Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Whitehall Mystery and Jack the Ripper

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
    Yes Christer, I believe the face, IIRC, was found at Limehouse. Other parts near Battersea, etc.

    They did state though, that the heavier parts of the body were probably dumped close to where the river Wandle runs into the Thames. That area, as I pointed out earlier, is near Putney or Parson's Green.
    A shoulder was found on the 8:th of September way out east, in the vicinity of Poplar, and the pelvis on the day after, even further east, by Woolwich, just about. If, that is, the map in Trows book can be relied upon...
    "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

    Comment


    • September 1873 Annual Register
      Source:http://historum.com/european-history...a-mystery.html

      The piece picked up at Woolwich is the only one which has found its way below the entry to the canals having London traffic; and another remarkable fact is, that each piece has been brought to light on an ebb-tide, each lower and lower down the river. This would seem to indicate that the heavier portions at least were committed to the river not very far from the place where the Wandle enters the Thames, and had washed down with the tide to where they were found- one to Battersea, which is a couple of miles from the Wandle, and the other part a little below that, at a few hours later.

      Medical opinion agree that the body was cut up but a short time before it was committed to the water; that death was caused by a blow on the right temple- a blow, the scalp shows, hard enough to have crushed in the skull, and so to have caused instant death, and that the parts first found had been in the water but a few hours.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
        September 1873 Annual Register
        Source:http://historum.com/european-history...a-mystery.html

        The piece picked up at Woolwich is the only one which has found its way below the entry to the canals having London traffic; and another remarkable fact is, that each piece has been brought to light on an ebb-tide, each lower and lower down the river. This would seem to indicate that the heavier portions at least were committed to the river not very far from the place where the Wandle enters the Thames, and had washed down with the tide to where they were found- one to Battersea, which is a couple of miles from the Wandle, and the other part a little below that, at a few hours later.

        Medical opinion agree that the body was cut up but a short time before it was committed to the water; that death was caused by a blow on the right temple- a blow, the scalp shows, hard enough to have crushed in the skull, and so to have caused instant death, and that the parts first found had been in the water but a few hours.
        This is the piece from the Lancet, I believe. Yes, I know about the suggestion of the Wandle, and I am not saying that this could not be true. But when dealing with tidal rivers, there must always be an element of uncertainty.

        On the whole, it was established in other cases that all the dumping could not have been made from one place and at one occasion only, and we will never be able to fully account for when and where the parts were dumped.

        I find the matter interesting - but not much of a path leading to any certain insight.
        "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
          This is the piece from the Lancet, I believe.
          According to the website it is from the 1873 Annual Register. He posted the article in its entirety. Not that it matters, just sayin.

          You don't think the approximate location the bodies were dumped into the river is an important insight? I do. No we cannot prove the exact location, I agree with you on that, but if body parts were being dumped on the far west end of town, to me that is important to know in terms of where he may live or work. Especially since she was apparently murdered shortly before and immediately dumped. Edward even alluded to that in the Pinchin case.

          Comment


          • If we look at the Torsos (irrespective of the other Whitechapel Murders) and presume most of these are by the same person, then I would suggest that the Pinchin Street case is very strongly suggestive that the base of operation for the person responsible was close to Pinchin Street. This is because it seems likely that this torso was dumped quickly with little thought. At least this torso was disposed of in a way that was unlike the other cases.

            From memory some limbs of other torso cases were left inland - possibly casually thrown. Perhaps the culprit was transporting them and was worried about being stopped and so chucked them. Or perhaps there may have been a deliberate positioning. From memory some were put in a canal.
            The Whitehall body parts seem to have been left in that location quite deliberately.
            Quite a few bits of the various bodies were never found and presumably went out to sea or sunk or were eaten by a scavenger creature of some kind.
            The other parts were thrown in the River - but it is difficult to establish where they were thrown from for the reasons discussed here by Christer and Jerry.
            It is of course likely that the bits thrown in the Thames were deposited at a variety of locations.

            The diverse locations (between Whitehall and Pinchin Street at the very least) tells me that the culprit had a means of transportation - a horse and cart. This horse and cart could have taken the culprit with his secreted body parts further up or down stream - even crossing the river - to be deposited.

            So I would suggests the only real clue as to the base of operations was Pinchin Street.
            None of the other locations where body parts were found - in or out of water - tell us really where he may have lived.

            Comment


            • Unless it occurred to the killer that it might be amusing to drop the torso in Whitechapel. Someone who deposits body parts in New Scotland Yard might well have that kind of sense of humour.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
                According to the website it is from the 1873 Annual Register. He posted the article in its entirety. Not that it matters, just sayin.

                You don't think the approximate location the bodies were dumped into the river is an important insight? I do. No we cannot prove the exact location, I agree with you on that, but if body parts were being dumped on the far west end of town, to me that is important to know in terms of where he may live or work. Especially since she was apparently murdered shortly before and immediately dumped. Edward even alluded to that in the Pinchin case.
                Of course I think it is important where the parts were dumped, Jerry. I would absolutely love to know it! The problem is that I think it is impossible to pin down. Even if a body was dumped in the river relatively shortly after having been dismembered, the killer could well have had time to transport the pieces to a location far from where the dismemberment was done. We are left with so many parameters that can vary that I think we are at risk to get things very wrong if we allow ourselves some sort of certainty.

                Like Edward says, the Pinchin Street torso is seemingly the one that offers most of a clue as to location. After that, we are at much more of a loss. Everything points to the killer having a means of transport at his disposal, and so, even if he had a fixed bolthole where he killed all victims, he may well have done the dumping in many spots. If the Thames had not been a tidal river, we would have a slightly easier task - but it would certainly have been difficult enough even if this was so.
                "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
                  What about the smell...? The torso was full of maggots and must have been badly decomposed. And badly decomposed bodies smell a lot.

                  I have often asked myself why this was not noticed. Did it smell a lot in the vaults, obscuring the smell of decomposition? I would not have thought so. Or were the vaults extremely effectively ventilated, slowly mummifying the torso with no detectable smell? Sounds odd too, given the maggots feasting away at it. And I think the torso was immersed in spirit by the medicos to halt the decomposition process.

                  To me, that speaks for the workmens stance, whereas the blackened space behind the torso speaks against it.

                  Never easy, is it?
                  Hi Christer,

                  Following up on this thread, I ran across a news clip that does state a workman noticed the smell. So, in my opinion, if the torso was there previously, someone surely would have noticed the smell. This man claims he was in that very corner the Friday before and the bundle was not there.

                  Hull Daily Mail
                  Wednesday, October 3, 1888, Hull, North Humberside


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
                    Debs, Christer,

                    Dr. Bond estimated the body may have been dumped near 6 weeks prior due to the black fluid from the body soaking into the wall and the depression in the ground left by the weight of the body.

                    After reading a little of modern forensic on body decomposition and his mention of the skin being black with maggots it sounds like the body was in a stage of decay just prior to dry decay called Black Putrification. This can occur around 10-25 days after death and the skin is in a 'creamy' condition.

                    Here is one of many sites discussing the different stages of decay. http://australianmuseum.net.au/movie...-decomposition

                    With that in mind, I would think that the second the body touched the wall the body fluids and substance would begin to adhere to the wall. The organisms were hard at work at this point and the decay was advanced, as Dr. Bond pointed out. It would be like placing something very sticky on a counter, the goo would transfer immediately and would stick to the counter. As far as the depression in the dirt goes, I would think any ground that was soft enough would depress from a significant amount of weight placed on it immediately. Wouldn't it?
                    Hi Jerry
                    I am just bumping this post of yours up as I recently found Thomas Bond's report for the treasury on the 1892 Althorp dismemberment murder of Annie Pritchard in The Westminster Hospital reports and he discusses putrefaction of flesh, maggotts and lime in relation to the Althorp case and it's effect on decaying flesh, which you may be interested in..
                    https://archive.org/details/westmins...p&view=theater

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X