|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 30 April 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
The Whitehall Mystery, et al.:
Archive through 30 April 2002
Author: Jon
Friday, 31 August 2001 - 09:35 am |        | Thanks Jeff.
Personally, I would like to see the Torso murders included in the press reports section, possibly under a different heading, but as we cannot say with any degree of certainty that they are 'positively not Ripper related', then I think they should be captured somewhere.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 31 August 2001 - 12:27 pm | | Hi, Jeff and Jon:
Thanks for posting this, Jeff. I second Jon's call to have this report on the Whitehall mystery included in the press reports section.
I am curious to know why the Pinchin Street murder was classified as a part of the Whitechapel murders but this crime was not. Was it because of the location that the Whitechapel murderer was not a suspect or was it because the police did not like the idea that it would be spread around that the audacious Jack had visited the future premises of Scotland Yard? I am, mind you, not making any particular claim that either the Pinchin Street or the Whitehall/Pimlico murder could have been done by Jack--although R. Michael Gordon would, I know, claim that George Chapman did the lot! It does seem at the minimum that whomever placed the body parts in the basement of the unfinished building for New Scotland Yard was making a statement to the police, doesn't it? Thoughts anyone?
Another curious thing that I did not know that, as The Times report stated, the place were the remains were found was "the spot formerly taken for the proposed National Opera House." This brings up chilling visions of "The Phantom of the Opera." Baroness Emmuska Orczy novel on which the recent Andrew Lloyd Webber musical dates from 1904 so I guess we cannot contrive a link there unless Baroness Orczy's novel was based on legend, or even on the very incident we are discussing here.
Thanks again, Jeff, for posting this.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 31 August 2001 - 05:12 pm | | Hello Mr. Bloomfield,
Thank you for posting this very interesting article (THE MURDER AT WESTMINSTER); it may be connected to a possible suspect I've been researching.
I was wondering if you have any additional information regarding the "Messrs. Grover Builders" mentioned in your message, e.g. Is Messrs. Grover Builders the name of the firm or is it a reference to the number of Grovers that own the business, Grover Brother's Construction Company or Jack Grover & Sons Building Contractors etc?
Best regards |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 31 August 2001 - 09:40 pm | | Chris, Jon, and Joseph,
Thanks for the kind words, and I will shortly
complete the first report (of the first day of
the inquest). As I have just mentioned to
Chris, the worst thing I have discovered about
the dear old London Times of a century or two
back is it's print. It took me three hours to
try to type those two closely printed columns of
page twelve and at 1 P.M. I gave up. One's eyes
were not meant to get such punishment.
I hope to complete this chore by Sunday. As for
Joseph's question, I haven't really studied the
case, except for being vaguely aware of the fact
that a dead woman's remains were found on the
spot of the New Scotland Yard of the late 19th
Century while it was being built. What happened
was that I decided last Saturday to copy out the
inquest material while at the Library, as the
subject seemed of great interest. I really don't
know anything about the Construction Company.
Interestingly enough, it is the second time recently that a building site is connected to one
of the homicide mysteries of the 1880s and 1890s
that I looked into. When I went into the business
about Amelia Jeff's strangulation murder in the
Portway, West Ham in January 1890, her killing was
in a newly built building, and the contradictory
reports of the politically well-connected carpenter, his father (the site night-watchman),
and his son (who claimed he did not see the body
when there earlier)played a role in preventing an
official solution (anyone reading the reports there would see nobody was impressed by this trio,
any one of whom was probably guilty).
Anyway, I will now return to the inquest on the
Whitehall Mystery.
Jeff |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 31 August 2001 - 10:58 pm | | Now for the remainder of the report of the first
day of the inquest:
The Times of London, Tuesday, 9 October 1888,
P. 12, col. c:
"The Coroner. -- About the cuts? Were they
made after death? -- Undoubtedly. It is impossible, owing to the state of decompostition in which the body was, to say whether there had been a cut round the neck during life which would have caused death. The decomposition was very far
advanced, and the body was absolutely full of maggots. I could not have ascertained from the condition of the trunk whether any wound on the neck was made in life.
"The Coroner. -- Then there was nothing to indicate the cause of death? Nothing whatever.
There was nothing to show that it was sudden, but
I am satisfied that it was not a death by suffocation. It was more likely death from hemorrhage, for the heart was pale, and free from
clots, whereas in the great number of post-mortem
examinations which I have made after a very long period, where death has been from drowning, the interior parts of the heart have been very much
stained with blood: In this case the interior
part of the heart was quite pale, proving, to my
mind, that the woman died from hemorrhage or
fainting. I did not anatomically examine the arm,
but merely fitted it to the trunk.
"The Coroner. -- Can you give us any opinion
as to the height of the woman? == We believe the height of the woman to have been about 5ft. 8 in.
Those measurements depend more upon the measurements of the arm than of any measurements which have been made of the trunk.
"The Coroner. -- Was the woman a very stout
woman? -- She was not a very stout woman, but she was a thoroughly plump woman, and a fully developed one. There was no abnormal excess of
fat, but the body was that of a thoroughly well
nourished, plump woman. These measures are not
strictly diagnostic to an inch, but they lead to
a very fair inference that she was a very tall, big woman, at least 5ft. 8 in. high. The hand
was certainly that of a woman, as I have said, who was not used to manual labor.
"The Coroner. -- Would the hand be that of a
refined woman? -- The hand was that of a woman not used to hard work.
"Mr. Charles Alfred Hibbert, M.R.C.S. of
Great College - street, Westminster, deposed. --
I assisted the last witness. I saw this arm first
on the 16th of September, and then made the
examination of it. It was the right arm which had
been seperated from the trunk at the shoulder joint by a cut which passed obliquely round. The arm measured 34in. in length, and its circumference at the point where it was seperated was 13in. The hand measured 7 1/2in. The arm
was surrounded in the upper part by a piece of
string, and this made an impression upon the skin of the arm. When the string was loosened it was
found that there was a great deal of blood in the
arm. The skin of the arm was in a fair condition,
and was not very much decomposed, but the skin
of the hand was very thin, white, and corrugated through immersion in the water. The hand itself was long, well-shaped, and carefully kept, and the nails were small and well-shaped. There were
no scars or marks of any kind, and there were no bruises. There were a few dark bran hairs left under the arm. The woman must have been over 20.
The arm had apparently been seperated from the body after death. The calculation as to the height of the woman, founded upon the measurement of the arm, made her about 5ft. 8 1/2 in. high. I
thought the arm was cut off by a person who, while
he was not necessarily an anatomist, certainly knew what he was doing -- who knew where the joints were and cut them pretty regularly. There were not many cuts -- almost six or seven. They
had evidently been done with a very sharp knife.
I was enabled to examine the arm at the same time as the trunk, and found they exactly fitted. The
skin cuts corresponded, and the bones and the hair corresponded: The hair was precisely the same, and when the two lots were mixed together they could not be seperated.
"The Coroner. -- Did you notice whether there
was similar skill in the division of the corresponding arm according to the appearance of
the shoulder? -- Yes. It was done exactly in the
same way. Theline of thecuts began at the top
of the shoulder and passed round the arm at either
side.
"In a division like that one which you have for any purpose of anatomy? -- No. For a surgical motive, the cut would have been so made as to leave the skin outside. In this case the skin was cut through by several long cuts, and then the bone was sawn through. The pieces of paper
produced, which were found near the body are stained by some animal blood. It is certainly not the blood of a bird or a reptile. There was
no mark of a ring on a finger of the hand.
"Detective - Inspector Marshall, sworn,
deposed, -- I am an inspector of the Criminal Investigation Department, attached to the A Division. About 5 o'clock on the 2d inst. I went
to the new police buildings on the Thames Embankment, and in the basement saw the trunk referred to by previous witnesses. Mr. Hibbert was there. The corner of the vault from which it
had been drawn was pointed out to me. I saw that the wall was a good deal stained. I examined the
ground, and then found a piece of newspaper (produced). I also found a piece of string, which seems to be a piece of sash cord, and Mr.
Hibbert handed me two pieces of material which he
said had come from the body. I made a thorough
search about the vault in the immediate vicinity
at once, but nothing more was found. On the
following morning, with other officers, I made
a further search of the vaults of the whole site.
Nothing more was found nor anything suspicious observed. With regard to the piece of paper, I
have made inquiry and find it is a piece of the
Echo, dated the 24th of August, 1888. Mr. Hibbert
also handed to me a number of small pieces of
paper, which he said were found on the body, and
I find they were pieces of the Daily Chronicle.
They were not pieces of any paper issued from that office this year. The dress is a brown satin
cloth of Bradford manufacture, but an old pattern,
probably of three years ago. It is rather common
material. There is a flounce in it six inches from the bottom. The material probably cost 6 1/2
d. a yard. It is easy, I think to get over the
headings [sic - I can't make out the word] in
Cannon-row, but there are no indications of any one having done so. It is not so [?] easy for
any one to open the latch referred to. I should
think the body had been where it was found for
days from the stains on the wall, but the witness
who has been examined declares almost positively
that it was not there on Saturday, as he was on the very spot.
"Hedge, recalled, deposed. -- Where the parcel
was found was in a corner.
"The Coroner. -- Would you have any occasion
to go into that corner? -- No, except to nail a locker up, and I looked into the very corner with the light for a hammer. I am quite sure the parcel could not have been there without my seeing
it.
"In reply to the Coroner, Inspector Marshall
said that was all the evidence he possessed.
"The Coroner asked if it was probable that any otehr evidence would be forthcoming.
"Inspector Marshall said one or two more of the work people might be examined. Of course, the all-important task was to find the head.
"The Coroner. -- As there are other witnesses, and there seems to be this doubt as to whether the parcel was in the vault before Saturday, I think we must adjourn, and I therefore
adjourn the inquiry until this day fortnight.
"The inquiry was accordingly adjourned."
End of first article. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 01 September 2001 - 05:03 am | | Chris:
I think that you'll find that "The Phantom of the Opera" was by Gaston Leroux rather than by Baroness Orczy, whose major works were the stories of Sir Percy Blakeney aka "The Scarlet Pimpernel" a man who would surely have plenty to say concerning the present lemming-like rush into the European embrace.
Her other heroine was Lady Molly of Scotland Yard who deserves much more attention than she has had recently. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 01 September 2001 - 06:39 am | | Dear Joseph,
Our caped-crusader passe-d'armes...ole! I am off to the mountains...there is a little wilderness I drop in on occassion. Back after sundown! |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 01 September 2001 - 08:53 am | | Hi Peter:
Thanks for setting me right about the authorship of "The Phantom of the Opera." I must also credit Jeff Bloomfield who also sent me the true facts. You now both have permission take me down a dark London alleyway and pummel me. Thanks, fellas!
Jeff, I don't think the fact that bodies or body parts are often found on building sites is especially significant. It is like the ongoing discussion we have of why prostitutes were targeted--both being, most probably, a matter of ease and convenience. That is, building sites provided a good place to dump bodies since there weren't many people about. As we know, abandoned or unfinished buildings are also prime areas for sexual assaults and liaisons as well as murder.
Chris George |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 01 September 2001 - 07:08 pm | | Chris - Ordinarily I would say you are right, but
in the Jeffs Mystery, when you look over the report of the three men (grandfather, father, son)
all involved in the construction of that house,
you see that they are so impossibly contradictory
in explaining how each was not responsible, that
you can just visualize everyone else at the
inquest looking at them keenly, as they could just
conclude where the guilty party resided.
As for the reason for the failure of the Whitehall
Mystery not getting subsumed into the Whitechapel
murder list, I have looked ahead at the second
day's report, and I have an idea of why. It is
a weak one, but it is understandable. But first,
I will print it out.
By the way, rather than having Peter and me pummel
you in an alley, if you treat us to a drink at a
pub that would be fine (and pleasanter).
Jeff |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 01 September 2001 - 09:05 pm | | Times of London, Tuesday, October 23, 1888,
P. 12, cols. b & c:
THE MURDER AT WESTMINSTER.
"Yesterday, at the Westminster Sessions-house,
the coroner's jury reassembled to hear evidence
regarding the mutilated body found on the 2d
inst. on the site of the new police offices,
Victoria Embankment. The arm of the same body was
found previously in the Thames at Pimlico, and the leg, with the foot, was discovered, with the
aid of a dog, in the vault near where the body was found on last Wednesday. Mr. Troutbeck was
the presiding coroner, and Detective-Inspector
H. Marshall watched the case on behalf of the Police Commissioners.
"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.
"George Erant, the clerk of the works on the Embankment, who stated that he was on the works on
Saturday, the 29th of September, gave similar
evidence.
" Richard Lawrence, 40 Stendale-road, Battersea, a carpenter's labourer, stated that he
left his tools in the vault on Saturday, the
29th of September, shortly after midday. He went
there again at 6.10 on Monday morning, the 1st of
October. They had not been disturbed, and he did
not notice anything. If the parcel had been there when he went for the tools he could not have seen it, the place was so completely dark.
"Alfred Young, also a carpenter's labourer,
gave similar evidence.
"Mr. A. Franklin, of Lordship-lane, Dulwich, surveyor, stated that he was in the vault on Friday, the 28th ult. He did not absolutely look
upon the ground in the corner of the vault where the body was found. There was much rubbish about in the vault. He thought that he should not have noticed any parcel unless there had been a bad smell, when he thought he must have noticed it.
Otherwise it would not have been noticed. The
measuring did carry the workers into the corner.
"By the Jury. -- The body might have been there without its being seen.
"Mr. Jasper Waring, who stated that he was a country correspondent to a news agenccy, then
deposed to the circumstances with regard to the finding of the leg and foot last Wednesday. He
deposed that he went into the place where the
body was found on the 17th inst. He was accompanied by another correspondent, and he detailed the circumstances (narrated last Thursday in THE TIMES) under which the dog indicated the place where the leg was buried. The place, he said, where the leg was found was in the opposite side of the same recess where the body was found. The arm was found some 12 inches down. The dog refused to work when many police
came, as they did soon after. There was no appearance in the earth there of its having been disturbed for some time. The earth was dug up also in the next recess, where the dog scented, and though nothing was found the witness had a
strong opinon that something had been there. The dog was a Russian terrier.
"Mr. Angle, a journalist, who accompanied the
previous witness, said he had an impression that the earth where the leg was concealed was a little higher than the other ground. He thought
the leg was found at only a depth of four or five inches when the stones were removed. The ground where the leg was discovered was very hard, as if it had been trodden on.
"The witness Hedge, the labourer who was
examined on the last occasion, deposed to being present when the leg was found as detailed by the previous witnesses. With respect to the Saturday,
the 29th, before the body had been bound, when he went into the vault, he had said, to look for a
hammer, he now said he saw the tools deposited in
the opposite side to where the body lay. He struck a light to look into the reess, and the
parcel was not there then. The witness was questioned at length by the jury, and he acknowledged that the tools were on the left, as the recess was on the right; and he looked, he declared, into the corner for the tools, which were several feet nearer to the entrance. The
recess was 7ft. wide, it appeared from the plans, which were referred to, and the tools were on the
opening part, so that there was no occasion to go into the recess. The witness, however, declared that he went into the recess for the tools in the dark, and struck a light in the corner, when he saw that there was nothing there. He then saw the tools outside the recess, and took the hammer and went.
"Mr. Thomas Bond, F.R.C.S., was again
examined. He said: -- I was sent for to the
Embankment site of the new police offices on the
17th. I went into the recess of the vault where the body was found, and I found there a human leg partially buried. Ut was uncovered; but it had not been removed from the place where it was found. I examined the earth which had covered
it, and I found that this gave unmistakenable
evidence of having covered the leg for several
weeks -- that the leg had been there for several
weeks. Decomposition had taken place there, and
it was not decomposed when placed there. The
upper part of the leg was in a good state of
preservation; but the foot was decomposed, and the skin and nails had peeled off. The limb was
removed, and next unbending it was examined by
Mr. Hibbert and myself. We found that the leg
had been divided at the knee joint by free
incision, and very cleverly disarticulated without damage to the cartilages. The limb and the foot agreed with the arm and the hand in
general character -- in general contour and in
size. We had no doubt that the leg belonged
to the body and to the arm. I took the opportunity, I may say, while in the vault, to
examine the spot where the body was found, and
I am quite sure that the last witness is wrong
as to the body not having been there a few days
before. The body must have lain there for weeks,
and it had decomposed there.
"The Coroner. -- You think it had decomposed
in that spot?
"Mr. Bond. -- Yes, the decomposition was of a character of a body only partially exposed to the air, the brickwork against which it had leant was deeply covered with the decomposed fluid of the human body turned black, and it could not have done that in a day or two. The stain is not superficial, but the brick work is quite saturated. I should think it must have been there quite six weeks when found - from August.
There was no mark of a garter on the leg, and there were no corns on the foot, which was well
shaped.
"Mr. Hibbert, M.R.C.S., also gave evidence,
this being on the measurement of the limb, which corresponded, he agreed, with the body and arm, and would be that of a woman about 5ft. 8in. or 5ft. 8 1/2 in. high.
"Inspector Marshall stated that he had no further evidence to offer. The police were still
pursuing inquiries.
"The Coroner then summed up the case, and
pointed out that there was no evidence of the
identity or of the cause of death. The medical evidence was that the body had been cut up after
death, and that no mortal wounds had been discovered. The jury had before them the surmise that no one would so mutilate a body except for
the purpose of concealing an identity, which,
once established, might lead to the detection of a terrible murder. The body, it was clear, was
that of a woman above 25 years of age, who had not died of a disease, for the pleurisy was an
old one; but beyond that fact that they could not
go except by supposition. He left it to the jury
to say whether they would return a verdict of
"Found Dead" or of "Wilful Murder" against some
person unknown.
"The jury, after a brief consultation, found a verdict of "Found Dead," and were then discharged, the police being left, as the Coroner
said, with the charge of solving the mystery."
__________________________________________________
The police, of course, never did officially solve
it. The events in the East End would explain
a lack of interest in the Whitehall sideshow, although one would think the police might see
such similarities as to subsume it as part of
the series.
But that is just it - the similarities are not
strong enough to subsume it. First, note that
the jury (a very careful one) came to a conclusion based on what Bond made clear. There
was no proof this was a murder. The autopsy of
the remains found mutilations, it is true - but
no knife cuts were found that suggested a
murderous cause of death. The jury concluded
a woman's body was "found dead". That is all it
could conclude.
The Coroner did suggest that the mutilations were
made to hide the victim's identity, and if more
was learned it would show a "terrible murder", but the supposition could only go so far.
If, officially, the Whitehall corpse only showed
an unknown woman was found dead, it was not
sufficiently strong to make the logical jump that
the unknown woman was murdered. Perhaps the victim had died while in bed with a lover who
panicked when she died of natural causes, and
cut up the body - not a murder but an attempt to
hide an embarrassing love connection. Or a woman
who died in childbirth, or in an abortion - not
a planned murder. It was a mutilation, and so
were the Ripper Killings, but the Ripper did not
care to hide his victims' identities.
On the other hand, the news accounts of the
discovery of the remains did take place in the
month when the Ripper was quiet. Did he notice
the extensive mutilations of the Whitehall
Mystery creator. Did it "excite" him to go beyond his past street work, and do his own
thorough dissection of Mary Kelly?
I can't answer any question on the case. I will
make one point that may make the casual reader of this event to believe Jack was at the back of
Whitehall as well as Whitechapel. The daring or
nerve of bringing the corpse into the basement
vaults of the site for the new police headquarters, is suggested of the same twisted
humor Jack had.
Jeff |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 02 September 2001 - 04:49 pm | | Dear Jeff,
The use of the term "vault" is interesting...you have turned up a cryptic Jack of Spades. Wonder where the Club is located?
Rosey with the Big Heart:-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 02 September 2001 - 08:11 pm | | Dear Jeff,
I have the idea that Jack the Ripper was a
PROLIFIC serial killer...he had a wider geographical remit than hitherto suspected.
Dear Ed,
While I am impressed by many of your observations,
conjectures, on the Whitechapel murders...you can now begin to understand my reluctance to countenance the LOCALISED cabal theory. THIS THING
IS BIG!
Rosey :-) |
Author: R.J.P.
Sunday, 02 September 2001 - 10:04 pm | | Jeff, here's more gruesome business, one year later:
A THAMES MYSTERY
Early yesterday morning, almost simultaneously, two packages containing portions of a woman's body were discovered on the foreshore of the Thames. At half past 10 o'clock the attention of a stevedore named Regan was called, at Horselydown, to something floating in the water. On being got out it was found to contain the lower part of a woman's trunk cut in two pieces. It was rather loosely wrapped up in a piece of underclothing, and appeared to have been in the water for a comparatively short time. A boat containing some Thames policemen happened to be passsing at the moment, and the remains were conveyed with all speed to the riverside station at Wapping. Soon afterwards news was received that another portion of a woman's body had been picked up on the Surrey side of the river, just by the Albert-bridge. In this case the parcel contained the left leg and thigh of a woman who seemed to have been of good physical proportions. The limb was taken to Dr. Bond, of Westminster Hospital, and the case put into the hands of Detective-Inspector John Regan, of the Thames Division, and Detective-Inspector Tunbrige, of Scotland-yard. A careful examination of the contents of the bundle found at Horselydown left no doubt that they were portions of the body to which the leg discovered at Battersea belonged. This limb had been wrapped up in linen which corresponded to that used for enveloping the other remains and was marked "L.E. Fisher." Of course the police are inquiring whether a woman of that name is missing. In the opinion of the doctors the woman had been dead only 48 hours, and the body had then been dissected somewhat roughly by a person who must have had some knowledge of the joints of the human body. Appearances tend to prove that her death had been caused by an unlawful operation. It is supposed that she was about 25 years of age and 5ft. 6in. in height. There is no evidence to support the idea that a practical joke has been perpetrated by medical students. The banks of the river were searched for the missing parts of the body, but up to a late hour last night without success. It is though that by means of experiments with the tides and currents it may be possible to arrive at an approximate idea as the spot where the remains were thrown into the river.
--The Times 5 June 1889 |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 03 September 2001 - 12:30 am | | Rosemary - Your comment about finding a Jack of
Spades in the vault impressed me. Once more,
if he was responsible, Jack has trumped us.
Among killers he was one diamond in the rough.
As for the Club, the membership on this website
seem to be it's members.
RJP - There are plenty of examples of bodys or
parts of bodies turning up in the Thames. Back
in 1836 the pieces of Hannah Brown's body began
turning up after Christmas (when she was murdered
and cut up), and eventually led to her killer,
James Greenacre. In 1887 a woman's torso was found in the Thames (and is believed by Ivor
Edwards to be the remains of D'Onston Stevenson's
murdered wife). In late 1888 the body of Mr.
Monty Druitt turned up in the Thames. A very
neat mystery occurred in 1897, when a muscular and
tall man was found dread in the Thames. The man
was identified as a swindler from Germany named
Louis Von Vertheim by his current "wife". A year
later, Von Vertheim turned out not only to be
alive, but deadly, for he shot and killed diamond
and gold mining magnate Woolf Joel in the latter's
business office in Johannesburg (an anti-Semitic,
and anti-British local jury gave Von Vertheim the
benefit of the doubt that Joel may have drawn his
gun first, so he was acquitted - but exiled).
The identity of the dead person is not known, although George Dilnot (in The Story of Scotland
Yard) says it was a sailor who fell off a ship at
dock in the Thames.
I might as well add that the number of corpses
floating in the Thames was notable enough to play
an important role in the plot of Dickens' last
completed novel, Our Mutual Friend, which begins
with the discovery of one such body.
But aside for the limbs found in the Thames, the
corpse in the Whitehall Mystery were planted inside the vaults of the basement of a building
planned for police headquarters. Placing that
part of the remains their certainly was distinctly unusual.
Jeff |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 03 September 2001 - 06:03 am | | Like Chris George (see 31st August), I can only conclude that the Pinchin Street torso was included in the Whitechapel murders police file on account of where the body was found. In other respects it doesn't belong in the file - but then nor does Rose Mylett.
Following up Jeff's hard work (over 5,500 words), I've grabbed a copy of his postes and will submit them to the appropriate proof-reading checks some time so that they may be added to Press Reports. However, that's strictly a low priority job right now. Meanwhile, readers may wish to know that an alternative version of the inquest, taken from the Daily Telegraph, can be read at the Casebook Productions website. From the main menu, select Explore JTR / World Articles / Whitehall.
Regards, V. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 03 September 2001 - 06:14 am | | Dear Jeff,
I think you will find that Ivor Edwards has the Jack of Diamonds...in his sleeve!
Jack the Joker is still dealing a full house.
Rosey the Card.:-) |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 03 September 2001 - 12:10 pm | | Dear Rosemary,
Egad! We live in a house of cards, and the deck
is stacked!! I must put on my appropriate poker
face. :-(
[Except for you. :-) ]
Jeff the Gambler.
Viper - Thanks for taking care of those inquest
reports. The second day's report was fairly
simple, but the first one was really bad. Oh
that print!
Gratefully,
Jeff |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 03 September 2001 - 05:21 pm | | Rosie, I could tell you of several wierd events during my research, I am sure you would not believe me. A very strange phone call late at night from an office that closed at 1730 hours.
Files there on the folio one day, scratched out the next! ED. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 03 September 2001 - 07:55 pm | | Dear Ed,
It happens...the diligent researcher can be perceived as a mere curiousity or an intruder.
Rosey :-) |
Author: R.J.P.
Monday, 03 September 2001 - 11:04 pm | | Jeff--Many thanks for your diligent posts above. Yes, I agree that Whitehall is different than the others you mention, though I'd throw in the Pinchon Street torso as equally bizarre--the way it was announce beforehand. These two crimes have a 'theatrical' quality to them, very much like the Whitechapel murders, that makes me think that the perpetrator(s) were 'playing off' the Ripper notoriety. The death of Elizabeth Jackson, the so-called 'Thames Mystery', probably isn't of much ado to students of the Whitechapel crimes, but, for those interested, the Times coverage of the inquest can be found in the issues of June 9th, July 17th, and July 26th, 1889. One of the gruesome features of this case was the fact that, as the dismembered parts began showing up in the Thames, an extra liver turned up in Wapping. It was never discovered where this came from. Jackson came from Sloane Street near Chelsea & Knightsbridge, which makes me wonder if the 'torso' killings had a west-end connection, thinking back on the Rainham/Regent's canal victim. D'Onston is an interesting suspect, but if he did have a hand in the Rainham affair, it might be a mark against him as JtR, as it showed an knowledge of dismemberment which Jack evidently didn't have.
But on a different issue. I do wonder what the precise rules were for holding an inquest in 19th Century Britian. At times it seems like a strange combination of dire necessity coupled with mechanical red-tape. For instance, the inquests of Mary Kelly & MJ Druitt seem cursory to the point of ineptitude---why the heck didn't they ask the tough questions? Meanwhile, the writer Rupert Gould made the point that inquests were so imperative that once an inquest was even held for "a Peruvian mummy left unclaimed in the parcels-office of a London station". [In this case, the verdict was givn that the cause of death happened some many eons ago that it could not be ascertained.] Since we are speaking of the time before forensic science came into its own, I think that unlesss the coroner was a 'mover & a shaker' many of these inquests must have been a sort of ho-hum 'this must be got through' sort of affair. |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 05:50 am | | | Rosie, this is my conclusion also! ED |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 10:15 am | | Ed
I have been asking for evidence of diligence from you for several days.
You have yet to reply to my first questions.
Show me diligence |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 09:21 pm | | Dear Ed,
Put the blinkers and mufflers on and hit the hay..
if you have'nt already eaten it! We all look forward to the final chapter tomorrow.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 09:47 pm | | RJP - I loved Rupert Gould's books, ODDITIES and
ENIGMAS (I also have his book on the Loch Ness
Monster). A very discerning, skeptical investigator.
It really depended on the person who handled the
inquest as to whether or not the inquest would
really investigate the matters. The ones involved
in the Amelia Jeffs Case and the Whitehall Mystery
seemed to be fair minded, and determined to get
out whatever information was available. But I
always felt that some of the coroners in the
Whitechapel Case were under orders to get the
matters finished quickly because of the bad publicity the police, Home Secretary, and the
Government of Lord Salisbury were feeling. How
else to explain that horrendous moment when the
Coroner of the Miller's Court hearing, to put an
unruly jury into "a better frame of mind" showed
them the actual remains of Mary Kelly! I wonder
if a coroner could get away with that today.
Coroner's had tremendous power until the 1930s in
England. A forgotten case of 1930 finished this,
when a coroner went too far and nearly railroaded
a man into being found guilty by the inquest jury.
Richard Whitington-Egan wrote a book about it,
the case being that of Philip Yale Drew for the
murder of a shop owner.
Jeff |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 05 September 2001 - 12:27 pm | | Hi Jeff,
Didn't something similar happen at the inquest on the death of James Maybrick? I seem to remember reading that it was suggested that his death was probably due to being poisoned by his wife, Florence - a definite  I believe, for the inquest to air any suspicions against a named individual prior to trial - even in the 'good old days'.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 05 September 2001 - 06:56 pm | | Dear Jeff,
That ol' Father Thames appears to be a foci for murderous activity of one sort or another. When you say "theatrical"...did you mean a set-piece?
Sourcey Iaachus? Or have'nt you met the Queen of Punt...
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Wednesday, 05 September 2001 - 08:30 pm | | Dear Caz,
There was a tremendous amount of anti-Flo
propaganda leaking to the media of 1889. It is
hard to say how much it poisoned the jury at her
trial,but it must have done some damage.
Jeff |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 06 September 2001 - 04:34 am | | Yeah, Jeff, and people generally like to be seen going with the flow - and so they turned against Flo... evidence taking a jolly bank holiday.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Thursday, 06 September 2001 - 09:10 pm | | You're right Caz. They were against her until
they began to notice the evidence against some
of the prosecution witnesses at the trial, that
Flo's brilliant barrister Sir Charles Russell
found - against the maid as a sneak, and the
next door neighbor, and even against Michael.
What cemented public opinion in her favor was the
behavior of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, her judge, who apparently had a nervous breakdown while the trial was going on, and who demonstrated
it all to clearly in his final summation. A sad
conclusion to a distinguished legal career (and
the career of the father of one of the other
Ripper suspects, James Kenneth Stephen).
Jeff |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 07 September 2001 - 09:41 am | | Dear Jeff,
Found the Jack of Clubs! On a green hill faraway outside the CITY WALL.
Rosey :-) |
Author: jennifer pegg
Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 01:49 pm | | was the torso murder ever caught/someone ever convicted for the murders?
are there any books? |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 07:55 pm | | Dear Jennifer,
No. And no. Only the fleeting glimpse of an armed man legging it from the Thames Embankment. Joke?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 10:50 am | | Hi, Jennifer:
The Whitehall mystery was never solved and can be counted among a number of torso murders that took place in 1887-1889. Although some people count these murders among the Whitechapel murders, most authorities see them as being unrelated to the Ripper crimes. There is no book as such on the Whitehall mystery or on the torso murders although author R. Michael Gordon in Alias Jack the Ripper makes a case for George Chapman (Severin Klosowski) having been responsible for the torso murders, the five canonical Ripper crimes, various other unsolved murders in England and abroad, as well as the poisoning murders of his three common law wives for which he was hanged in 1903.
Best regards
Chris George
Best reg |
Author: jennifer pegg
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 02:03 pm | | is the book out of print?
i will try for it at the library otherwise.
is it agreed that it was a serial killing and that hte murders were related, or isnt enough known? |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 04:07 pm | | Hi, Jennifer:
The book by R. Michael Gordon was published within the last couple of years and can be ordered through Amazon. If your local library does not have it, they could probably order it for you through interlibrary loan. Not enough is known about the Whitehall murder to say if it was done by a serial killer but I should say that such murders are of a type usually done by serial killers.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 06:12 pm | | Jennifer,
A better explanation of the Whitehall murder is that it was not the work of a serial killer, but rather that of a local enforcer in the prostitution racket. Dismemberment would seem a practical way to cut down the size of the body for easier disposal.
David |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 07:49 pm | | Dear David,
Oh yeah...he ate the 15+ heads and limbs, then? It sounds awfully Polynnesian to me!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 08:34 pm | | Hi All,
A couple of ideas I have about Whitehall/Pinchin/Rainham mystery. They are pretty OUT THERE. But since there is virtually NO research out their on them, this is just something basically off the top of my head.
1.) Perhaps these were not murders. We have tales all over the world of Necrophilia, Occult uses for human remains, as well as those who just like to dig up dead bodies for the fun of it. Is it not possible that someone dug these bodies up, after they were recently interred. And took them away for their own perverse enjoyment? Dumping what they didn't need, or even getting rid of the remains after they were finished? Perhaps the dismemberment was their way of hiding the fact, in case these same bodies popped up on the same mortician's slab? After all, Ed Gein, (the noted Serial Killer, who some of the ideas behind Texas Chainsaw Massacre were based.) had dug up and reburied bodies for YEARS before he was ever caught.
2.) I know some don't like the idea of the MULTIPLE killers when it comes to Jack the Ripper. But this is an idea I sort of came up with, as a possibilty. If Jack did have an accomplice, there would need to be a link between him and the accomplice. So possibly the same murderer of the Rainham series was a Mentor to Jack.(After all the Rainham series started before Jack's work.) So maybe the Rainham killer was Jack's Mentor, going with Jack on his killings. Helping him in his work.(Maybe as a lookout, or helping him choose his victims, etc.) I know it's pretty HOLLYWOOD, in the fact that it's WAY out there. But just an idea that popped into my head.
Laters,
Chris H. |
Author: jennifer pegg
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 01:38 pm | | hello again,
could anyone tell me what the chelsea embankment murder and thee batersea park murder are and how they might relate to this and the other torso murders?
cheers
jennifer |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 30 April 2002 - 08:00 am | | Philip C Dowe...(or anyone else who wants to take up the challenge)
If you're out there Buddy. Need your words of wisdom ....no seriously.
If you were to make a profile of the Whitehall/Pinchin St murderer, would there be any similarities or differences between Him/them and Jack ??
If so, what ?
Its just out of curiosity.
Monty
 |
|
|
|
|
