Whitehall Inquest Testimony

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry

we have 3 options Ii guess:

1.The police missed the leg, or it was hidden very well.

2. Someone went back and put it in place in an area which had already been searched, highly risky I would think, but certainly possible.

3. That report is inaccurate.

Really not sure which way to go on that.


Steve

Thanks Steve,

The interesting point about the leg, foot and torso are the stages of decomposition. The torso and foot were in advanced stages of decomposition(by appearance) but the leg had an appearance of being preserved.

The remark in the paper eluded to your #2 statement and agreed with you that it would have been a tough task given the security of the vault after the discovery of the torso.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

According to one report, the leg was found only a yard and a half from where the body was discovered. The police were supposed to have search the whole ground after the torso discovery.

Hi Jerry

we have 3 options Ii guess:

1.The police missed the leg, or it was hidden very well.

2. Someone went back and put it in place in an area which had already been searched, highly risky I would think, but certainly possible.

3. That report is inaccurate.

Really not sure which way to go on that.


Steve

[jerryd]

hi

yes the later found body part was buried under material that had been already excavated. Of course it was very dark and there was no active work going on in the basement at that point, so it is easy to understand how it could be missed.

Steve

Hi Steve,

According to one report, the leg was found only a yard and a half from where the body was discovered. The police were supposed to have search the whole ground after the torso discovery.

[Elamarna]

hi

yes the later found body part was buried under material that had been already excavated. Of course it was very dark and there was no active work going on in the basement at that point, so it is easy to understand how it could be missed.

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Wasn't the leg said to be buried under the spoil heap from a trench that had been dug to lay drains? Perhaps indicating that it was originally just laid on the ground in the vault like the torso, and inadvertently covered by the loose earth from the trench at a later time.

[RockySullivan]

What about the buried parts? Would the workers have noticed the ground had been disturbed?

[Elamarna]

Really interesting thread Steve. Hope it attracts more constructive comments from readers. As far as you are aware the actual police minutes of the inquest are lost? If so it is too bad.

As to the staining on the wall, while it may very well be from the contents in the parcel which are slowly decomposing over time, it is also likely the vault's walls were stained already from other causes. Especially if the package was giving off no odors, suggesting that the remains were kept somewhere for awhile where they gave off the natural gases and chemicals of decomposition.

Given the situation, it looks like whoever deposited the package was hoping that it would remain unnoticed, and that the workers would eventually brick it up in the vault. But that is only my opinion.

Jeff

hi Jeff,

yes it is certainly possible the parcel was kept somewhere else, however apply what is a masking fluid to the tissue would not prevent all smell, particularly over an extended period, something Jerry commented on.
Therefore it must be kept somewhere where no one maybe able to smell anything, however that is another story.

The Torso is very badly decomposed according to some reports, it is obviously still leaking, however no trace of any such is seen over the weekend outside or in the vault, of course it is possible that the person responsible cleaned up, but how easy would that be in vault.

With regards to the wall staining, you may be right about general staining, however the Police and Bond both say the wall was stained black where the parcel had been laid against it.

I think your conclusion is probably correct, it is certainly hidden.

Steve

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Although it's nothing to do with the inquest testimony, it's interesting that the existing foundations on which the New Scotland Yard building was being constructed were said to have access to an underground station and a tunnel to the Houses of Parliament.

[Pierre]

Thats strange Pierre, the Torso killings are part of your theory are they not?

Yet you don't find the inquest of one of them very interesting; and that one, which you have suggested before is significant, due to its location, Scotland Yard, and it proximity to King William street, which you have suggest was the killer address, very interesting comment!

You don't fool me my friend.

Steve

Hi Steve,

The reason why I am not interested in the inquest is that it does not add any meaningful content. I think the statements in the inquest are what we could expect them to be after the finding of the torso. When I say meaningful content I mean substantial content pointing to someone in the past, valid and reliable indications. At least, that is the norm, Steve.

You know how we have debated the GSG for instance. I think that the GSG contains valid and reliable indications. But these inquest articles do not.

In the case of the C-5 generally, there are a lot more interesting witness statements and the reason for this is that the MO is different. Leaving the victims on the streets or in a room, in the way it was done, has given a set of totally different sources with very different contents.

I find the Whitehall case interesting for two main reasons:

The torso is placed in the new police building. It would have been much easier to dispose of it in the river or in a well.

It is placed in the vault at a point in time near to the double event. The date for the double event is a very critical date.

So I am not trying to fool you. On the contrary.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Follow me? I am leaving the thread because of your drivel.

[Fisherman]

Steve,

I'll leave you and Pierre alone on this one. Good thread topic, though.

Understandable enough. And diplomatically phrased, Jerry!

[Mayerling]

Really interesting thread Steve. Hope it attracts more constructive comments from readers. As far as you are aware the actual police minutes of the inquest are lost? If so it is too bad.

As to the staining on the wall, while it may very well be from the contents in the parcel which are slowly decomposing over time, it is also likely the vault's walls were stained already from other causes. Especially if the package was giving off no odors, suggesting that the remains were kept somewhere for awhile where they gave off the natural gases and chemicals of decomposition.

Given the situation, it looks like whoever deposited the package was hoping that it would remain unnoticed, and that the workers would eventually brick it up in the vault. But that is only my opinion.

Jeff

[Elamarna]

I follow you on this one Jerry. Not very interested in the Whitehall inquest and I have very little time at the moment. But good thread for those who are interested in the topic, Steve!

Regards, Pierre

Thats strange Pierre, the Torso killings are part of your theory are they not?

Yet you don't find the inquest of one of them very interesting; and that one, which you have suggested before is significant, due to its location, Scotland Yard, and it proximity to King William street, which you have suggest was the killer address, very interesting comment!

You don't fool me my friend.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Pierre before addressing your points, must say I think you have misunderstood me, and confusing me with someone else.

I have given no hypothesis at all, and am open minded on the majority of the issues, I discussed.

Hi Steve,

It could also be interpreted like this: "The perpetrator was no stranger to getting into a vault". I.e., he could have had the previous knowledge required to break into a vault. Another interpretation is "The perpetrator knew where the entrance to the vault was."

The coroner and the witness said: "Do you think previous knowledge was required to get to the vaults? - Yes, I do."

So to be able to change situation A "not being in the vault" to situation B "being in the vault", previous knowledge was required. But the witness did not say he thought the knowledge consisted of knowing the vault from the inside, he just said previous knowledge was required to get there..

Also, this is what a witness believes. So it is questionable for that reason. When I say questionable I mean we have to perform source criticism on it. But I havenīt done that so I canīt say if this source has a tendency.

Pierre,

on the whole I agree with all of that, I see this as the witness suggesting, not that someone knew the vault itself, but that they knew the site.
However the statements do not preclude the body dumper knowing the vaults from the inside, but that is not required.

The Morning Post has "Hedge, recalled, asserted emphatically that on the Saturday previous to the discovery there was no parcel in the vault".

All the witnesses say it was very dark, and to see a large area a lamp was need, this man (Edge of hedge) says he struck a match and saw the tools he wanted.
I would argue that he may have missed the parcel as he was not looking for it.

The comments of Brown, that on Monday, he was in the Vault, after Wildborn had seen the parcel, but he noticed nothing, no smell and it was dark he said, suggest this was at least possible,

Great! This is your discipline, Steve!

And the decomposing could have started long before the piece was placed in the vault.

Yes that is indeed possible, and Jerrys comments about the fluid the torso was covered in help with the issue of the lack of smell, but do not fully answer it.
My issue is the staining, the torso is wrapped, the torso is not in direct contact with the wall.
I believe, but may be wrong, that the staining will take longer than the period form Saturday to Tuesday. The period from Browns last entering of the vault 22nd September fits much better in my opinion.

They couldnīt separate animal blood from human blood with high reliability, or could they?

No they could not as I said in the post.
I ruled out the date of 24th August has being significant. ( Of course it may do, but we have no source to suggest this. It may be viewed as a possible link, but no more).

I think the Morning Post throws light on that.

I am not so sure of that as you.
In any event, he did not put the tools there himself. so his comments about no parcel being there are second hand.

Could be that he actually was. The "distancing" is an interpretation.

Yes it could, but he is not alone in saying he had not been there for some time.

Wildborn was not that close?

Given Brown says Wildborn lit the match to illuminate the parcel he must have been close to Brown and the parcel.

My comment now: In this example we can see how Fisherman works with his interpretation of witness testimony! As soon as you have differing statements, it seems to be "suspicious", doesnīt it?

But that is not enough. You need to find a tendency. And it must be valid and reliable. These are historical sources, not a police inquest!

No it does not seem suspicious, it does however ask the question who did what?
I fully accept it may all be perfectly above aboard but questions do need to be asked.

The important question for me is why the apparent 1.5- 2 hour gap?
A second important question for me is where was the body moved, to allow daylight?
Was it still there when Bond arrived?

These are perfectly legitimate questions.

Maybe they were all killers?

So something is linking the men working on the site! What?

No, certainly not, nothing I have seen suggested any of the witnesses had anything to do with the dumping of the Torso.

However they may have suspected each other, because some of them believed to dump the body some knowledge of the site was needed.
However this may not have been necessary, the dumper/killer may have just been luck to find a nice dark place.

That, however, is not the exact wording, Steve, as you know!

Pierre I was not quoting as you know.

So for clarity:

Wildborn:
"[Coroner] Is there any difficulty in getting to the vault? - Yes, to a stranger."

Brown:
"[Coroner] Do you think previous knowledge was required to get to the vaults? - Yes, I do"

Hawkins:
"They were very dark, so dark that it was impossible for a stranger to reach them without artificial light."

Given we do not have the official record, and the newspaper reports do differ, we cannot be sure those are the exact words can we?

All 3 are suggesting it would be difficult to dump the body without knowledge of the site.

AHA!!!!!!!!

Why that response?
Some of the witness are suggesting it was someone whom knew the site, if that was the case, it follows that some of them may have believed the person responsible was amongst their number.
It is a conclusion that persons, scared and worried about the discovery could jump to.

However I am not suggesting such a belief was true, only that they may have believed it.( yes that is now an hypotheses)

Another Mize Scam!!!!!!

Certainly not!
Edge's answer is a strange response to the question he was asked.
The question I ask is why? no more, no less.
An obvious answer, but certainly not the only one, is that as the last person known to be in the vault before the discovery, he wanted to make it clear when he was next near to the vault.

NO.

That Pierre is a matter of interpretation, I am not convinced, however what ever the answer the question needs to be asked.

Like Lechmere, standing in the middle of the road!



Like the actual Lechmere, "found with the body"!

No Pierre, I am not suggesting one of the workers dumped the body.
All I wonder is were they concerned that they could be blamed?
And if so, is it unreasonable to hypothesise, that they gave answers to ensure they were not.

Misleading? This is actually how witness statements often look. People are afraid, people do not want to get involved, people misremember.

I agree entirely, however i did actually say:

"Seems confused at best, and possible intentionally misleading. "

But suddenly, like magic, they become serial killers or murderers, "found with the body!". Or "misleading, obscuring the actual finding of the torso, distance themselves and giving conflicting testimony"!


Dear Steve. You are one of the smartest here and I certainly hope you will see that it is the sources that are "misleading" and "obscuring" and not some poor working men in 1888, working to build the new police building and not being so foolish as to bring a dead body to work.

Like Lechmere, they are working men. Like Lechmere, they did not kill on their ay to work and they did not hide a piece of a dead body at work.

No they do not become killers, you are misunderstanding me.
Of course there is confusion with the sources, none will be word perfect, some may be closer than others, some reporters will mishear.

I am sure you realize all this and see how easily we all can get carried away - like Fisherman - with these types of sources. That is what these sources do, and that is why there is ripperology.

We agree on that Pierre, you have for some reason misunderstood what I was asking, maybe I was not clear?
However I did not make any suggestions in my post, i was asking questions, because I see possible issues with the testimony, some have been, explained, not necessarily satisfactory, and questions still need to be answered.
However I am not sure ewe will get those answers.


regards

steve

[jerryd]

I follow you on this one Jerry. Not very interested in the Whitehall inquest and I have very little time at the moment. But good thread for those who are interested in the topic, Steve!

Regards, Pierre

Follow me? I am leaving the thread because of your drivel.