Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Two series - one originator

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    I believe that no toxicology tests were carried out to prove or dispove anything was administered to her

    The question arose during the inquest at the Star and Garter on 15 June.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Bond Jackson Inquest.jpg Views:	0 Size:	26.7 KB ID:	594678


    Without the stomach and throat, the presence of drugs couldn't be determined.

    Trow, for some reason, also includes the 'brain' as important to this determination, but I'm not sure Bond actually said that. Maybe he did and I just haven't found it.

    Trow also wonders if particular care was taken to destroy the mouth, throat, and stomach because a poison had been used--perhaps something corrosive like chloroform. It's speculation, of course, but somewhat interesting.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post


      I am still concerned about what i term as play on words in relation to the term abortion you use. So for clarification let me see if I know where you stand on this

      You clearly using Dr Bonds report against the suggestion that she was subjected to any physical medical procedure which would have procured any form of an abortion.

      Originally posted by Debra Arif
      Yes. Dr Bond, with Hebbert his assistant, was the doctor who was there at the post mortem and gave evidence that there was no evidence that an abortion had occurred. An abortion is achieved when a foetus is delivered vaginally by the mother. When a woman gives birth vaginally there are definite obvious signs and these were always looked for in cases where a it was suspected an abortion had been performed. Dr Bond clearly describes the reasons why he made this conclusion, describing the condition of the vaginal passage, cervix, fourchette etc. parts of the body changed by a labour and birth.


      I don't understand what you mean about 'a play on words.
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott
      Digressing

      However I quote the following from your dissertaion "it was discovered that a piece of fine linen had been inserted into the back passage of the victim, and the fact that Elizabeth's uterus had been 'operated on' and removed from her body after death. This second fact was only disclosed at the inquest. There can be only one reason for the linen to be inserted in her rectum and thats when a female is trying to deliver a baby, so that in itself is an important fact to be considered in the death of Jackson
      Originally posted by Debra Arif
      You need to make it clearer that the only section of the above paragraph that comes from my written work on Casebook is the part you have put in bold, Trevor. The last sentence is not anything I have ever written. Are those your words Trevor? I think you should be more careful about quoting people accurately -

      If you are going to say a linen insertion in the back passage is used when "a female is trying to deliver a baby" as a fact, then you need to source that as you aren't medically qualified and I suspect you've never given birth either
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott
      So could she have been adminstered some noxious substance for that same purpose which might have resulted in her death, or could she have had a premature birth and died during that process?

      I believe that no toxicology tests were carried out to prove or dispove anything was administered to her
      Originally posted by Debra Arif
      Yes she could have been administered poison as I said and have said more than a dozen times. Different potions and poisons were used in these attempts at inducing a labour. The probable scenario then would be that Elizabeth died shortly after it was administered because, as Bond noted, there was no birth. Test were not carried out, again as I've said many times because the body parts that might indicate a poisoning were absent.
      The reason I don't rule out poisoning is that a lot of women died after successful abortions because an infection occurred following the introduction of un sterilised instruments in to the body and death occurred generally a few days later when a woman was home. This had not happened to Elizabeth
      .

      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott
      As I said I am happy to forward on any questions you may have.
      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Thanks, I will send you some this week.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

        Thanks, I will send you some this week.
        For some reason i am not able to reply in full to your post

        In relation to the piece of linen being found in the rectum of Jackson there are many historical sources to be found on the net as well as modern day explantions for enemas being used instead of inserting pieces of linen when a woman is delivering a baby, As I stated previously this is an important issue and goes to show that Jackson probaly died while trying to deliver a baby which may have been induced by someone administering a noxious substance, and I think that fact alone tends to rule out a Ripper style murder. As I doubt she would be wandering the streets with a piece of linen stuck up her rectum.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Christer.

          You have explained the similarities in the two series of killings, and I know you believe Lechmere to be the perpetrator of the crimes, but you don't go into detail about how he would have transported the parts and what time of day/night he could have done this (i.e into the Scotland Yard Vault), the most likely location of where he did his killing and dismemberment, did he bring all the parts at the same time to the vault, etc) Can you crudely detail that out for me? After death, what may have been his process of disposing the parts to Whitehall. That's my question I guess.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
            Christer.

            You have explained the similarities in the two series of killings, and I know you believe Lechmere to be the perpetrator of the crimes, but you don't go into detail about how he would have transported the parts and what time of day/night he could have done this (i.e into the Scotland Yard Vault), the most likely location of where he did his killing and dismemberment, did he bring all the parts at the same time to the vault, etc) Can you crudely detail that out for me? After death, what may have been his process of disposing the parts to Whitehall. That's my question I guess.
            Hi Jerry!

            I only just saw this post of yours. I have been on vacation, both abroad and in Sweden the last few weeks, and so I have not checked the boards. Vacation is vacation!

            You want to know how I detail a scenario with Charles Lechmere as the killer and dumper of the body founbd in Whitehall on October 2, 1888.
            I find that hard to do.
            It´s not that I think that it would have been in any way impossible for Lechmere to accomplish it, but speculating about just how he would have gone about it seems a more or less futile thing to do in many ways. I tend to reason the other way around - it is perfectly obvious to me that Lechmere was the killer of Polly Nichols, that means that he is almost certainly the man known as Jack the Ripper, I have even less doubt that the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same man, and so the inescapable conclusion for me is that Charles Lechmere was the man behind the Whitehall deed. There is a long and clear chain of links that fit together perfectly as far as I´m concerned, and so I tend to simply accept that he solved whatever practical problems there were to solve in order to place the torso in the cellar vaults of the New Scotland Yard.
            In cases like these, what we tend to perceive as problems are often dissolved by the solutions, once they are at hand; "Oh, dear - was it THAT simple?", sort of.

            In a way, what I would like for you to do, would be to point to whether or not there are any matters that are unsurmountable in your view. Before I am aware of that, I think it may be a waste of time to build a timeline or something such. The parcel in the vault was checked out on a Tuesday, but it had been observed already on the Monday, whereas one of the working men said that it was not in the vault on the preceding Saturday. Thomas Bond was inclined towards a long time having passed with the parcel down in the vault. So it is hard to say what kind of hurdles Lechmere could or would have run into chronologically.

            Practically, what he would have needed was a method of transporting the parts to Whitehall, a method of entering the premises and then he would have had to find his way to the vault where the torso was stored. Could he have managed this? He was a carman, the entrance door in Cannon Street was quite possible to pass through and there was no obstacle sealing off the vault where the body was found, so yes, it cannot be ruled out that Lechmere could do it. Most students of the case would rate the access to the vault as the toughest matter, but since there was no lock to keep him out, the vault was technically accessible. There is of course also the possibility that Lechmere had advance knowledge by way of some contact of his; it is impossible to say. We cannot even rule out that he used somebody else to place the torso there for him, to be frank. It is an open matter in so many ways, and as I say, once the answer is at hand, it may well be that we go "Geeez, how simple!"

            The placing of the torso in the vault can easily be overcome, I feel. What cannot be easily overcome is the wealth of similarities between the two series, teling us that the man who killed the Ripper victims was also the man who saw to it that the Whitehall torso was placed in that vault. To me, that weighing up is not hard to do, but I would welcome hearing about any specific concerns you may have that you feel could rule the carman out!

            All the best!
            "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

            Comment


            • Hi Christer. I hope you had a relaxing time on vacation!

              For me, it's not as easy as saying I think Lechmere killed Nichols and the two series are connected, so that means he dumped the Whitehall parts in the Police Building. I think you would agree that even a jury would have to hear about each case separately before making a decision on a killer. I realize my question requires a lot of speculation and probably not even a feasible task. I thought you had a scenario in mind on how he MAY have been able to carry out each suspected crime. That would only make your case stronger, no?

              "Most students of the case would rate the access to the vault as the toughest matter, but since there was no lock to keep him out, the vault was technically accessible."

              There actually was a lock that the workers knew how to access by using a string.

              As far as the actual placement of the parts in that particular vault, I think I could argue a strong case against anyone unfamiliar with the layout of the land. If one was NOT familiar with it, common sense says they would have just thrown the parts into the closest area they could find and be done with it. If the shock of eventually finding the body in Scotland Yard was the goal, it didn't need to be in a VERY obscure vault in the basement to achieve that goal. In fact, out in the open would have had a greater effect (and sooner to discover) I would think.

              "We cannot even rule out that he used somebody else to place the torso there for him, to be frank."

              You've not mentioned an accomplice in the past that I recall?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
                Hi Christer. I hope you had a relaxing time on vacation!

                For me, it's not as easy as saying I think Lechmere killed Nichols and the two series are connected, so that means he dumped the Whitehall parts in the Police Building. I think you would agree that even a jury would have to hear about each case separately before making a decision on a killer. I realize my question requires a lot of speculation and probably not even a feasible task. I thought you had a scenario in mind on how he MAY have been able to carry out each suspected crime. That would only make your case stronger, no?

                "Most students of the case would rate the access to the vault as the toughest matter, but since there was no lock to keep him out, the vault was technically accessible."

                There actually was a lock that the workers knew how to access by using a string.

                As far as the actual placement of the parts in that particular vault, I think I could argue a strong case against anyone unfamiliar with the layout of the land. If one was NOT familiar with it, common sense says they would have just thrown the parts into the closest area they could find and be done with it. If the shock of eventually finding the body in Scotland Yard was the goal, it didn't need to be in a VERY obscure vault in the basement to achieve that goal. In fact, out in the open would have had a greater effect (and sooner to discover) I would think.

                "We cannot even rule out that he used somebody else to place the torso there for him, to be frank."

                You've not mentioned an accomplice in the past that I recall?
                Hi Jerry!

                Would producing a detailed suggestion about how Lechmere could have done the deed "only make my case stronger"? Personally, I don´t think so. If I was to do that, I fear that many would think that I had locked myself to a solution. And I am anxious not to do that. Compare, if you will, with how you say that I have never mentioned an accomplice in the past, as if I had now made some sort of 180 degree turn in my reasoning. What I tried to get across was that there are many possibilities that are open to anybody who reasons that Lechmere could have been the Whitehall killer, and certainly, it cannot be ruled out that somebody else brought the torso to the vault for him. Does that mean that I find it the likelier thing? Nope. It only means that I want to point out that possible solutions of many kinds are at hand.

                You say that there was a lock that the workers knew how to access using a string. True - but I was speaking of the inside of the building, not the fencing around it. About that, I wrote "the entrance door in Cannon Street was quite possible to pass through". This, I grounded on Ernest Edges testiminy from the inquest:
                As to the gate, which opens with a latch, I left that in the usual way. I am sure it was shut. To open the gate it was only necessary to pull the string.
                By the jury: The string would not attract the attention except of persons who knew about such buildings.


                To me, that sounds very much as if the construction was one that was easy enough to open. And even if Lechmere was originally not the kind of person who was familiar with how it worked (something we can´t tell), he may have seen it opened by any of the workers at any time - plus the option of climbing the fence was always going to be there. Somebody did, as per some report, proving the possibility.

                We then arrive at common sense and the applicability of that commodity within a serial killer who may well have been a narcissist. Can we count on such a thing on his behalf? I think not. You say that placing the body out in the open would have made for a quicker discovery, and I agree that it would be the likely thing. But I don´t agree with any suggestion that the killer must have prioritized as quick a discovery as possible. If he could get more buzz from a discovery by using a specific location, I do not see why he would not have had the patience to wait. And in that context, I think it is interesting that the torso was found in the vault where the workers kept their tools, rather than in any vault where they had no reason to come on a regular basis. Using that particular vault would ensure that the torso was found, would it not?
                Of course, that brings us to the question how Lechmere could have known that there was such a vault in the building, and where to look for it. Then again, if we turn it around and accept that Lechmere was the killer and that he wanted to place the torso in the foundations of the New Scotland Yard building, how can we rule out that he came upon the vault, noticed the tools and opted for it as his best choice?

                And, of course, returning full circle to the option that Lechmere employed somebody else to do the job for him, we can see that the possibility cannot be ruled out. There are other options too, involving how Lechmere could have overheard or actively found out about matters in any pub frequented by any of the workmen from the site. Regardless of which possible solution we look at, it takes various amounts of faith, but in no scenario can I see that the amount of faith required is too large to be possible.

                I accept and respect how you will not say that the links in the chain tells us that Lechmere was the person who saw to it that the torso was dumped in the New Scotland Yard building. Personally, though, I will stand by how I think this is exactly what the evidence implicates. One has to jump from ice floe to ice floe to connect it, but it is all ice from the same water that we use in the process. The four 1887-1889 torso murders were perpetrated by the same man, Hebbert is very adamant about it and points out how each and every cut is the exact same type of cut in all the cases. So that seals that particular deal. Jackson and Chapman both suffered having their bellies cut open from sternum to groin, having their abdominal walls taken away in sections, just like how an Anatomical Venus has a belly lid that can be lifted off, they both had their uteri taken out, they both had their rings stolen from their fingers, they both were victims of skilled cutters, they both were prostitutes, and they were both killed by somebody who seemingly was unable to decapitate by way of knife. That is a list of similarities, some of them rare in the extreme, that links the two series together - if we are not dealing with the greatest set of coincidences in criminal history, we have the same killer for both series. And the circumstances involved in the Nichols deed tell us that this killer was with great certainty an East End carman by the name of Charles Lechmere.

                And that brings us to the 11th of September 1889, the day after the fourth of the 1887-1889 torsos was found in a railway arch in Pinchin Street, where incidentally Charles Lechmere spent his formative years and where his family returned to live again and again. On this very day, the Echo reported about how a bloodied apron had been found at the construction site of St Phillips Church. A bloodied apron, just as was the case in Goulston Street, after the Eddowes murder.

                And if we take a ruler and draw a straight line from the arch up to 22 Doveton Street, where Charles Lechmere lived, we find that the roughly one kilometer long line passes more or less exactly over the construction site where the apron was found.

                Personally, I think this is very much harder to explain away than it is to produce scenarios in which Lechmere could have accessed the vault under the New Scotland Yard building. When I put it all on the scales, the result is obvious to me. Which is why I am willing to say that there is a chain of links leading us to how Charles Lechmere was behind the torso in Whitehall.

                All the best!
                "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                Comment


                • Thanks Christer,

                  "And even if Lechmere was originally not the kind of person who was familiar with how it worked (something we can´t tell), he may have seen it opened by any of the workers at any time - plus the option of climbing the fence was always going to be there. Somebody did, as per some report, proving the possibility."- Christer

                  To see it opened by one of the workers, he would have had to have been on the site. That is part of my original question. Do you have evidence that his work as a carman for Pickfords brought him to that site? As far as the witness from Llanelly that saw someone climb the hoarding on Cannon Row, he was found to be a workman and was questioned. Regarding the latch and the hoarding, Inspector Marshall had this to say:

                  Is it possible to get over it? - There is a place in Cannon-row where a person could easily get over, but there is no indication of anybody having done so. The latch which has been referred to is not likely to have been noticed except by a person acquainted with buildings.


                  "The four 1887-1889 torso murders were perpetrated by the same man, Hebbert is very adamant about it and points out how each and every cut is the exact same type of cut in all the cases."-Christer

                  I'm not arguing this point. But, by your reasoning the reverse is true, if it can be shown that Lechmere could not be responsible for the Whitehall crime, he could not have killed Polly Nichols or any of the other women. Both torso and Ripper crimes.


                  Here are a few examples of witness testimony claiming the difficulty getting to that particular vault.

                  Charles Brown (Assistant Foreman)- Do you think it would require a previous knowledge of the building to get to the vaults? - Yes, I do. Why? - Because no one would think of going to the place where the parcel was found unless he knew something about it.


                  Thomas Hawkins (Detective A Division)- What did you notice about the vaults? - They were very dark, so dark that it was impossible for a stranger to reach them without artificial light. The body was lying across a trench.

                  Frederick Wildbore (Carpenter)-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 the 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 daytime, and people who did not know the place could not have found there (sic) way there.

                  Last point.

                  "And in that context, I think it is interesting that the torso was found in the vault where the workers kept their tools, rather than in any vault where they had no reason to come on a regular basis."- Christer

                  Frederick Wildbore- Has this vault been used for putting your tools in for any length of time? - For some weeks until the last three weeks. I always placed my tools there from Saturday to Monday, because I considered them safer there than in the locker. I have not noticed any similar parcel before.

                  A locker had been built to lock tools up recently in a different part of the basement. Not the vault in question in other words. Wildbore kept HIS tools in the same vault the torso and leg were found because he considered them safer.

                  All the best to you as well.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
                    Thanks Christer,

                    "And even if Lechmere was originally not the kind of person who was familiar with how it worked (something we can´t tell), he may have seen it opened by any of the workers at any time - plus the option of climbing the fence was always going to be there. Somebody did, as per some report, proving the possibility."- Christer

                    To see it opened by one of the workers, he would have had to have been on the site. That is part of my original question. Do you have evidence that his work as a carman for Pickfords brought him to that site? As far as the witness from Llanelly that saw someone climb the hoarding on Cannon Row, he was found to be a workman and was questioned. Regarding the latch and the hoarding, Inspector Marshall had this to say:

                    Is it possible to get over it? - There is a place in Cannon-row where a person could easily get over, but there is no indication of anybody having done so. The latch which has been referred to is not likely to have been noticed except by a person acquainted with buildings.


                    "The four 1887-1889 torso murders were perpetrated by the same man, Hebbert is very adamant about it and points out how each and every cut is the exact same type of cut in all the cases."-Christer

                    I'm not arguing this point. But, by your reasoning the reverse is true, if it can be shown that Lechmere could not be responsible for the Whitehall crime, he could not have killed Polly Nichols or any of the other women. Both torso and Ripper crimes.


                    Here are a few examples of witness testimony claiming the difficulty getting to that particular vault.

                    Charles Brown (Assistant Foreman)- Do you think it would require a previous knowledge of the building to get to the vaults? - Yes, I do. Why? - Because no one would think of going to the place where the parcel was found unless he knew something about it.


                    Thomas Hawkins (Detective A Division)- What did you notice about the vaults? - They were very dark, so dark that it was impossible for a stranger to reach them without artificial light. The body was lying across a trench.

                    Frederick Wildbore (Carpenter)-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 the 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 daytime, and people who did not know the place could not have found there (sic) way there.

                    Last point.

                    "And in that context, I think it is interesting that the torso was found in the vault where the workers kept their tools, rather than in any vault where they had no reason to come on a regular basis."- Christer

                    Frederick Wildbore- Has this vault been used for putting your tools in for any length of time? - For some weeks until the last three weeks. I always placed my tools there from Saturday to Monday, because I considered them safer there than in the locker. I have not noticed any similar parcel before.

                    A locker had been built to lock tools up recently in a different part of the basement. Not the vault in question in other words. Wildbore kept HIS tools in the same vault the torso and leg were found because he considered them safer.

                    All the best to you as well.
                    Yes, Jerry, to have seen a worker open the door, Lechmere must have been in place when it happened. That is true. And maybe he was, maybe he was not. To hear about how the door was opened, Lechmere would have needed to overhear a discussion between workers from the site. And he may have done, just as he may not have done.

                    In the end, it could simply be a case of Lechmere taking a look at the door after working hours, and saying "Oh, look - a string. I wonder how that works? Let´s see here - aha!"

                    I think we are both well aware that the possibility that Lechmere accomplished it cannot be ruled out, and once we arrive at that stage, any further discussion will be in vain when it comes to proving any sort of point. It is impossible to weigh up the likelihoods as such. The same must go for scaling the fence, I´m sure.

                    You reverse my argument and say that if Lechmere can be shown not to have committed the Whitehall crime, then he will not be the killer of Nichols either. But Lechmere cannot be shown not to have been able to commit the Whitehall crime.
                    Looking at things from reverse angles is a healthy exercise, though; say that there were two killers, strangely bent on doing the same kind of weird damage to their respective victims, stealing rings and so on. If this was so, just how much of a coincidence would it be for the Torso killer to choose Pinchin Street, the pivotal street in the Lechmere family history, to place the torso? There were more than a thousand inhabited streets in Whitechapel alone in 1891, and to this, we should add hundreds and hundreds of other streets in St Georges.
                    The chance of the Torso killer just happening to choose the East End street where the Lechmere´s always returned would be a slim one indeed!
                    But of course, coincidences happen.
                    But do they stack up?
                    We should also add how the straight line drawn from the railway arch in Pinchin Street up to 22 Doveton Street passes more or less exactly over the place at St Phillips where a bloody rag was found the day after the dumped body was found. And speaking about drawn lines, that is where I draw the line for how many freak coincidences I am willing to accept.

                    It is all there, in great and exact detail. One single Lechmere-marked street out of more than a thousand streets. A line from the dumping site that fits perfectly with Lechmere being the man who put the rag at St Phillips.

                    "When the coincidences add up, when they mount up - and they mount up in his case! - it becomes one coincidence too many." (James Scobie)

                    You speak of people who said it would be difficult to find the vault if you had no previous knowledge of it. It was a vault, and there was a way to it. leading through open doorways, as I understand it. It was not sealed off in any way. That means that there was a way to it and it could be found. One man said it would require artificial light, but how is that a problem if Lechmere did carry such a light? Why would he not, in the utter darkness described? And it seems that the darkness was the main obstacle named by your witnesses, like for example Wildbore.

                    Regardless of where the torso was found, with the exception of the paths we know Lechmere used, it could always be asked "But why would he have been there?". It could always be demanded "Put him on the spot and explain why he was there!"
                    At the end of the day, I don´t think that I am the one who needs to show that Lechmere could have done it, and how he would have gone about it. I think the only evidence value there can be is if anyone can prove that Lechmere can NOT have done it. That is where leverage can be applied - if the evidence can be supplied. Until that happens, I have little doubt that the evidence puts it beyond reasonable doubt that we have the same perpetrator in both series - and that if that perpetrator was not Charles Lechmere, then God played a large number of pranks of absolutely tremendeous dimensions on him.

                    Again, all the best!

                    "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                    Comment


                    • Is there any evidence that the police investigation into the Whitehall Mystery was focused on it being an 'inside job', or did the police feel that wasn't a prerequisite? They after all had more information at hand than us?

                      Clearly lack of definitive proof that Lechmere's work took him to those building works does not clear him.
                      His work very easily could have taken him there. As anyone who knows anything knows, the Pickfords work schedules aren't available.

                      But equally, if the culprit (Lechmere or not) wanted specifically to dump parts in the foundations of New Scotland Yard for his own gratuitous purposes, then the culprit may well have made it his business to 'scope' out the works - to stalk the site and familiarise himself with it before hand. That is not exactly beyond the realms of possibility.
                      Indeed I should say that is a more likely possibility than a worker on the site choosing to take body parts into work with him and buring them in his own workplace.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                        Is there any evidence that the police investigation into the Whitehall Mystery was focused on it being an 'inside job', or did the police feel that wasn't a prerequisite? They after all had more information at hand than us?

                        Clearly lack of definitive proof that Lechmere's work took him to those building works does not clear him.
                        His work very easily could have taken him there. As anyone who knows anything knows, the Pickfords work schedules aren't available.

                        But equally, if the culprit (Lechmere or not) wanted specifically to dump parts in the foundations of New Scotland Yard for his own gratuitous purposes, then the culprit may well have made it his business to 'scope' out the works - to stalk the site and familiarise himself with it before hand. That is not exactly beyond the realms of possibility.
                        Indeed I should say that is a more likely possibility than a worker on the site choosing to take body parts into work with him and buring them in his own workplace.
                        I very much agree. I would also add that it would be odd if the killer placed body parts from just the one victim inside his own working place, whereas he otherwise placed them well away from it.

                        Another point:
                        Charles William Brown testified at the inquest that tools had been stolen from the building site. That, apparently, was the reason for why Wildbore and others left their tools in the vault where the torso was found: for fear of otherwise having them stolen. Reasonably, the thefts had occurred outside of working hours - meaning that the thieves were able to access the working site. And if they could get in, then so could the killer. And it seems it would have been easy enough, going by what Ernest Edge said at the inquest:
                        "As to the gate, which opens with a latch, I left that in the usual way. I am sure it was shut. To open the gate it was only necessary to pull the string.
                        By the jury: The string would not attract the attention except of persons who knew about such buildings."


                        The gate was shut, not locked. And pulling on the string would open it. Edge added that the string would not "attract attention" from people in general, but surely, anybody who wished to access the site outside working hours and who approached the gate, would see the string. And since pulling on it was all it took to open the gate, it seems very little of a mystery to me how the killer may have gotten in.



                        "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                        Comment


                        • Yes... although most theft of tools is done by fellow workmates!
                          Having said that, the site was clearly anything but secure.
                          And as you said this case opened with a body part found in the Thames...
                          - and the cutting was in line with the other Torsos...
                          - and this was in the midst of the street-based Ripper sequence of murders which hints at a reason for putting parts in New Scotland Yard.
                          None of which lends themselves to a one-off inside job theory.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                            Is there any evidence that the police investigation into the Whitehall Mystery was focused on it being an 'inside job', or did the police feel that wasn't a prerequisite? They after all had more information at hand than us?

                            Clearly lack of definitive proof that Lechmere's work took him to those building works does not clear him.
                            His work very easily could have taken him there. As anyone who knows anything knows, the Pickfords work schedules aren't available.

                            But equally, if the culprit (Lechmere or not) wanted specifically to dump parts in the foundations of New Scotland Yard for his own gratuitous purposes, then the culprit may well have made it his business to 'scope' out the works - to stalk the site and familiarise himself with it before hand. That is not exactly beyond the realms of possibility.
                            Indeed I should say that is a more likely possibility than a worker on the site choosing to take body parts into work with him and buring them in his own workplace.

                            Hi Edward.

                            I feel this first article expresses the opinion of the workmen at the time. It sounds to me they thought the perpetrator may be one of their own.

                            The Star
                            Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom.
                            LONDON. WEDNESDAY, 10 OCTOBER, 1888.


                            Getting Evidence for the Whitehall Inquest.

                            It is expected that Inspector Marshall will furnish further important evidence at the adjourned inquest into the Whitehall mystery on 22 Oct. The spot where the body was found is still watched by the police, who will continue to guard the place until after the inquest. The fact that no stranger could have put the parcel in such an out-of-the-way corner considerably narrows the inquiry. Other workmen will be called who will prove that the parcel was not in the vault on the Saturday before the Monday when it was found. The men engaged on the works have taken the matter in hand, and are evidently endeavoring to ascertain the guilty one.


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post

                              I very much agree. I would also add that it would be odd if the killer placed body parts from just the one victim inside his own working place, whereas he otherwise placed them well away from it.

                              Another point:
                              Charles William Brown testified at the inquest that tools had been stolen from the building site. That, apparently, was the reason for why Wildbore and others left their tools in the vault where the torso was found: for fear of otherwise having them stolen. Reasonably, the thefts had occurred outside of working hours - meaning that the thieves were able to access the working site. And if they could get in, then so could the killer. And it seems it would have been easy enough, going by what Ernest Edge said at the inquest:
                              "As to the gate, which opens with a latch, I left that in the usual way. I am sure it was shut. To open the gate it was only necessary to pull the string.
                              By the jury: The string would not attract the attention except of persons who knew about such buildings."


                              The gate was shut, not locked. And pulling on the string would open it. Edge added that the string would not "attract attention" from people in general, but surely, anybody who wished to access the site outside working hours and who approached the gate, would see the string. And since pulling on it was all it took to open the gate, it seems very little of a mystery to me how the killer may have gotten in.
                              I feel the person that placed the parts was already in. And so was the woman.

                              The Daily Telegraph
                              TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1888


                              Edge being recalled repeated his assertion that the remains were not in the vault on the Saturday, as they were discovered in the very place where he looked for the hammer.

                              The Coroner: Do you think it possible that the parcel was there without your seeing it? - I am sure it was not there.


                              If true, then perhaps it was moved from another location in the basement?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post

                                I feel the person that placed the parts was already in. And so was the woman.

                                The Daily Telegraph
                                TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1888


                                Edge being recalled repeated his assertion that the remains were not in the vault on the Saturday, as they were discovered in the very place where he looked for the hammer.

                                The Coroner: Do you think it possible that the parcel was there without your seeing it? - I am sure it was not there.


                                If true, then perhaps it was moved from another location in the basement?
                                perhaps someone was playing the game of pass the parcel !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X