dark vault."

[Joshua Rogan]

Apparently, according to this snippet from The Star 30th Oct, a photo of the remains once existed!

"The Whitehall Remains Buried."
"To-day the remains of the body found recently at Whitehall were interred at Woking. They were removed from the mortuary in Millbank-street, Westminster, where they have been lying to await identification, to Wallis's-yard Workhouse, and placed in a coffin. Among the persons who called yesterday at the mortuary was an old woman, who thought she recognised in the photograph of the remains some trace of her daughter, who has been missing since August, but she could not be positive."

[jerryd]

Here's Hibbert's notes from A System of Legal Medecine on the leg and foot;

"A fortnight after this a left leg and foot were found. The skin was incrusted with earth, and partly covered with mold. The cuticle of the sole of the foot and toes, with the nails, had nearly separated. The nails were well shaped and properly trimmed. The skin of the leg was fair and not much altered by decomposition.
The limb had been separated from the thigh at the knee-joint, the patella being absent. The incision had clean and well-defined edges, and the joint exactly opened.
The length of the leg was 17 1/2 in ; the circumference of the calf, 14in ; ankle, 8 1/2 in ; length of foot, 9 1/2 in. On the outside of the leg was a dark purple mark the size of a shilling, and the tissue beneath contained clotted blood. A small but similar mark was on the inside of the leg.
The length and size of the leg and foot pointed to it being part of the same body. The marks were ante-mortem bruising. The date of death was from six weeks to two months previously.
The remains showed various kinds of putrefaction: the arm had been in the water, the trunk exposed to the air, and the leg buried."

Almost had to be the foot was attached and the difference in putrefaction due to the way it was buried. Sole up as Debs points out makes a lot of sense to me.

[Joshua Rogan]

Here's Hibbert's notes from A System of Legal Medecine on the leg and foot;

"A fortnight after this a left leg and foot were found. The skin was incrusted with earth, and partly covered with mold. The cuticle of the sole of the foot and toes, with the nails, had nearly separated. The nails were well shaped and properly trimmed. The skin of the leg was fair and not much altered by decomposition.
The limb had been separated from the thigh at the knee-joint, the patella being absent. The incision had clean and well-defined edges, and the joint exactly opened.
The length of the leg was 17 1/2 in ; the circumference of the calf, 14in ; ankle, 8 1/2 in ; length of foot, 9 1/2 in. On the outside of the leg was a dark purple mark the size of a shilling, and the tissue beneath contained clotted blood. A small but similar mark was on the inside of the leg.
The length and size of the leg and foot pointed to it being part of the same body. The marks were ante-mortem bruising. The date of death was from six weeks to two months previously.
The remains showed various kinds of putrefaction: the arm had been in the water, the trunk exposed to the air, and the leg buried."

[Debra A]

Hi all

I believe the lower leg and foot were still attached to each other; the division being at the knee as Joshua mentioned. I am certain Dr Hebbert would have described the division of the ankle, had there been one.
I think it was particularly the sole of the foot that was much decomposed and the toe nails but the skin of the leg was described as being not too much altered in colour by decomposition. Perhaps the leg got buried with the sole of the foot upwards towards the surface and was not fully covered by the earth? It my have been moved along in the earth mound from it's original position on the surface, rather than the earth being piled completely on top of it when the drainage was dug, although that would mean police didn't do such a good job of searching the vault initially.

[jerryd]

JR,

Same Echo issue, yes.

Also,

St James Gazette
October 23, 1888

Dr Bond said he was called on the 17th inst, by Sergeant Rose, to Whitehall, where he found a leg and foot which he judged had been in the vault for several weeks. The foot was in an advanced stage of decomposition, but the leg was in a wonderful state of preservation. The leg had been very cleverly disarticulated, and corresponded in every way with the trunk which he has previously examined.

Hard to tell from this one if they were separate or not. I think, IIRC, the leg was situated in the soil such that it was not exposed to air as much as the foot. I believe the foot had mold starting in on it too.

[Joshua Rogan]

It also says this about the state of decomposition;

"A portion of the stocking was stated to have been found upon the leg, but this was not so. What appeared to be a thin covering was the skin which was peeling off the flesh."

And

"Examination proved it to be portion of a human leg, in which decomposition was far advanced"

[Joshua Rogan]

The Irish Times 18th Oct says this;

"Dr. Bond was summoned immediately, and after examination stated that it was the left foot and part of the leg of a finely-developed woman"

[Joshua Rogan]

Mmm, I'd always assumed they were attached, until your post about the seemingly different decomposition.
I've done a quick search (far from exhaustive) and have only found one report that says the foot was found later on the same day (the Echo 17th Oct). All the rest seem to say that after the leg was found by the concerned civilian and his terrier, the police brought in the bloodhounds and searched the entire site (including draining the well to search that) but didn't find anything further.
Also there's no mention of cuts to the ankle by Hibbert in A System of Legal Medecine, only to ones separating the lower leg for the thigh. And I'm sure he or Bond would have mentioned them being separate if they were not still attached.
So I would presume the Echo report was a mistake, unless you or Debs know of any further info?

Echo 17th Oct 1888

"The leg appeared to be enveloped in a portion of stocking, but this, on subsequent examination, was, it is said, proved to be of a texture somewhat similar to that in which the trunk was carefully enclosed. Dr. Bond, the Divisional Surgeon, was sent for immediately, and the leg was handed over to his care, to be compared in due course with the other portion of the body, which still lies at the Millbank-street Mortuary. The dog was again set to work in the vault, and one of the workmen told our reporter, succeeded in unearthing another fragment of a human frame. This is described as a portion of foot, and lay a few feet from where the body was found. With regard to this the police are extremely reticent. They refuse to satisfy any inquiries or to describe the second discovery. "

Edit: Ah, I see your report was the Echo, too.

[jerryd]

I was wrong about the leg being conveyed to Millbank before the discovery of the foot. However, the foot was found spearately after the leg according to the Echo report.

[jerryd]

Jerry, do you know if the foot and leg were still attached to each other when found?

Hi Joshua,

Good question. I always thought the foot was attached to the leg until very recently I read a news report that stated the foot was found after the leg was conveyed to Millbank; meaning it was separated from the leg.

If the foot was cut off from the leg, it brings up a question in my mind. Why? It seems like extra work since the leg was already cut off from the knee down presumably to aid in transportation. What purpose would cutting the foot off serve? Debs may be able to shed more light on this, though?

[Joshua Rogan]

Jerry, do you know if the foot and leg were still attached to each other when found?