|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 31 August 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
The Whitehall Mystery, et al.:
Archive through 31 August 2001
Author: Floyd Wingfield
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 07:32 pm |        | In the middle of the JtR killings, the discovery of an unidentified woman's torso generated, understandably, its own frenzy, and added to the general sense of dread in the East End of London. While the police did not then consider the murder could be laid to JtR, and no serious Ripperologist seems to give it a moment's thought now, isn't it strange that it has received so little attention in its own right? Sir Melville Macnaghten, who worked on the Pinchin Street Murder, which he felt was connected to the Whitehall crime, wrote:
"On 10th Sept. '89 the naked body, with arms, of a woman was found wrapped in some sacking under a Railway arch in Pinchin St: the head & legs were never found nor was the woman ever identified. She had been killed at least 24 hours before the remains, (which had seemingly been brought from a distance,) were discovered. The stomach was split up by a cut, and the head and legs had been severed in a manner identical with that of the
woman whose remains were discovered in the Thames, in Battersea Park, & on the Chelsea Embankment on 4th June of the same year; and these murders had no connection whatever with the Whitechapel horrors. The Rainham mystery in 1887, & the Whitehall mystery (when portions of a woman's body were found under what is now New Scotland Yard) in 1888 were of a similar type to the Thames & Pinchin St crimes."
Apparently, another dangerous serial killer was on the loose-- one equally as brutal and bizarre as Jack the Ripper. This one, however, seemed never to truly "evolve," although the murder of Elizabeth Jackson, whose pieces were strewn in the Thames, may indeed be an example of the killer "experimenting" or "progressing" as simply recreating his "torso murders" lost its thrill.
Is there any more information on any of these murders? Like JtR, the Whitehall murderer seems an unlikely fellow to have stopped his spree on his own. |
Author: Caz
Friday, 13 August 1999 - 01:17 am | | Good points Floyd. And wouldn't this killer have made JtR envious if our man HAD nursed a desire to decapitate his victims? This one evidently succeeded.
Was it the change in MO that totally dismissed JtR as a suspect for these crimes? In which case, Chapman (and others?) should have gone out the window too!
And what DID make the JtR murders and mutilations so much more titillating to the world than the ones involving dismemberment? Maybe it was the 'personality' of Jack which made his case evolve. For one killer we had a pseudonym, the other one remained totally anonymous. More than society could cope with at the same time?
Interesting.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Floyd Wingfield
Friday, 13 August 1999 - 08:49 pm | | Caz-- apparently it was the difference in MOs which led the police to discount any connection between JTR and the perpetrator of the torso murders. Also, the Whitehall/Rainham murderer took his time between killings, while Jack's killings seem focused (if indeed the canonical five were his victims, and his only victims). The space between the torso murders may have made it harder for the public to grasp what was happening... and some of the murders committed by the Whitehall killer would have simply been accepted as JtR killings, no matter what the police said.
So this second serial killer, turning his victims into sides of beef, had no catchy nickname, no letters to the police or newspaper syndicates, no period of frenzy, and-- and this may be crucial-- no positively identified victims, with the exception of Elizabeth Jackson (although the Pinchin Street Murder victim was assumed to be a missing female factory worker). Part of the mystique of JtR is a romanticization of his victims, especially Long Liz Stride, Kate Eddowes, and, most particularly, MJK. The Victorian torso killer forced anonymity on the women he fell upon. Did he need to obliterate their identities because they could be traced back to him, or was turning them into featureless fetish figures simply part of his perversity? In any event, his crimes did not have the "legs," if you will, to live on in history, even though as far as we know he began his crimes before the Ripper.
Interestingly, the Cleveland Torso Murderer of the US was never caught, either. His victims were of either sex, and some were identified, but there are many similarities between the Victorian torso murders and the Clevend crimes, of half a century later-- in 1938. The first victim, in fact, was found floating in a river in several pieces (she has been called the Lady of the Lake), just as Elizabeth Jackson was discovered. Other torsos were found under old sacks or newspapers.
It would be interesting to try and track down other such crimes in the fifty years between the English and American crimes. It may not be that difficult, as decapitation would seem a rarer form of murder. (The Cleveland killer took off his victims' heads while they were still alive, and possibly even conscious.)
Yours,
Floyd |
Author: Caz
Saturday, 14 August 1999 - 10:12 am | | Yeah Floyd,
I'm sure you are right about the anonymity of the torso killer's victims being a crucial factor in reducing people's interest in the crimes. It just shows how normal human nature can sometimes seem as perverse as the criminal mind itself. The more we know about the victims' lives and identities, the more we seem to care about nailing the monster and seeing justice done.
Maybe a torso killer deliberately robs his victim of his/her identity (and 'wholeness' by chopping them up), and therefore personality, for the very purpose of elevating his own status while minimising the object of his hatred.
Jack evidently used his victims as trophies in themselves, leaving them exposed, but also incomplete, in the exact spot where he killed them, saying, 'look, this is MY work. These women are imperfect in death as they were in life'.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jill
Saturday, 14 August 1999 - 12:15 pm | | Hello Floyd,
Here in Belgium there recently have been killings alike the Witehall/Rainham murderer. You probably remember 2 to 3 years back the arrest of a child mollester and murderer Mark Dutroux in Belgium. After his arrest police went digging a long time in mine terils for other possible victims. During this histeria suddenly a lot of garbage bags with body pieces were found in a ditch day after day. They thought it were between 3 to 4 victims (all women) by counting the pair of feet and 1 woman was identified by a tatoo on an arm; about her thirties, nearly homeless and suffering from a mental disease. They arrested a bum in a trailer - a suposed ex-boyfriend- but he was cleared. I'm not aware of any other identifications. The killer still isn't found, no bodypieces are found since neither.
Like the Whitehall/Rainham murderer he dropped his message when another serial murderer flew sky high in the media. He added to the histeria, but almost everybody now remembers Dutroux while most don't even think anymore about the other.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Floyd Wingfield
Sunday, 15 August 1999 - 09:27 am | | Caz-- I think you are right about torso murders serving a dual purpose for the killer. On the one hand, they make identification of the victims difficult, if not impossible, so there would be less interest in catching the murderer, and less chance of connecting him to the crimes. On the other hand, there must be a great psychological thrill for a murderer of this type to not only take his victims' lives, but depersonalize them.
I wonder if the Cleveland murders of 1934-38 might give us a clue into the profile of the Rainham/Whitehall murderer. Eliot Ness (yes, the Untouchable himself!) worked on the case. Ness was the Republican Commissioner of Safety, and, as there had been no progress in solving the murders for years, a local politican from the Democratic Party continually mocked and harangued Ness. But when Ness finally found the man he thought was the Cleveland Torso Murderer-- the "Mad Butcher of Kingsbury Run"-- it turned out to be the politician's cousin!
The killer-- or at least Ness' Number 1 suspect, as the case never went to trial-- was an alcoholic and supposedly bi-sexual doctor, Francis Sweeney, a tall and powerful man who had lived, as a boy, in the area where the bodies were found, and whose marriage had collapsed at the time the murders began. Sweeney was very intelligent, and very deliberately picked victims society would not miss. Even when his victims' heads were located, positive identification might still not be made, as the dead were female or male prostitutes, drug addicts, and hobos.
Sweeney had also given himself an alibi-- each time a murder was committed, he would have checked himself into a sanitorium, to "dry out." It turned out, however, that there was no security, and he could easily slip out, pick up a victim (who would be killed, presumably, in a lab Sweeney set up), dump the body in Kingsbury Run, and return to the clinic unnoticed. In fact, when Ness finally confronted Sweeney (Ness said he was never more frightened in his career than when his aides left him alone with Sweeney in a hotel room), the doctor had himself committed for life.
However, as it was a voluntary commitment, he still was able to move about, and even switched asylums in the years before he died. He may have killed again, but the Cleveland Torso Murders officially came to an end with his institutionalization.
So could the Rainham Killer have been a troubled doctor, powerfully built, and with a lab to carry out the crimes and means of transporting the remains to the dump sites? Someone who may not have lived in the East End, but had knowledge of it? I don't know if the Rainham Killer decapitated his victims while they were alive, as the Butcher of Kingsbury Run did, but even if he did not, I think it is safe to assume both men were cool and sadistic pyschopaths. My guess would be that both were highly intelligent, and apparently dispassionate, even as they committed their atrocities. |
Author: Caz
Sunday, 15 August 1999 - 10:52 am | | Hi Floyd and Jill and all,
I think our Jack would have had similarities with the torso murderers in that he had some medical knowledge (to a so far unproven degree), was intelligent and dispassionate. Where he may have differed was in his stature. Jack made no attempt to move the bodies from where he killed them, and caught them mostly unawares by the swiftness of his lethal knife assaults. This may indicate he was not of a powerful enough build to do otherwise, rather than any particular desire to kill in this way. But if he had been a sadist, he would surely have been disappointed with having to render his victims immediately senseless before carrying out the mutilations. So was Jack a frustrated sadist because of his puny stature, or a bigger man who was just not interested in causing pain?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Floyd
Sunday, 15 August 1999 - 12:31 pm | | Dear Jill and Caz,
This ancillary discussion is good for keeping our brains working, n'est ce pas?
Jill, your theory that the Whitehall and Belgian killers may have stopped because another murderer "got more press" and public attention is interesting. Certainly, it seems these murderers would have had an outsized ego which would have appreciated the news reports, and the terror they engendered.
After all, while they made an attempt to hide the bodies, by leaving them under scraps of paper or cloth in lonely places, or in thickets-- they never completely hid them. They never burned or buried them, for instance, but left them where they could be (literally) stumbled upon. In the case of the Cleveland killer, who was probably the alcoholic doctor Sweeney (though this never went to trial, and was not even publicized at the time), it was children who discovered the dismembered corpses in some instances. As Sweeney had played, as a youg boy, in the woods he would use as a dumping ground when an adult, one wonders what games he played there!
Caz-- well done guesswork about JtR's physical size. He may have looked non-threatening (and have even had some friendly history with his victims). That would make it easier for him to approach the women he was going to kill. If he did commit the attack on Mary Kelly, however, he does seem to have been a sadist, don't you think? It may be that he made quick work of all his victims for his own safety. He didn't want them to struggle or scream. He may not have killed the victims quickly because he did not want to cause them pain, but because there was less chance he would call attention to the scene, be interrupted, get injured... or at least get blood on himself.... or, put simply, get caught. Even if he wasn't small (but I think you're right, that he actually was), he may well have felt inferior or weak. What do you think? |
Author: Jill
Sunday, 15 August 1999 - 03:11 pm | | Oooh Floyd,
I don't dare to say that this Belgian killer of Bergen (Mons in French) has stopped. He can still be killing (enough missing persons for that) and keep the parts in a freezer (a man was arrested a month ago with his wife in the fridge already for some years). He even can be reading these posts at the moment and be thinking "hmm, where does this Jill lives?". S***, I'm getting the jitters.
I only want to mention that he wanted some picking of the media attention at the time and rival Dutroux. Like maybe the Rainham killer wanted.
Police suspected for some time that the killer of Bergen has medical experience too, because the parts were very neatly cut, with very sharp tools. That's what I know from the press (no files may be read on it since the case is still open). It was also mentioned the man had to be of relative force. But force, doesn't always mean big or large. A person can be of normal proportians but lean and hardy. Adrenaline when excited will help also.
Both the Ripper and Rainham killer felt inferior and weak in normal social contact IMHO. Sexual abuse or killing has more to do with the need of power, more than about just the want of sex. I can tell the difference immediately when it is just a come-on or more of a frustrated attempt, always by trying to overpower you (not that they succeed).
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: John Malcolm
Sunday, 15 August 1999 - 04:51 pm | | | A recent "torso murder" has caused a stir in Manchester, NH, USA, a suspect being named, but as of yet captured. |
Author: Caz
Monday, 16 August 1999 - 01:31 am | | Hi All,
Floyd,
Of course you are right about JtR not allowing his victims time to scream and draw attention to the scene. And if JtR had started off a sadist, frustrated by the need for silent action, it would explain why he progressed to Kelly with her own room. But there is no evidence that he behaved sadistically towards Kelly prior to killing her. I know he would still be afraid of 'waking the neighbours' but a real sadist in these circumstances, once having finally got a victim indoors and alone, would surely have had trouble controlling his urge to inflict pain if that was indeed his bag. He was very controlled and calculating. So I think he may have been transferring his hatred (of a parent or someone who had betrayed his trust) to an inanimate human 'object' of his own making. He could then vent his spleen on the object of his hatred without hurting the third party more than was necessary to render her 'suitable' for his individual treatment.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher George
Monday, 16 August 1999 - 02:01 am | | Hi, all:
While the torso murderer of 1888-1889 may not be Jack, he nevertheless matched Jack in sheer audacity, leaving the torso of a woman, without limbs or head, in the cellar of New Scotland Yard, then under construction, on the night of October 2-3, 1888, and the similarly headless, limbless torso of a woman under the railway arch in Pinchin Street on September 10, 1889. As with Jack, it was as if with this public display, the man wanted to be caught.
Chris George |
Author: Jill
Monday, 16 August 1999 - 03:37 am | | | Or: "Look at me, I can do this without being caught." |
Author: Floyd Wingfield
Monday, 16 August 1999 - 05:16 am | | My dear Jill,
I hope you have no reason to fear the murderer of
Mons. (The "Black" Angel of Mons, perhaps? Have
you heard that Arthur Machen story from World War I?)
You are probably far safer in Belgium than you would
be in America, though our problem right now seems
to be mass murderers.
Mass murderers seem to me even more frustrated
than serial killers like Jack, the Rainham Killer, and the
Butcher of Kingsbury Run. None of those serial killers, IMHO,
ever thought they would get caught-- each suspected
they were too clever for the police, and probably their
own families, to suspect and/or stop them. (Of course, I think they also want to be able to take "credit" for their crimes, to demonstrate it was in fact themselves who were so clever.) Mass
murderers usually plan their own deaths as part of
their fatal outburst. Don't you think that signifies not
only that they are sick of life and want to go out in a
blaze of glory, but that they are sick of it because they
fell beaten by it?
Serial killers, contrarily, seem to me to be playing a
game they are sure they can win... even if they hunt
only those who are weaker than themselves, to
control them, as you say. (There was the story of one
homosexual serial killer who liked to hold the bodies
of his male victims after death because he was, at that
moment, assuredly more powerful and in control of
their passive, inert forms-- whereas while they were
alive, he found himself at a disadvantage.)
All serial killers may echo the taunt, "Catch Me When You Can, Mishter Lusk." |
Author: Jill
Monday, 16 August 1999 - 06:21 am | | Hello FLoyd,
I'm so sorry for this recent mass-murder epidemic. But here we have it again: it does have the appearance of one murderer giving the nerve for the other to go ahead whith what he had already in mind but not dared to carry out before.
Like the killer of Bergen (I believe Arthur Machen wrote a ghost story about an ancient army helping the allies against the Germans, yes? I will search for it in my collection) wanted some attention besides Dutroux, the Rainham killer wanted it during the Ripper panic, and recent mass murderers (although different MO and psychosis) from each other, and a lot of other examples are there for the grabbing.
Often it is discussed that if you don't reckon a particular victim with the canonical circle, we have 4 to 5 killers prowling there suddenly, while the years before 1888 and 1889 were so quiet. But as we see again and again they live like leeches on another ones bad deeds and violence only breeds violence. Maybe it wouldn't be so rare that maybe 3 different guys were on the hunt those nights. The media gave the fuel after all.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Floyd Wingfield
Tuesday, 17 August 1999 - 05:42 am | | Daer Jill,
You have an interesting theory. It may be that the crimes of Jack the Ripper not only excited the Rainham Murderer, but may even have made him a little jealous of the attention Saucy Jack's work was receiving. That could have given him added impetus (besides his natural urges) to dump a victim in the site of what was to become New Scotland Yard in early October, 1888.
He started his crimes in Rainham in 1887, we are told, and picked them up again months after the Ripper murders ended, though, so he may always have been on his on timetable, and left the Whitehall victim only coincidentally at that time.
But it is interesting to wonder if he wanted to steal some of Jack's thunder, or thought Jack might be a sympathetic soul, with whom he could form a partnership for causing terror. They would never have to meet-- in fact, for their safety, they never could... but they could, perhaps, commit killings as offerings to each other, as kindred spirits, and raise the level of fear throughout London to a frenzy.
Love,
Floyd |
Author: Searo Haga
Friday, 17 December 1999 - 10:19 pm | | | I would certainly like to hear further details of this Rainham "mystery" (a 'torso' murder, presumably) myself since it seems to be virtually ignored in all the literature I have read. Were it not for MacNaughten's offhand comment I'd never have heard of it, although the Pinchin and Whitehall cases are frequently discussed. I've not even been able to determine where 'Rainham' is, or was. |
Author: anon
Saturday, 18 December 1999 - 01:04 am | | In May 1887 two men were standing by the ferry at Rainham in Essex when they saw a bundle floating in the water. They pulled it out and opened it and discovered that it contained part of a human female body.
The police were contacted and the remains taken to the Phoenix Inn tavern, nearby. It was the trunk of a woman aged about 28 years. The head, arms, and legs were missing. It was impossible to tell the cause of death. The remains were wrapped in a piece of canvas. Her identity could not be ascertained.
On June 8th another parcel wrapped in a piece of coarse canvas was recovered from the Thames near Temple Stairs. This contained portions of a human body which were examined by Dr Calloway who stated that they belonged to the trunk found at Rainham. The doctor believed that the limbs had been separated by someone skilled in surgery.
In July more remains were found in Regent's Canal, Chalk Farm, and were found to also belong to the same body, thus providing all the parts of the body except the head. The inquest was held on August 13th, 1887, at Crowndale Hall, Camden Town, and the Coroner was Dr G. Danford Thomas, who was Coroner for Central Middlesex.
Dr Thomas Bond, acting under instructions of the Home Office, had examined the remains and found they belonged to the same female who was well nourished, about 5 feet 4 inches tall, and had never borne children. He stated that the limbs had been severed from the trunk by someone with a knowledge of anatomy.
Dr Calloway, Superintendent Dobson of the Essex Police, and Mr Lewis, the Essex coroner, all felt it was a case of murder, but as there was no way to tell the cause of death the jury returned an open verdict.
The identity of the body was never ascertained but at one stage it was thought to be a Miss Cross who was missing and in May 1887 had told her mother that she had been accosted by a sinister-looking man on the shores of the Thames. Miss Cross was 28 years old, 5 feet 8 inches tall, dark complexioned, and very pretty. However, news was received of the missing woman and proved that the remains were not hers. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 18 December 1999 - 10:27 am | | Much appreciated, Anon
Its a shame no-one has researched the Torso murders, Rainham, etc....all in one concise book.
There must be PRO files on these, as with Jack.
And I'm sure some of us would like to know all there is available instead of the odd remark in passing, usually as background info to something Jack related.
Not enough has been published on these crimes, unless it's just not as well publisized as the Whitechapel murders.
Maybe Anon could do another dissertation, this time on all the Torso murders.
Thanks, Anon |
Author: Searo Haga
Saturday, 18 December 1999 - 11:06 pm | | | I agree with Jon, Anon: thanks much for the info. Would appreciate knowing the source(s) also. And Jon, I also agree that this possible 'second Ripper' might merit book-length exploration. |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 05:10 pm | | | To give an interesting sidelight to the Cleveland torso murders above. Ness believed Sweeney was the man but that he would never be brought to justice due to familial connections. There are similarities in the Black Dahlia (Elizabeth Short) case which took place twelve years later or so. Ness believed to his dying day that the murders were committed by the same man. Jack would have been proud. Kindest reguards, Neil |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 10:09 pm | | I wonder, noting the theory, if JtR and the Torso killer(s) were having some sort of bizarre competition ("bet I can hack up more hokkers than you can, No you can't")
Of course the last is meant humorously but it was never determined the profession of the Rackinham(sp) torso and it is most unlikely JtR was the author of the killing the victim doesn't seem to fit the profile. It would make an interesting study. Kindest reguards, Neil |
Author: Michael Lyden
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 02:21 pm | | Hello everyone,
I find it incredible that,in the period 1887-1889,that we have this "Bus like" situation.For years,in the history of British crime we have nothing in the way of cases of multiple murder and then THREE serial killers all come along at once.
Let me explain.In this relatively short space of time we have the following:
1.Jack the Ripper-responsible for the murder of the canonical five.
2.The person(or persons) responsible for all the alledged "Ripper" killings eg.McKenzie,Coles etc..
3.The "Torso killer".
Also if we we consider that the McKenzie and Coles murders were "Copy cat" killings,carried out by two different people,then things get even messier.
There has to be something wrong here.It's as though we are almost saying that murder became fasionable during this period!
I somehow just can't see "potential killers" reading the papers and saying to themselves "Blimey this geezer's choppin' there 'eds of nahr,I'll 'ave some uv that!
Strange too, is the fact that all these murders,with the exception of the Rainham mystery,took place within a very small area.(Who do we know,that made trips backwards and forwards to essex? ha ha).
In conclusion,As far as JtR victims are concerned,it's time we had a body re-count.
Your thoughts please.
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 04:10 pm | | | It all revolves around the prevalence of murder in Whitechapel on an ongoing basis. Statistical information has been found for the 1880s but its accuracy has also been called into question. |
Author: Michael Lyden
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 05:17 pm | | Hello Diana,
I see your point and I'm sure that the odd murder was committed now and again and no big deal was made out of it and maybe they weren't even included in statistics.
However,it Just occurred to me that, what sets all these murders apart from your average "Cosh on the head" or a one off stabbing,is that in the majority of cases,we are talking about multiple mutilations,be it decapitation or knife puncture wounds.Shurely none of this could be regarded as run of the mill.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 07:15 pm | | Dear Mick,
Joseph made some pertinent remarks regarding a review of the over-view of the events surrounding and inclusive of the Ripper events...but I can't place that particular post.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 08:05 pm | | Mick
If your interested in crime statistics for the relevent period, or close to it, there is an interesting snippet below....
We will take one year - 1886. In that year 177 verdicts of murder were recorded. Out of these only 72 charges of murder arose. But only 35 sentences of death were pronounced. Even supposing, however, that all the 72 accused persons were guilty and were dealt with by the law, we have the startling fact that 105 men and women who committed murder are at large.
Taking 1886 as an average year and applying its figures to the foregoing ten years we must suppose that over a thousand men are now in our midst whose hands are dyed with the blood of their fellows..."
Jones & Lloyd, The Ripper File, pg 110.
Stunning?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 09:20 am | | | Mick has a good point. Maybe we should stop focussing on murder stats as a whole and ask ourselves if it was very common in Whitechapel to have mutilation murders or if 1887-1889 was a blip. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 10:10 am | | I agree. The important thing is not so much the sheer volume of murderers there might have been in their midst, but how many deaths could be fairly attributed to psychopathic killers - and how this relates to the apparent cluster of such murders (of similar victim type, in a small area, with no immediately apparent motive, involving varying degrees of mutilation etc) in the late 1880s and early 1890s, supposedly committed by upwards of three individual maniacs, whose collective crimes managed to trigger the imagination of the press and public like no other 'run-of-the-mill' murders committed in the surrounding years.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 06:58 pm | | Once you focus the category you might inadvertently overlook some relevent detail.
For example if we tell a stranger that some murderer was going around London hacking up bodies & removing organs they could get the idea that a certain person was interested in limbs one week and organs the next.
We regular Ripper students would rarely think that the torso murders were by the same hand and yet if you step back and take a broad look at all the crimes instead of looking through blinkers (which is what we do) at a select few. What jumps out at you is some sort of series of 'medically based crimes' going on. In our 'sophisticated' opinions they cannot possibly be connected, but who would put their money on sophistication?.
Regards, Jon
(No, I dont think so either, but I've been wrong before too) |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 07:42 pm | | | MO changes, signature doesn't. Was the torso found headless? the canonical 5 had their throats slit and some thought there was an effort to remove the head. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 09:26 pm | | Dear Jon,
In other words, the search for "Jack the Ripper" is the pursuit of consciousness.
Rosebud :-)) |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 11:24 pm | | You got it in one Diana, torso means headless, as well as armless (not harmless) and legless (not drunk).
Yes, there was also reports about attempts at removing the heads of some of the Ripper victims, and an isolated report of Kelly's left(?) arm almost severed from her torso.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 22 June 2001 - 03:49 am | | Was Jack, or Jacks (or Dr Frankenstein), intent on making up whole new bodies, with the sum of their parts, each taken from a separate victim?
Perhaps he had a few lonely heads stashed somewhere, singing "I ain't got no booooody..."
Ah, methinks a new theory emerges. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 22 June 2001 - 06:39 am | | Dear Caroline,
"I taught a torso", mused Alice, as the little white Jack-rabbit reappeared...only to disappear once more.
Rosey :-) |
Author: R.J.P.
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 01:39 am | | Of all the odd stories connected to the Whitechapel murders of 1888-89, one of the strangest must certainly be when the fellow named 'John Cleary' showed up in the New York Herald office claiming that a murder occured in Backchuch Lane, only to discover that no murder actually was committed...until...stangely enough...two or three days later. [Evans & Skinner present some excellent documents about this in their book]
What makes this particularly odd is that it gives this crime --like the similar 'Whitehall Mystery'---the feel of a 'publicity stunt' --(sorry, but I can think of no better way of putting it). Either we are dealing with a reprobate murderer that fancied himself in direct competiton with Jack the Ripper, or we are dealing with two extremely sick pranks by some decidedly sick medical students.
The Battersea crime, on the otherhand, seems entirely less 'staged'-- what was left of the unfortunate victim was discovered accidently. But it is still similar enough to have some doubts about the official opinion that this was the victim of 'a botched abortion'. Would there not have been an easier way of disposing of a body? |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 01:48 pm | | Dear RJP,
I am not familiar with the Whitehall mystery
(which sounds intriguing), but when you
discussed the Battersea mystery, and the
possibility of the police being wrong talking
about the victim having had a botched abortion,
I remembered something for you to chew on.
Keep in mind that 1888 is not a great year for
forensic science, especially in England (it was
far better in France). There had been a long
series of unsolved murders in England prior to
the Ripper, going back to the 1866 murder of
Sarah Milsom on Cannon-Street. Several of these,
like that of Mathilda Hacker in 1879, involved
locating remains years after the crime occurred.
In 1880 one of the unsolved cases arose. According to my copy of Haydn's Dictionary of
Dates (1893 edition), p. 468, column 1, we have
the following brief discription:
"HARLEY STREET, London, W. At No. 139, the house
inhabited by Mr. Henriques, the decomposed body
of a woman, stabbed in the breast and covered in
chloride of lime, was found 3 June, verdict of
coroner's inquest, wilful murder by person unknown, 14 June, 1880."
The following is from THE SCALPEL OF SCOTLAND
YARD: THE LIFE OF SIR BERNARD SPILSBURY by
Douglas Browne and Tom Tullett (N.Y., E.P.Dutton
and Company, 1952), pages 433 - 434:
"When Spilsbury was a three-year-old boy at
Leamington, a curious discovery was made in a
London street intimately associated with the
profession he was to follow. Half a century later, at a meeting of the Medico-Legal Society, he was among those who discovered a paper read by Dr. P.B.Burgin on the Harley Street mystery of
1880.
"In 1879 the tenants of a house in that
respectable thoroughfare -- or, at least, their
servants -- began to be troubled by an unpleasant
smell in the cellars. Drains were relaid, but the smell persisted. Some of the cellars extended under the street pavement; and in one of
these, though not until June 1880, the butler and
a footman discovered the body of a woman, greatly
decomposed, forced head downward into a large
barrel. It was estimated that the body had been
in the barrel for at least two years, but why the discovery was not made earlier does not appear.
The woman's age was put at between forty and forty-five. She had been stabbed in the left
breast, apparently after death, for ther had been
little bleeding, and at some time the body had been buried in or covered with chloride of lime.
"The occupants of the house had been in possession for nearly twenty years. They were accustomed to go away in the autumn, taking the
domestic staff with them, the house being then
left in charge of a caretaker and his wife. This
couple denied ever noticing a smell in the cellars. In the autumn of 1878 they had seen the
barrel; before that year, it appears, it was not
there. The cellar in which it stood was used only
for rubbish. Vague and contradictory evidence by
servants throws light on the domestic economy of
large, well-to-do households in the Victorian era.
The master and mistress knew and cared little or nothing about what went on in the basement; the
staff, in that dark warren, did very much what it
liked. It was no one's business to inspect an
underground cavern used as a rubbish-dump. The
difficulties in the circumstances of tracing the history of the decomposed body which had been
concealed no one knew when or how proved insuperable, and the verdict at the inquest was that of murder against some person or persons
unknown.
"Dr. Burgin having finished his paper, the learned audience may have smiled when Spilsbury
opened the discussion by observing the association
of dead bodies with Harley Street naturally
suggested criminal abortion. A doctor who engaged
in such practices and found himself with a corpse
on his hands, would be faced witht he problem confronting so many murderers--how to dispose of
it. The stab in the breast, if a post-mortem
wound, was probably an attempt to divert attention
from the real cause of death, should the body
be discovered too soon. The use of chloride
of lime in mistake for quick-lime showed lack of
chemical knowledge. Such an error, indeed, often
committed by laymen, and the assumption that absence of bleeding after a deep stab would not
arouse suspicion, suggests that the murderer in
this case fell somewhat below the standard to be
expected of a Harley Street Physician; but this
unsolved mystery of 1880 leaves much good stuff for the imagination to play with -- the dim
street of tall houses, the brass plates glimmering
in the flicker of gas-lamps, and, through the autumn midnight, some fashionable doctor conveying
the body of his victim (and the barrel?) to its
penultimate resting-place in a neighbour's cellar."
Jeff |
Author: R.J.P.
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 07:12 am | | | Jeff--Hello & thanks. Well yes, I get your point. I can see how a similar theory to that offered by Browne & Tullet above might be used in explaining the grisly Battersea discovery. [I'll try to post a Times article I found relating to this in a couple of days. You might find it interesting]. As for the 'Whitehall Mystery', this merely refers to the torso that was discovered in the New Scotland Yard building site at the beginning of October 1888. I know so little about the various so-called 'torso murders' in 1887-89 that I won't even speculate which ones might possibly be related to one another, but considering all the strange theories generated by Ripperologists over the years, it is a little bit interesting that these have been so widely ignored. In his book on D'onston, Melvin Harris speculated that a body found in the Thames in 1887 might have formerly belonged to D'onston's wife, but outside of this, I don't think any other Ripper author has tried to use any of these deaths as part of a unified theory. As for me, my best guess is that the Whitehall body was a hoax of some kind. Best wishes, RP |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 09:18 pm | | Dear R.J.P.,
Actually the issue of the torso victims and the
Ripper victims does generate discussions, but
I suspect there are so many avenues of diverse
opinion on what are usually called Ripper murders
that most people simply don't want to stretch the
field as it were. Perhaps they should.
What bothers me in this area is that there are
a long and clear number of unsolved pre-1888 cases
that occurred that are barely touched on. Some
really don't fit the patterns of the Ripper.
I mentioned Sarah Milsom in 1866. She was killed
in a business on Cannon-street. Milsom and another woman lived there, but they were housekeepers (and night watchmen). It is believed
Milsom was murdered by somebody who feared her
about some now unknown secret. The police botched
the prosecution of the sole suspect that was found, when he produced over a dozen witnesses who
gave him a minute by minute alibi for the crime.
This killing (a bludgeoning, by the way) does not
fit in with Whitechapel. But there were several
unsolved prostitute murders in 1872 (Harriet
Buswell) and 1884 that the police did not solve,
though no connection was demonstrated between them. It does illustrate (a) a true incompetence
in the police, or (b) a lack of real interest in
such matters.
Jeff |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 31 August 2001 - 12:57 am | | The following is my transcription of articles from
the Times of London regarding the Whitehall "Torso" Mystery of 1888.
The Times: October 9, 1888 (p. 12 cols. b-c):
THE MURDER AT WESTMINSTER.
"Yesterday, at the Sessions-house, Westminster,
the inquest was opened by the Westminster Coroner,
Mr. Troutbeck, respecting the heaadless and limbless body of a woman found in the vaults of the new police offices which are now being built on the Victoria Embankment, on the spot formerly taken for the proposed National Operal House. At
the mortuary, Millbank, the jury viewed the remains found on the 11th of September at Pimlico.
Detective-Inspector Marshall watched the case for
the police.
"The first witness called was Frederick Wildbore, living at Clapham Junction. He deposed, examined by the Coroner. -- I am a carpenter, and am employed at the new police offices at Whitehall. On Tuesday afternoon last
I was at work at the buildings. My work took me
during the day to all parts of them. On Monday
morning, at 6 o'clock, I had occasion to go to the vaults to fetch my tools, which had been taken there on Saturday by a labourer. I was not there on Saturday. When I went to the recess on Monday morning my mate was with me and I felt something there. It is a dark place, and I struck a light and looked at it. I could not form
any idea of what the parcel was, and we both came away. Neither of us touched it in the least. I
saw it again next morning(the 2d), and came away again. I did not notice any smell. At 1 o'clock
that day (Tuesday), Mr. Brown, the assistant forman, came down to where I was at work, and I told him of the parcel in the vault, and he ordered it to be opened. The parcel was grought out by the labourer and opened. The parcel was in the same condition when Mr. Brown saw it as when we first saw it. It was not touched in the
interval - not by any one, and when it had been sent for by Mr. Brown it was just as we had first seen it. This vault had been used for some three
weeks, and for that time I have placed my tools
there. I have never seen any one carrying such a parcel on the works.
"The witness was here asked to look at a plan prepared, and he pointed out the spot under which
the vault was placed, thus being on the westward side of the works, and he pointed out the entrance of the workmen on Cannon-row. He pointed
out, too, the way he went to the vault, and the plan was handed to the jury.
"The witness resumed. -- The way I went to the
vault was not difficult to me, but it would be rather puzzling to any one to find the place if they were not acquainted with teh way and the spot.
"By the Jury. -- I went down to the vault by a way I knew from where I worked. I could get there without going down planks. I could not see in the recess or vault without striking a match, it was so dark even in the daytime, and people
who did not know the place could not have found there way there.
"George Boddon, living in Walworth, a bricklayer's labourere on the works, deposed. -- I was in the vault where the body was found at about 2.55 on Tuesday last. I had been told to go and see what a parcel down there contained.
I struck a light and saw the top bare, and the rest wrapped up in some old cloth. I thought it was old bacon, or something like that, and I could not make anything of it, so I took hold of the string around it - it being tied up - and dragged it
across a trench into a part of the vault where there was light. I cut the strings there and opened the wrapper. The strings - a lot of old strings of different sorts -were tied up all round it several times across each way. There was only the wrapping I saw, no paper, and when
the parcel was opened I saw the body of a woman. I was not alone when the parcel was opened; there
were present the foreman bricklayer, Mr. Brown,
and Wildbore. I cannot say how long it was before
that Iwas there -- a long time. It is a very dark
place; always as dark as the darkest night in the
day. The police were sent to at once when the body was found, and they took charge of the body
and wrapper. I was only told before I went to the vault to go and see what a parcel contained that was there.
"Detective Hawkins, A Divisionm stated. --
At about 3.30 of the 2d instant, Mr. Brown, of the
new police buildings, Cannon-row, came to King-street Police-station, and from what he stated I
went to Cannon-row. I saw lying in the vaults
of the new police buildings an open parcel in
dress material, which had been tied round, and a
body of a woman in it. I looked further along the
recss where it had been and saw a piece more dress
material. I saw the place where it had stood.
The wall was very black and the place full of
maggots. I left the body in charge of a constable, and sent to the medical officer, Mr. Bond.
"By the Coroner. -- The vault where it was said the body had lain was very dark, and the
recess was across a trench, which was also in the dark. A person to go to the recess would have
to cross the trench on a plank; the trench could not be without a light.
"Frederick Moore, a labourer, who had found
the arm, stated. -- On the 11th of September I
was outside the gates of the deal wharf where I work, near Grosvenor-road. On my attention being
drawn to the bank, I looked over the Embankment on
to the Thames shore, near the sluice. Some men had said that there was something on the shore, and I went over and picked it up. I found it was a woman's arm, with a strong attached to the part
nearest the shoulder. I looked about the shore to see if there was anything else, but as there was not I gave this to the police.
"By the Coroner. -- I did not see the arm until my attention was directed to it by others.
The tide was low at the time, and the arm was on the mud.
"Police-constable W. James, 127 B, deposed to
receiving the arm from the last witness and taking it to the station, and to its transference to Dr. Nevill.
"Mr. C. W. Brown, living at Hornse, the assistant foreman to the Messrs. Grover, builders,
the contractors for the new police offices, Whitehall, deposed, -- The works on the embankment are shut off by a boarding 8ft. or 9ft. high, and there are three entrances with gates, two in Cannon-row and one on the Embankment. It is three months since the vaults have been completed. No one, except the workmen and carmen are or have been admitted to the works,
except those who had business with the clerk of
the works. There are notices to that effect on boards. The gates, however, have not been attended and persons could get in. All the gates, with one exception, are locked at night, and the exception is one which has a latch with a string above to admit those who know how to pull
it. There was no watchman at night. The approach
to the vault from Cannon-row was first by planks
and steps, and planks again. There was work being
done in the vaults a week before the discovery.
There was no one there on Sunday or Saturday night. The locks of the gates were not found forced at any time, nor was any gate open on Monday last or at any time.
"The Coroner.-- Should you think that it would
require any special knowledge of the place on the
part of a person to place that in the vault? --
Witness. -- Yes; I should consider so, as the
place is out of all roads.
"The witness continued. -- I was down in the
vaults on some days before and noticed no smell.
I was about there without a light as I knew the place. I had my attention called to this recess on Tuesday last by Wildbore, who said there was a
curious parcel there, and I gave instructions that it should be brought out and we saw it contained human remains. When my attention was thus called to it on Tuesday, it was the first
time I had any knowledge of the matter. I at once ordered the police to be informed. I looked
at the parcel and saw what seemed to be like an
old coat thwons down, and some ham close by. I
subsequently spoke to one or two of the labourers,
and one of them at my instructions dragged it out.
We then found that the parcel contained human
remains.
"By the Jury. -- We have had tools lost from the works. I do not think it possible that anyone
could have lowered the parcel from Richmond-mews
(at the side of Whitehall-gardens)and then have
carried it across the grounds to the vaults.
"George Cheney, living at Wandsworth, the
foreman bricklayer of Messrs. Grover, desposed to
having been called to see the parcelin the works.
He had not been in the vault before the occasion
when he was called to see the curious parcel.
"Ernest Hodge, a labourer on the works, stated
that he was in the vault on Saturday (the 2d of
September) at half-past 5 in the afternoon, to
fetch a hammer, and there was no parcel there then. He struck a light to go across a trench
and looked round. The vault led to nowhere and
he should not have been there but to get the
hammer. He was there on the Tuesday and was there when the body was brought out. People went
into the vault for various purposes. Witness said he was the last on the works on that Saturday
and locked up the works. He left the place all
secure. He did not open the works on Monday. He locked up all the doors except one, which was on
the latch, pulled up by a string by those who knew
of it -- those engaged on the works -- and he
thought they all knew of that.
"By the Jury. -- No one unconnected with the
works would be likely to notice fromthe outside the means of entering this door.
" The Coroner's officer, T. Ralph, Constable
634 A, stated that he took possession of the body
and placed it in the mortuary. He also deposed to moving the arm found at Pimlico in the mud of
the Thames to the mortuary. These were the remains the jury had seen.
"Mr. Thomas Bond, F.R.C.S., 7, Sanctuary, Westminster, deposed. -- On Tuesday last, shortly
before 4 o'clock, I was called to the new buildings for Police offices, Cannon-row, and was shown the decomposed trunk of a woman. It was then lying in the basement, having been removed
from the dark vault where it was found. The strings which had tied it had been cut, and it was partially unwrapped. I visited the place
where it it was found, and I saw the walk against which it had been lying. The wall was stained
black at the place where the parcel had rested
against it. I thought the body must have been there several days from the state of the wall;
but I could form no definite opinion as to how
long it had been there. I directed the detectives
to take charge of the trunk and of the wrapper, and to remove them to the mortuary. I went to the mortuary myself first and made arrangements for the reception of the body. It arrived there in the evening, and I superintended its disinfection and the placing of it in spirits.
On the next morning I made a post-mortem examination, assisted by Mr. Hibbert. The trunk was that of a woman of considerable stature, and
well nourished. The head had been seperated from
the trunk at the sixth cervical vertebra, which
had been sawn through. The lover part of the body and the pelvis had been removed, and the fourth lumbar vertebra had been sawn through in
the same way as in the removal of the head, by
long, sweeping cuts. The length of the trunk was
17in., the circumference of the chest was 35 1/2
in., and the circumference of the waist was
28 1/2 in. It was all very mush decomposed, but the skin was not so much decomposed as the cut parts, and I examined it for wounds. I found
none on the body. The skin was light. The arms
had been removed at the shoulder joints by
several incisions, which had been made apparently
obliquely, and then downwards around the arms.
The joints had been removed straight through
the joint -- that is disarticulated through the
joint. Over the body were clearly-designed marks,
where string had been tightly tied. The body
appears to have been wrapped up in a very skillful
manner. On close examination we could not find
the linea alba which would indicate that the
woman had borne children. It was impossible to
ascertain, owing to the decomposed condition of the remains, whether there had been any wound
inflicted on the neck in life. The neck had been divided by several incisions and sawn through below the larynx. On opening the chest , we found that the rib cartilages were not ossified;
that one lung was healthys, but the other lung
was adherent, showing that for some time the
woman had suffered from severe pleurisy. This
was of long standing. The heart was healthy,
but there was no blood in it, and no staining of
the organ with blood. That, to my mind, is an
indication that the woman did not die from
suffocation or drowning. The liver was was in a
normal condition, and the stomach contained about one ounce of partly-digested food. There was no appearance of inflammation. The kidneys were
normal, and the spleen also. The small intestines and the part which attaches the intestines to the body were in place, and were
healthy. The lower part of the large bowel, and
all the contents of the pelvis were absent. We
found that the woman was of mature agem abd over 24 or 25 years of age. She was, to every appearance, a well-nourished woman, and was, in
fact, a large, well-nourished person, with fair
skin and dark hair. There were no indications
that she had borne a child, but it was possible
that she might have done so. The date of death, as far as we could judge, would have been six
weeks or two months before the discovery, and
the decomposition occurred in the air, and not in
water. I subsequently examined the arm which had
been brought to the mortuary from Pimlico, and this was fully examined and will be described by my colleague, Mr. Hibbert. I found that the arm
accurately fitted to the trunk. The cuts corresponded, and the general conteur of the arm corresponds with the bond. It was a fleshy,
rounded arm. The hand was long, the fingers tapering and the nails very well shaped. It
was the hand of a person who had not been used to manual labour. Mr. Hibbert has compared the
hairs, and he will tell you the result.
[To be continued....]
remains |
|
|
|
|
