Torso Killer discussion from Millwood Thread

[jerryd]

This book is very interesting. The London Dissector. https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/book...ge/32/mode/2up

In Chapter 1, the first sentence states, "In dissecting a subject, it is usual to begin with the Muscles of the Abdomen". It goes on to say, "An incision should be made through the integuments, from the sternum to the os pubis; and this should be crossed by another passing immediately below the umbilicus: dissect off the flaps, this will lay bare".....

The rest of the book explains how a medical man would proceed to dissect the entire body. Muscles and all. From the little I have read so far, it seems some parts may be more difficult to remove due to multiple tendons, muscles, etc. I'll have to read more to get a good grasp on what this may mean in regard to the person dismembering bodies in London.

[Joshua Rogan]

Well the author of this article certainly thinks the removal of heads to prevent ID was part of it, and that not leaving clothes with pinchin was a lesson learned. Which is entirely possible.

Except that he did leave a chemise on the torso, and it was apparently identified by the woman who made it;

Gloucester Citizen - Monday 30 September 1889
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
"It is stated that the father and mother of the girl named Emily Barker, of Northampton, feel convinced that she was the victim of the Pinchin-street Whitechapel murder. The girl had been rescued from a wild life by a London missionary, but escaped from him two day's before the murder. The mother says she is satisfied as to the identity, and that she made the chemise which was found by the police. The mother also says her suspicions are confirmed by a mark on the finger. The Northampton police are in communication with the London police respecting the matter."

[bolo]

Hi Jerry,

interesting article indeed, thanks for posting. According to Hebbert's dissertation, Jackson was identified by some old injuries she received on one of her arms when she "fell onto a broken bottle" (don't remember the exact words). Did the clothes play a role as well?

The Chelsea Dissector... intriguing nom de guerre, still does not roll off the tongue as nicely as Torsoman, if I may say so.

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,

Did the clothes play a role as well?

Hi bolo.

Yes, the clothes were a major factor in identifying her. The L.E Fisher tag was tracked to her and Faircloth's trip together, and the fact witnesses had seen her in clothes that matched those the body parts were wrapped in.

[Abby Normal]

Except that he did leave a chemise on the torso, and it was apparently identified by the woman who made it;

Gloucester Citizen - Monday 30 September 1889
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
"It is stated that the father and mother of the girl named Emily Barker, of Northampton, feel convinced that she was the victim of the Pinchin-street Whitechapel murder. The girl had been rescued from a wild life by a London missionary, but escaped from him two day's before the murder. The mother says she is satisfied as to the identity, and that she made the chemise which was found by the police. The mother also says her suspicions are confirmed by a mark on the finger. The Northampton police are in communication with the London police respecting the matter."

thanks JR
im wondering why pinchin isn't known as Emily Barker then??

[jerryd]

thanks JR
im wondering why pinchin isn't known as Emily Barker then??

The police told Mr. Barker the dead woman would have been much taller (5'8") than Emily, who was 5'4" (IIRC). It turns out the police were wrong, Dr. Hebbert and Clarke state the height of the Pinchin torso woman was approx. 5'3".

[Joshua Rogan]

thanks JR
im wondering why pinchin isn't known as Emily Barker then??

Me too. Apparently the police said that the victim would have been much taller than the Barker's estimate of Emily's height of about 5'4", but according to Hebbert the doctors estimated the victim's height as 5' 3 1/3".
Odd. Although there were others who also thought they knew the victim, as I recall.

[Fisherman]

Me too. Apparently the police said that the victim would have been much taller than the Barker's estimate of Emily's height of about 5'4", but according to Hebbert the doctors estimated the victim's height as 5' 3 1/3".
Odd. Although there were others who also thought they knew the victim, as I recall.

The phrase "The girl had been rescued from a wild life by a London missionary, but escaped from him two day's before the murder" doesn't exactly ring untrue in the context. Its the expected victimology if it was really Barker.

[Harry D]

RE: Pinchin St torso. It's curious that Israel Schwartz heard someone cry "Lipski!" and escaped from the scene as far as the railway arch. Was this the same railway arch where the "Lipski" graffiti was found? I'm not saying there's a connection here but it's a strange coincidence, no?

[Sam Flynn]

RE: Pinchin St torso. It's curious that Israel Schwartz heard someone cry "Lipski!" and escaped from the scene as far as the railway arch. Was this the same railway arch where the "Lipski" graffiti was found? I'm not saying there's a connection here but it's a strange coincidence, no?

The "Lipski" graffito was found on "a black paling opposite the arch" (East London Observer, 14 Sept 1889). Unfortunately, this wasn't widely covered by the press, so we have little detail as to its precise location, but we do know that the black paling extended for quite some distance: "One side of [Pinchin Street] consists of railway arches, and the other of a high black paling" (same newspaper report). The problem is, the paling ran down the street, so the "black paling opposite" doesn't necessarily mean "the black paling directly opposite", i.e. the black paling was opposite ALL the arches, and the walls between and either side of the arches for that matter. Apart from that, it strikes me that, if the perpetrator(s) wanted to link the torso definitively with Lipski, there was nothing stopping them writing the graffito (which only consisted of that one word) in the same arch where they dumped the body; indeed, they could easily have chalked it directly over the body itself.

[Harry D]

The "Lipski" graffito was found on "a black paling opposite the arch" (East London Observer, 14 Sept 1889). Unfortunately, this wasn't widely covered by the press, so we have little detail as to its precise location, but we do know that the black paling extended for quite some distance: "One side of [Pinchin Street] consists of railway arches, and the other of a high black paling" (same newspaper report). The problem is, the paling ran down the street, so the "black paling opposite" doesn't necessarily mean "the black paling directly opposite", i.e. the black paling was opposite ALL the arches, and the walls between and either side of the arches for that matter. Apart from that, it strikes me that, if the perpetrator(s) wanted to link the torso definitively with Lipski, there was nothing stopping them writing the graffito (which only consisted of that one word) in the same arch where they dumped the body; indeed, they could easily have chalked it directly over the body itself.

Thanks Sam. I daresay if the graffiti had been found closer to the torso it would have been given more press.

Still, I find it strange that graffiti was being written for a cause celebre that happened over two years ago.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks Sam. I daresay if the graffiti had been found closer to the torso it would have been given more press.

Good point.

Still, I find it strange that graffiti was being written for a cause celebre that happened over two years ago.

There's at least a suggestion that it might not have been brand new, albeit perhaps not two years old. The ELO report said that nobody knew whether or not it was there before the torso was dumped.

[Kattrup]

In conclusion, when Hebbert speaks of different skills and intentions, I think we may both realize that he is on extremely thin ice about the intention part. There can be no knowledge about it. I also think that what Hebbert points to when he speak of different skills, is that he identifies different sets of skills - one dismembered, one mutilated. The skill of the cutting work as such is not what he speaks of, we know that from how Phillips tells us that the cutting work on the necks of Kelly and the Pinchin Street victim was very similar.

How then do you know that Hebbert was correct in determining that the four torso murders were committed by the same hand?

I mean, you argue that because he, according to you, was unaware of the possibility of dismemberment in itself being a motivator, he was unable to correctly compare the knife work behind the torso and JtR murders.

If that were so (which I do think is the case at all), how do you know that his Victorian simplicity would not lead him to falsely attribute similar dismemberments to the same man? He simply saw a similar wish to practically dispose of the bodies on four different occasions and believed they probably came from the same hand. Perhaps only one or two were by the same dismemberer?

[Kattrup]

If that were so (which I do think is the case at all)

Should have been "If that were so (which I do not think is the case at all)"

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps only one or two were by the same dismemberer?

Quite so.