Same motive = same killer

[Joshua Rogan]

Like I said earlier, Rocky, if it were Frederick Wildbore or (H)Edge, they could have entered without climbing the hoarding. They would have known the string trick.

Weren't there two gates in Cannon Row (plus one on the Embankment), only one was left 'unlocked'? If the men with the barrow came to the locked gate, it would probably have been easier to climb over and unlock that one rather than wheel their load to the other gate and open it with the string, no?
Also, does the sighting "at an hour when the place was practically deserted" translate to out of working hours?

[Sam Flynn]

what does "The abdominal region of the body was heavily mutilated, and it was reported that the handiwork was eerily reminiscent of the Ripper's work; at least one account states that the womb was missing" amount to from casebook pinchin torso page?

Hebbert stated that the peritoneal cavity was not opened. Whether a single 15" wound constitutes heavy mutilation is open to question, and there is little else to suggest that the handiwork was similar to the Ripper's. News reports, particularly early ones, were often wildly inaccurate and sensationalised - here's a good example:

"At 3:30 o'clock Tuesday morning a policeman found the dead body of a fallen woman living at the corner of a railway arch on Cable street, Whitechapel. An examination of the remains showed that the head and arms had been cut off and carried away and the stomach ripped open, the intestines lying on the ground... The physicians who examined the body state that in their opinion the murder and mutilation occupied nearly an hour. It is surmised that the murderer carried off the head and arms in a bag. The murder is the worst of the whole series of Whitechapel murders."

That's from the Williamsport Sunday Grit, 15th September 1889, and is wrong on many counts. The full report goes on to describe the previous Whitechapel Murders, with some glaring inaccuracies.

(I can't find the single account about the uterus being taken, by the way, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were yet another spurious report along the lines of the one quoted above.)

and what exactly does 'there was a wound 15in. long through the external coats of the abdomen" mean, would the cut have drawn blood?

The cut would have drawn blood, but little else.

[RockySullivan]

Weren't there two gates in Cannon Row (plus one on the Embankment), only one was left 'unlocked'? If the men with the barrow came to the locked gate, it would probably have been easier to climb over and unlock that one rather than wheel their load to the other gate and open it with the string, no?
Also, does the sighting "at an hour when the place was practically deserted" translate to out of working hours?

that's a good question. well what I meant by off the clock was that there was an article that says the man was a worker at the site who wasn't working that day.

[RockySullivan]

Hebbert stated that the peritoneal cavity was not opened. Whether a single 15" wound constitutes heavy mutilation is open to question, and there is little else to suggest that the handiwork was similar to the Ripper's. News reports, particularly early ones, were often wildly inaccurate and sensationalised - here's a good example:

"At 3:30 o'clock Tuesday morning a policeman found the dead body of a fallen woman living at the corner of a railway arch on Cable street, Whitechapel. An examination of the remains showed that the head and arms had been cut off and carried away and the stomach ripped open, the intestines lying on the ground... The physicians who examined the body state that in their opinion the murder and mutilation occupied nearly an hour. It is surmised that the murderer carried off the head and arms in a bag. The murder is the worst of the whole series of Whitechapel murders."

That's from the Williamsport Sunday Grit, 15th September 1889, and is wrong on many counts. The full report goes on to describe the previous Whitechapel Murders, with some glaring inaccuracies. the cut sure sounds like the ripper to me.

(I can't find the single account about the uterus being taken, by the way, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were yet another spurious report along the lines of the one quoted above.)
The cut would have drawn blood, but little else.

thanks sam. is there a detailed report of exactly where the cut started and ended that describes it's shape. I thought I remember a sketch perhaps

[Sam Flynn]

thanks sam. is there a detailed report of exactly where the cut started and ended that describes it's shape. I thought I remember a sketch perhaps

I think Hebbert says that the cut reached down to the vagina, so we can go 15" higher than that as a rough guide.

Edit: Here's the relevant passage from Hebbert's book...

"a vertical incision, running from two inches below the ensiform cartilage downward, and ending on the left side of the external genitals, just opening the vagina, but not opening the peritoneal cavity"

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Thus ignoring the very relevant fact that the Pinchin Street victim was NOT eviscerated.

Ignoring? Didn´t I just write that this was so? Have we not all known for moe than a hundred years that it was not so? So who is ignoring something? Not me!

Little doubt? When all the others were dumped some 13 miles away in the river Thames and/or elsewhere in Southwest London?

Yes, little doubt. Because what governs is NOT the distances inbetween the dumping sites - surprise, surprise - but instead what happened to the victims. And anyway, what is it you think you have found? A common dumping place in Battersea? If we work from the idea that the parts from Jackson were dumped from where the Albert Bridge stands today, right by Battersea Park, then the 1873 victim was supposedly dumped 2,5 miles to the southwest, where the Wandle floats into the Thames, The Whitehall victim was dumped 2,5 miles to the northeast, the legs from the Rainham victim were dumped in Regents canal, 5 miles to the north-northeast, the Tottenham torso was dumped 4,5 miles to the north-northeast and the Pinchin Street torso was dumped 5 miles to the east-northeast.
Where you got the 13 miles from, I have no idea, but you can maybe explain how you reached that number as if it was a certain thing.

So what´s the problem? How is it "funny" that the Pinchin Street torso ended up where it ended up? Very clearly, the killer is MOVING AROUND, and he is NOT making use of a very limited area for his dumpings, instead spreading them a fair bit around.

What's the significance of Battersea (or thereabouts), where all the other victims were dumped in or around the river?Pinchin Street is only a short walk from where a number of suspects lived.So had thousands of others, named or unnamed.

But that was never the issue, was it? The issue is that Pinchin Street was not a street that Lechmere had lived fairly close to - he had lived IN it! I don´t care that "thousands of others" lived fairly close to it, Gareth, because that does not carry the same implications at all. And not a single soul of these thousands of people were found with one of the Ripper vicims, were they?
Can you see that Lechmere is absolutely unique in this respect? No?

My point was to ask why, after having had experience of totally dismembering previous (and yet to come) victims, the Pinchin Street killer(s) didn't remove the victim's arms.

If that was your point, then why didn´t you word yourself that way? I would have been able to give the answer very quickly: because he didn´t WANT to remove the victims arms. Because he CHOSE to leave them on the trunk, just as he CHOSE to leave one leg on the 1874 trunk.
When you are handed a very importnt and telling piece of evidence like this, you really should not throw it away. Surely, we both agree that the torso killer had some sort of private bolthole where he could do exactly what he wanted to the bodies? Okay then, in such a case there can be no other explanation to why the arms were left than an active decision on the killer´s behalf.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: Thus ignoring the very relevant fact that the Pinchin Street victim was NOT eviscerated.

Ignoring? Didn´t I just write that this was so? Have we not all known for more than a hundred years that it was not so? So who is ignoring something? Not me!

To focus just on the dismemberment IS to ignore the absence of evisceration.

This is what I responded to:

Yes, [because there was no evisceration] will have been hard to decide to what degree the Pinchin Street killer was a skilful eviscerator, therefore. To a degree, actually, that makes it a useless point to discuss.

The whole point is that the JTR murders were evisceration murders, so we can't just brush aside the fact that the Pinchin Street torso was not eviscerated.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: To focus just on the dismemberment IS to ignore the absence of evisceration.

But I very clearly pointed out that there was no evisceration. Please tell me how that is ignoring the absence of evisceration. In no uncertain terms, if you will!

This is what I responded to:
The whole point is that the JTR murders were evisceration murders, so we can't just brush aside the fact that the Pinchin Street torso was not eviscerated.

But that is an entirely different matter, I´m afraid. You say that I just focus on dismemberment, but I only mentioned that according to Hebbert, the Pinchin Street victim was an example of how the killer was skilled (and actually developing that skill along the series). It kind of stands to reason that the dismemberment is what I point to, since this is what Hebbert pointed to, and since there WERE no eviscerations to judge by.

And in your VERY odd world, that amounts to how I focus on dismemberment and "brush aside" how the torso was not eviscerated?

If you want to discuss that particular fact, I´m game, but don´t tell me that I am ignoring the lack of eviscerations, please. That´s just plain dumb. And it does not get better when you say that the JTR murders were evisceration murders, as if the torso murders were not. Clearly, eviscerations were part of those murders too, although the exact extent to which that applies is impossible to say.

[Fisherman]

Just to make the point extra clear about Hebberts take on the Pinchin Street torso and whether it fit in with the other torso murders or not, this is from Hebberts text in the Westminster hospital reports, kindly reproduced by Debra Arif on an adjacent thread. I am posting only the parts relevant to our discussion:

"In the last volume of Reports I was able to give a description of two cases of mutilation which occurred duering 1887 and 1888. I now take the opportunity of recounting two more instances of mutilation which have happened during the present year. In almost every respect they are similar to the first two cases, and appear to belong to a series of murders and dismemberment by the same hand ...

...The mode of dismemberment and mutilation was in all similar, and showed considerable skill in execution, and it is a fair presumption from the facts that the same man committed all the four murders."

So your idea that the Pinchin Street torso would be an example of yet another killer working in London and had a thing for cutting abdomens open with long incisions, is effectively dismantled by Hebbert here. The Pinchin Street torso was just another example of how the torso killer was able and willing to dump parts in varying districts of London.

The much better thing to do is to scrutinize the question WHY the victim ended up in Pinchin Street, and if some useful link to the street is offered up as we look at the many suspects. And guess what...?

[jerryd]

Weren't there two gates in Cannon Row (plus one on the Embankment), only one was left 'unlocked'? If the men with the barrow came to the locked gate, it would probably have been easier to climb over and unlock that one rather than wheel their load to the other gate and open it with the string, no?
Also, does the sighting "at an hour when the place was practically deserted" translate to out of working hours?

Joshua,

If the men with the barrow came to the locked gate, it would probably have been easier to climb over and unlock that one rather than wheel their load to the other gate and open it with the string, no?

I guess it depends if you knew the string trick or not. The gates were as tall as the hoarding. Plus, after hours, if you were not a workman, you risk being seen trespassing into the site by climbing the hoarding.

Also, does the sighting "at an hour when the place was practically deserted" translate to out of working hours?

I took it as such. But practically also means there must have been some people in the area. After working hours makes the most sense though. The men were checked out and cleared. I'm sure with a corpse found in the vault, the police took matters of people climbing the hoarding a few nights before the discovery, seriously.

[jerryd]

there was an article that says the man was a worker at the site who wasn't working that day.

I would be interested to see this one, Rocky. Have you been able to find it?

[John Wheat]

The much better thing to do is to scrutinize the question WHY the victim ended up in Pinchin Street, and if some useful link to the street is offered up as we look at the many suspects. And guess what...?

Did Lechmere have piano lessons in Pinchin Street or something equally as irrelevant?

[Fisherman]

Did Lechmere have piano lessons in Pinchin Street or something equally as irrelevant?

He grew up in the street, John. His mother lived there on a number of occasions, both with Charles and later in life. So if Charles took piano lessons as a boy, the chance is a large one that he did so in Pinchin Street.

Did you know that Ed Kemper buried a head where his mother lived? No? He made some sort of joke about how people looked up to her. That was before Kemper killed his mother, of course. I have no idea whether he played the piano, though.

How about Bury? Did he live in Pinchin Street? Or play the piano?

[Sam Flynn]

Did you know that Ed Kemper buried a head where his mother lived?

Indeed, but he buried the head in the garden, looking up at her bedroom... not the other end of the street under a railway arch.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, but he buried the head in the garden, looking up at her bedroom... not the other end of the street under a railway arch.

If the torso killer was Lechmere and if he wanted to bury the torso under his mothers bedroom, he may have found it too tough to dig the street up, quite simply.

I find it telling that you should lower yourself to this kind of commentary. Charles Lechmere is quite unique in this context. It seems the murder series sought him out on many an occasion. It is not enough that Nichols was killed right in front of him, the minute before he passed Browns stable yard, he also had a route to work that would take him close or very close to a number of murder sites, Stride was killed a stone´s throw from where his mother lived and right in the middle of the houses where he had grown up, Eddowes fell prey more or less exactly along his old working route from James Street to Broad Street. And as if that was not enough, the torso killer had to dump a torso in the exact street where he grew up as a boy.

If you think the collected weight of these matters is dissolved by how the Pinchin Street torso was not dug down into the ground right underneath the quarters where his mother had slept when living in Pinchin Street, then you need to think again.

Lechmere is the one and only suspect who is tied to the case geographically in these ways.

Who comes second? George Chapman, for having stayed in Cable Street? Perhaps. But strictly speaking, there is no real number two on the list.

There´s a little something for you to gobble down, and if you don´t choke on it, then please continue the discussion on a more appropriate thread. As you seem to enjoy saying: This is not a Lechmere thread.