Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

Agreed. Before it’s over they will have Ma Lechmere carving up the Pinchin Street victim’s legs and selling them as cat’s meat.

Air castle built upon air castle built upon air castle.

She probably didn’t even get into the business until her third husband’s death

Probably?

Why so?

He was admitted into the STGITE workhouse in early 1889 and was recorded as destitute. He died several months later of dementia. So in your air castle he was ‘probably’ providing for his wife up until the day he died?

BTW, she only ever had one husband.

[Varqm]

Haha.

Or was Wildbore waiting for this story below to break before he announced his find? A blueprint for what happened in the Pinchin case a year later with John Arnold.

Sheffield Evening Telegraph
11 October 1888

AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY

An extraordinary story is going the round of journalistic circles in connection with the mysterious discovery on the Thames Embankment. It will be remembered that the woman's remains were found on the Monday afternoon of last week. The previous evening, however, a man went to most of the daily newspaper offices, saw the respective subeditors[?] and inquired if they had heard of a woman's body being discovered on the Embankment. The man evidently expected remuneration, but, in accordance with practice, was required to call again after inquiries had been made. Reporters were despatched in hot haste to Westminster, and calls were made at all the police stations and other likely quarters, but without result, no discovery of the kind reported having been made. In less than twenty-four hours the remains of the unknown woman were found between the Embankment and Whitehall at the spot previously described. If this reported discovery was a hoax, and a strange coincidence, it is very singular indeed. Moreover, the man who called at the newspaper offices did not call a second time.

Like the Pinchin torso, reported before the body parts were actually discovered, people were manipulating the press, playing games. These 2 can't be serial killer cases. Only the Rainham, Battersea and Elizabeth Jackson are believable, maybe also the Tottenham Court/Bedford Square case. The killer might have had a boat, throwing parts all over the Thames?
There is an article somewhere in this site posted years ago, this already happened in the 1850-60's ??.All I remember is an old woman was caught carrying a big bag of human remains, she was laboring carrying it.

[MrBarnett]

Like the Pinchin torso, reported before the body parts were actually discovered, people were manipulating the press, playing games. These 2 can't be serial killer cases. Only the Rainham, Battersea and Elizabeth Jackson are believable, maybe also the Tottenham Court/Bedford Square case. The killer might have had a boat, throwing parts all over the Thames?

Or the tidal Thames may have moved the body parts…?

[Varqm]

Or the tidal Thames may have moved the body parts…?

Sure. My initial belief, both are possible.

[MrBarnett]

Accidental bigamy may be accidental - but it’s still bigamy:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/09/couples-could-committing-accidental-bigamy-top-high-court-judge/amp/

[Mark J D]

Or the tidal Thames may have moved the body parts…?

There's an Edward Stow video on YouTube which mentions the possibility that the 'normal' movement of floating objects up and down in the Thames tide would have been impeded at one stage by the replacement of one of the bridges.

M.

[FrankO]

If even I am able to make it out, then it must surely be very clear, Frank.

Nah, just joking, but I really would not call it lame - or rather lame. It was a typical torso murder with a blueprint abdominal cut from pubes to ribs and the torso was palced in Ripperland. That´s not lame in my world, although of course the kiiler could have written to the Morning Advertiser and proclaimed his sovereign ruling of the serial killing business. We can always do better than the killers in retrospect.

Like on a number of other aspects, we’re not going to see eye to eye on this, Christer. Had the cut opened up the abdomen with intestines protruding and had she been found within the "circle" formed by C5 (and not just "close to"), then I’d agree.

Because the cut edged into the abdomen was telling enough. It signalled the kind of cut the press, public and police associated with the Ripper, as far as I´m concerned.

But not for very long, that is. In fact, a number of newspapers, amongst which the Times, printed a day after the discovery that the police, after full investigation, had come to the conclusion that the Pinchin Street victim did not belong to the Ripper series. If the killer was so eager to get the same sort of recognition for the Pinchin Street murder as the Ripper got for the C5, then he simply did a mediocre job at best. If the Pinchin St. murder was telling enough, as you say, would we even be discussing whether there were 2 separate series or not?

Then you should ask yourself which of the two series got most attention and publicity, should you not?

No, not really, Christer, because I already know that and have known this since I started reading about the torso murders. What strikes me is how the Torso killer seems to have wanted, just as you see it, recognition, which is evidenced, just as you see it, by how and where he dumped/placed/threw remains of his victims, but didn't succeed in making it known without a doubt that he and the Ripper were one and the same. Making it known wouldn't have been that difficult, if he really wanted to, if you ask me.

[MrBarnett]

There's an Edward Stow video on YouTube which mentions the possibility that the 'normal' movement of floating objects up and down in the Thames tide would have been impeded at one stage by the replacement of one of the bridges.

M.

It would be convenient for Mr Stow’s theory if the object had been deposited east of the bridge.

I’m not aware that passage along the Thames was ever completely blocked while Tower Bridge was under construction.

Think about it, the Thames is a large tidal river flowing W to E, if passage along it was blocked so that a relatively small parcel couldn’t get through, what would have happened to all the water as the tide was ebbing?

[Fisherman]

Like on a number of other aspects, we’re not going to see eye to eye on this, Christer. Had the cut opened up the abdomen with intestines protruding and had she been found within the "circle" formed by C5 (and not just "close to"), then I’d agree.


But not for very long, that is. In fact, a number of newspapers, amongst which the Times, printed a day after the discovery that the police, after full investigation, had come to the conclusion that the Pinchin Street victim did not belong to the Ripper series. If the killer was so eager to get the same sort of recognition for the Pinchin Street murder as the Ripper got for the C5, then he simply did a mediocre job at best. If the Pinchin St. murder was telling enough, as you say, would we even be discussing whether there were 2 separate series or not?



No, not really, Christer, because I already know that and have known this since I started reading about the torso murders. What strikes me is how the Torso killer seems to have wanted, just as you see it, recognition, which is evidenced, just as you see it, by how and where he dumped/placed/threw remains of his victims, but didn't succeed in making it known without a doubt that he and the Ripper were one and the same. Making it known wouldn't have been that difficult, if he really wanted to, if you ask me.

What is your explanation for the shallow cut along the full length from pubes to ribs, Frank? Only the vulva was cut through, the rest stopped at the omentum.
What is your take on this? He would arguably have had oceans of time.

The fct that the police never accepted the Pichin Street victim as one of the Rippers will have owed to a degree to how all dismemberment murders were regarded as either disposal murders or as efforts to disenable identification. If the concept of aggressive dismemberment had been known to them, I think we would have seen a very different reaction.

The GSG, which is your stand on that. Was it the killer, was it possibly the killer, was it probably not or could it simply not have been the killer?

[MrBarnett]

Like on a number of other aspects, we’re not going to see eye to eye on this, Christer. Had the cut opened up the abdomen with intestines protruding and had she been found within the "circle" formed by C5 (and not just "close to"), then I’d agree.


But not for very long, that is. In fact, a number of newspapers, amongst which the Times, printed a day after the discovery that the police, after full investigation, had come to the conclusion that the Pinchin Street victim did not belong to the Ripper series. If the killer was so eager to get the same sort of recognition for the Pinchin Street murder as the Ripper got for the C5, then he simply did a mediocre job at best. If the Pinchin St. murder was telling enough, as you say, would we even be discussing whether there were 2 separate series or not?



No, not really, Christer, because I already know that and have known this since I started reading about the torso murders. What strikes me is how the Torso killer seems to have wanted, just as you see it, recognition, which is evidenced, just as you see it, by how and where he dumped/placed/threw remains of his victims, but didn't succeed in making it known without a doubt that he and the Ripper were one and the same. Making it known wouldn't have been that difficult, if he really wanted to, if you ask me.

So if the torso had been found a few streets north of Berners Street as opposed to a few streets south you’d be more inclined to consider it as a Ripper crime?

[Mark J D]

Think about it, the Thames is a large tidal river flowing W to E, if passage along it was blocked so that a relatively small parcel couldn’t get through, what would have happened to all the water as the tide was ebbing?

Eh? I regularly walk past a river where surface movement of floating objects is entirely arrested by a floating barrier, and the actual water just goes -- get this! -- *underneath*...

M.

[Harry D]

Credit to Commissioner Monro. At the time, his assessment of the Pinchin St Torso as a Ripper murder was perfectly logical and rationalised. If the same perpetrator of MJK's murder had quality time with the Pinchin St victim, why is there a complete absence of evisceration and organ removal? The Whitechapel murderer was interested in what was inside his prey. If not for the fact it was found in Whitechapel, it never would've been connected to the Ripper, but nonetheless it was found in the murder zone, and there was an abdominal wound. For those reasons, I cannot quite put my house on Monro being right.

[MrBarnett]

Eh? I regularly walk past a river where surface movement of floating objects is entirely arrested by a floating barrier, and the actual water just goes -- get this! -- *underneath*...

M.

Point taken, but according to an article in the Pall Mall Gazette of 22nd September, 1889, ‘By the Act of Parliament a certain clear space has to be left for river traffic…’

[Abby Normal]

Agreed. Before it’s over they will have Ma Lechmere carving up the Pinchin Street victim’s legs and selling them as cat’s meat.

Air castle built upon air castle built upon air castle.

She probably didn’t even get into the business until her third husband’s death

air castles my ass.
this and wheats post you responded to is very rude and belittling rj. both fish and jerry have done alot of great research into the mystery of both the ripper and torsoman cases. as well as the other great contributions to this thread by other good researchers like gary and others. they may be on the right track or not but either way alot of hard work has gone into it amd alot of new and relevant information is being discovered. i think you owe them an apology.

[Fisherman]

Credit to Commissioner Monro. At the time, his assessment of the Pinchin St Torso as a Ripper murder was perfectly logical and rationalised. If the same perpetrator of MJK's murder had quality time with the Pinchin St victim, why is there a complete absence of evisceration and organ removal?

You are forgetting that the Thames Torso killer ALSO eviscerated and took out organs, Harry. So we are going to need an explanation for the shallow cut regardless if it was the Ripper, the Torso killer or the Torsoripper.

The Whitechapel murderer was interested in what was inside his prey.

And so was the Thames Torso killer, going on how he removed uterus, heart and lungs from Liz Jackson, and probably also from the Rainham victim.

If not for the fact it was found in Whitechapel, it never would've been connected to the Ripper, but nonetheless it was found in the murder zone, and there was an abdominal wound. For those reasons, I cannot quite put my house on Monro being right.

There is also the fact that there has not in the history of crime been two serial killers and eviscerators working in the same geographical area and time, and so your decision to doubt Monro to some degree is a very wise one.