Pinchin Street Torso - who did it?

[Joshua Rogan]

Having finally had occasion to read up on this, I wonder if you could direct me to any contemporary sources, as I’m unable to corroborate your claims that police reasoned she was not transported in a cart or similar and that there were imprints of a sack on her.

I don’t see any reference to marks of a sack on the body in any of the postmortem examination notes by Hebbert, Philips or Clark.

The Pall Mall Gazette 10 Sept carries an interview with pc Pennet, in which he describes finding the torso;

"One of our representatives, writing from the scene of the murder at Whitechapel at eleven o'clock says:- I have just had an interview with Constable 239 H, who found the body of Jack the Ripper's latest victim. He I said: “I was passing along Pinchin-street, at the foot of Backchurch-lane, about a quarter-past five this morning, when I saw lying on the ground the trunk of a woman, the head and legs of which had been severed and were not present. The body was quite naked, except for a piece of torn linen which might have been a shift or portion of a pair of drawers, thrown over it. The body was fearfully disembowelled, and was marked as if it had been carried in a sack. My own opinion is that it had been so conveyed to the spot where I found it. The stench was something terrific. It would have been impossible to have passed it.”

[Kattrup]

There was actually a supposition of transport in every torso case - but for the Pinchin Street case! The Pinchin Street victim had marks from a sack imprinted in her skin, and so it was reasoned that since no wheelmarks were found and nobody heard any wagon or cart of sorts, the body would likely have been manually carried to the site. This resulted in a view on behalf of the police that the killerīs abode was probably nearby Pinchin Street.
And if the body was carried manually, there would have been a greater need for division of the body, to lighten the burden. So it is likely the other way around altogether.

Having finally had occasion to read up on this, I wonder if you could direct me to any contemporary sources, as I’m unable to corroborate your claims that police reasoned she was not transported in a cart or similar and that there were imprints of a sack on her.

Two police officers Bennett and Pinhorn testified at the inquest that most likely she was carried in a sack. Bennett said this because there was no dust on the body’s bloody areas. Had she been dragged or “shot out”/ “shook out” of a sack or barrow, some dust or dirt would have attached to the blood.
Pinhorn stated the condition of the body was as had it been carried in a sack. I believe he means because of the way one arm was under the body.

However, the police searched the immediate area for barrows and carts and during the inquest they make sure to mention possible carts and barrows. Just as they are asked by persons carrying large sacks.
Also, reports from both Swanson and Arnold state that it’s unknown how the body got there “carried there either by Barrow or by some person on his back.” (Arnold).

I don’t see any reference to marks of a sack on the body in any of the postmortem examination notes by Hebbert, Philips or Clark.

You’ve posted it before, some posts from 2014 at least, but I can’t seem to find a source for it?

I would therefore repeat that it’s plausible the body was carried in a vehicle and therefore there was less need to dismember it completely.

But I must have missed something so I’m hoping you’ll help out?

[Kattrup]

There is nothing at all implicating more than one killer being at work.

I realize you in this context mean “more than one person or team of persons” being responsible for these series of crimes (or I at least interpret the context thusly) but wanted to ask about Pinchin’s bruises on the arms.

Could they not be indicative of her being held down by one person while another killed her?

[Abby Normal]

Good post, Abby.

You're right, we shouldn't try to pigeonhole the killer based on inconclusive evidence. Serial killers are human, and humans can be unpredictable, capricious, and arbitrary creatures. We should be careful about using that fact to divide or multiply the number of active killers who were operating at that time, but as Fish likes to point out, the similarities will often be more significant than their differences. I happen to think there was something quite telling about the Pinchin St torso and the reason it was left where it was.

thanks Harry
and I agree-especially about pinchin. I think its a very strong link between the torso man and the ripper-mainly because of the vertical gash to the midsection and that it was found in ripper territory. And if the police were right in there assumption that it was carried manually to the dump spot, then I think that could mean that torsoripper lived and or had his bolt hole in the east end somewhere near. and that fits a narrative because the ripper victims were obviously in walking distance to his home/bolthole so that perhaps when he had his cart available he carried the other torso/parts more to the west to dump/display, for his own personal reasons.

[Fisherman]

Good post, Abby.

You're right, we shouldn't try to pigeonhole the killer based on inconclusive evidence. Serial killers are human, and humans can be unpredictable, capricious, and arbitrary creatures. We should be careful about using that fact to divide or multiply the number of active killers who were operating at that time, but as Fish likes to point out, the similarities will often be more significant than their differences. I happen to think there was something quite telling about the Pinchin St torso and the reason it was left where it was.

Okay, so letsīhear it, Harry!

[Fisherman]

You mentioned "people gone wrong" in your rebuttal Fisherman, interesting way to put that but Id agree with it in principle. There are no actions taken in any of these murders that almost anyone with a knife couldnt have done. Nothing spectacularly knowledgeable, no evidence of anything remarkably accomplished. In almost all the murders that involved any kind of post mortem mutilations. That in and of itself should dictate that multiple killers are very likely within the what.. 12/13 Unsolved murders in the file? Many people capable, many differences in the murders, more than 1 man. There is a good case to be made for the exclusion of at least 1 Canonical victim, someone pulled into the fray almost solely by virtue of the timing and location of her death. That's 2 men within just the Canonical Group Fisherman. And if your theories are correct, I believe this is your position, that the first Canonical was killed by your Torso fella. So...while your man is out killing someone else cuts an Unfortunates throat in the district recently plagued by that kind of thing.

That's pretty strong proof that at least 2 men cut throats that same, in that same district, and they were both done when the police were still looking for someone who made Torsos. Alice MacKenzie is killed in much the same manner as a Canonical type, yet we are told from many officials someone was already in custody and presumed responsible for the previous Falls crimes. New killer? If they told the truth,... yeah.

When the evidence suggests more than one man, my question to you is why would you then pursue a theory that not only are the Ripper Canonicals done by one man...which as I said earlier is highly improbable based on just what we have now....the same man is now responsible for crimes before and after the Ripper crimes that are fundamentally different activities. I don't object to your presumptions, I just enjoy discussing the topics with you and don't want to see you disappear into an abyss that has no feasible way out.

Awww! That is really sweet of you!! But I do think I am capable of taking care of myself, and I have no fear whatsoever to "disappear into an abyss".

I can only reiterate that I disagree with you. "Almost anyone" could NOT have done what this killer did, and we should be grateful for that.

There is nothing at all implicating more than one killer being at work. Killers who sometimes eviscerate and sometimes not are around in many examples. Killers who sometimes dismember, sometimes not are also in evidence. what is NOT in evidence is any example of two serial killers who make the same kind of odd damage and eviscerations simultaneously in the same geographical area. There is not one such example throughout the history of crime.

We either learn from that or we refuse to do so. But if we refuse to learn from the facts, then we may be wise not to reccommend those who DO to join sides with us.

PS. Heard of Peter Kürten? He killed by way of scissors, by way of strangulation, by way of hitting with a hammer. Those are FUNDAMENTALLY different MO:s. And yet, performed by one man only. He was also an arsonist, by the way. I wonder how many killers you would require to pin him down?

[Michael W Richards]

You mentioned "people gone wrong" in your rebuttal Fisherman, interesting way to put that but Id agree with it in principle. There are no actions taken in any of these murders that almost anyone with a knife couldnt have done. Nothing spectacularly knowledgeable, no evidence of anything remarkably accomplished. In almost all the murders that involved any kind of post mortem mutilations. That in and of itself should dictate that multiple killers are very likely within the what.. 12/13 Unsolved murders in the file? Many people capable, many differences in the murders, more than 1 man. There is a good case to be made for the exclusion of at least 1 Canonical victim, someone pulled into the fray almost solely by virtue of the timing and location of her death. That's 2 men within just the Canonical Group Fisherman. And if your theories are correct, I believe this is your position, that the first Canonical was killed by your Torso fella. So...while your man is out killing someone else cuts an Unfortunates throat in the district recently plagued by that kind of thing.

That's pretty strong proof that at least 2 men cut throats that same, in that same district, and they were both done when the police were still looking for someone who made Torsos. Alice MacKenzie is killed in much the same manner as a Canonical type, yet we are told from many officials someone was already in custody and presumed responsible for the previous Falls crimes. New killer? If they told the truth,... yeah.

When the evidence suggests more than one man, my question to you is why would you then pursue a theory that not only are the Ripper Canonicals done by one man...which as I said earlier is highly improbable based on just what we have now....the same man is now responsible for crimes before and after the Ripper crimes that are fundamentally different activities. I don't object to your presumptions, I just enjoy discussing the topics with you and don't want to see you disappear into an abyss that has no feasible way out.

[Harry D]

hi fish and harry
who knows why he did it? the torso/ripper liked cutting up women, and I think the vertical gash might have been the first thing he did once he had a woman down whether or not he decided to open up and take out organs.
Perhaps with McKenzie and Nichols he was disturbed before he could go further, and/or with the torsos he just liked making the cut.

I think the most reasonable assumption is that he liked cutting up women and the vertical gash to the abdomen is just something he liked to do.
And I find it highly intriguing its on both ripper and torso victims whether or not he went further doing anything with that cut.

bottom line, both torso and ripper victims have vertical gashes via knife to their midsections, similarities which point to a common originator.

Good post, Abby.

You're right, we shouldn't try to pigeonhole the killer based on inconclusive evidence. Serial killers are human, and humans can be unpredictable, capricious, and arbitrary creatures. We should be careful about using that fact to divide or multiply the number of active killers who were operating at that time, but as Fish likes to point out, the similarities will often be more significant than their differences. I happen to think there was something quite telling about the Pinchin St torso and the reason it was left where it was.

[Fisherman]

Just interjecting to mention that I believe EJ had her intestines removed? Which would very much be in the way when dividing the torso, I think.

Yes, you are correct; the intestines were "removed" - taken away by the killer. And since the pancreas, the spleen, the liver, the kidneys, the duodenum and part of the stomach were not, it cannot be ruled out that the intestines were taken out to facilitate the division below the third lumbar vertebrae ( which was where the spine was taken off). The intestines would to a large degree have rested over that vertebrae whereas the previously mentioned organs will not have done so.

Of course, the uterus will also have rested over that particular vertebrea, not least since Jackson was eight months pregnant with a considerably enlarged uterus. It could be reasones that the uterus therefore also had to go to enbabvle the killer to divide the spine where he did. Then again, that poses two problems:

1. Why would the killer divide the torso in the first place? Dividing it in three parts would have entailed a lot of work and we know from the Pinchin Street case that he had no problems to transport an undivided torso, with the arms attached even. In 1874, he left a leg on the torso.

2. If he simply wanted the uterus out of the way, then why open it up and extract the foetus afterwards? And why put the placenta and chord and membranes inside it before wrapping it up together with the flaps from the abdomen?

The borderline between a practical dismemberment and a dismemberment for dismembermentsī sake goes where the expression "above and beyond" comes in. And these are inclusions that are clearly above and beyond what was required for mere dismemberment. Actually, for mere dismemberment, there was no need to take the intestines and uterus out: they CAN be sawed through together with the rest of the bone and tissue.

In the case of the division between the upper and the mid part of the torso, that division would have been carried out at a level where the heart and lungs would/could come into play. Certainly the lungs would be placed over it, and perhaps also the lower part of the heart. But if the killer wanted to facilitate things, all he needed to do was to move the division one vertebrae further down, and he would go clear of the heart and spare himself the job of removing it - the division was made at the junction of the seventh and eight dorsal vertebrae and that would have been at the lower end of the heart or perhaps just below it. He could also have moved the division upwards, like he did in the Rainham case, where the cut went through the fifth dorsal vertebrae, meaning that the heart was seemingly out of the way there too - but it was nevertheless gone from the body.

Weighing things up, it applies that the organs removed from Elizabeth Jackson were in close proximity to or over the divisions of the spine - but there seems to have been no practical need to remove the heart in either the Jackson and Rainham case, and certainly, the uterus removed from Jackson was subjected to something way above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment only.

An extended discussion of these matters will of course also involve questions like why the face was meticulously cut away in one intact piece from the 1873 victim. That would have had nothing to do with dismembent requirements.

[Kattrup]

But Jackson did not have her abdominal organs taken out, but for the uterus. She instead lost a heart and the lungs - organs that would not be in the way of a removal of the pelvic section.

Just interjecting to mention that I believe EJ had her intestines removed? Which would very much be in the way when dividing the torso, I think.

[Abby Normal]

Indeed! As for the vertical gash, I donīt think he inititally cut a shallow one, to then move onto opening it up by way of a second cut. I think he normally cut all the way through the omentum, which is why I think he never intended to do so in the Pinchin Street case.

I think we must be careful not to decide for the killer what he wanted to do. The Pinchin Street abdominal gash must not point to a wearly and uninterested killer or a botched cut - it may just as well be that it was exactly what he wanted to do.

Itīs much the same as the colon section alongside Eddowes - there is no certainty that he cut it out by mistake, it can just as well have been an intended thing. The exact same applies in a discussion about the dismemberments - just because they are not there in all cases, that does not mean that the killer would have liked them to be.

Since we do. not know the underlying motivation/s behind the damage done to the victims, we cannot possibly tell what the killer would or would not do. That would be presumptious and quite possibly leading us astray. We CAN conclude that the series are linked by way of far-reaching similarities, but we can NOT establish what drove the killer to do this in one case and that in another. We have physical clues left behind, but there has never been any access to the mindset of the killer.

bingo Fish
that's what ive always said, and about ALL serial murders/murders. If you don't know who the killer is and/or the true specific motivation, wants and desires or mindset of the killer then one must just look at the evidence and see where it points. and the number of similarities between torsoman and ripper victims overwhelmingly point to one man IMHO.

[Fisherman]

hi fish and harry
who knows why he did it? the torso/ripper liked cutting up women, and I think the vertical gash might have been the first thing he did once he had a woman down whether or not he decided to open up and take out organs.
Perhaps with McKenzie and Nichols he was disturbed before he could go further, and/or with the torsos he just liked making the cut.

I think the most reasonable assumption is that he liked cutting up women and the vertical gash to the abdomen is just something he liked to do.
And I find it highly intriguing its on both ripper and torso victims whether or not he went further doing anything with that cut.

bottom line, both torso and ripper victims have vertical gashes via knife to their midsections, similarities which point to a common originator.

Indeed! As for the vertical gash, I donīt think he inititally cut a shallow one, to then move onto opening it up by way of a second cut. I think he normally cut all the way through the omentum, which is why I think he never intended to do so in the Pinchin Street case.

I think we must be careful not to decide for the killer what he wanted to do. The Pinchin Street abdominal gash must not point to a wearly and uninterested killer or a botched cut - it may just as well be that it was exactly what he wanted to do.

Itīs much the same as the colon section alongside Eddowes - there is no certainty that he cut it out by mistake, it can just as well have been an intended thing. The exact same applies in a discussion about the dismemberments - just because they are not there in all cases, that does not mean that the killer would have liked them to be.

Since we do. not know the underlying motivation/s behind the damage done to the victims, we cannot possibly tell what the killer would or would not do. That would be presumptious and quite possibly leading us astray. We CAN conclude that the series are linked by way of far-reaching similarities, but we can NOT establish what drove the killer to do this in one case and that in another. We have physical clues left behind, but there has never been any access to the mindset of the killer.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, you are trying to build a demon with many justifications that are not at all warranted.

I am not trying to "build a demon". Donīt be ridiculous. There are hundreds and thousands of examples of horryfying deeds and murders, serial murder included, and they are not perfomred by demons, they are performed by people gone wrong. I sense that the one who is being demonized here is ME, for pointing to an obvious link you donīt like.

Its dangerous to believe you can see what this man, or any killer, would and wouldn't do, and what kinds of things he might think or be influenced by in order to justify changes in method, behavior and objective.

As if you donīt try to do that yourself! Can we be for real, please! There are far-reacing similarities of details that are extremly rare inclusions in murder series and we would be unsound not to admit that.

One killer might have been an opportunity killer, who in minutes, could satisfy whatever urges he had.

Might. May. Can. Perhaps. If. Maybe. Perchance. Now who is inventing a killer out of thin air? Hm? I am not speaking of mindsets and motivations, I am simply pointing out that hey, bot men cut away noses, hey, look, they both cut away abdominal walls, and have a look, they both took out uteri, and see, they both cut out hearts, and wow, they both stole rings from their victims fingers - and these are all objective statements, establishing facts. I do not want to join you on the speculation train, because it is never going any place.

The fact that someone (else) took who knows how long to disarticulate women, in private, should be an indication to you that THESE WERE NOT SIMILARLY MOTIVATED PEOPLE.

There you go again! You have zilch idea how long time the torso killer used, but you are willing to take a chance that he took ages to disarticulate while the Ripper was quick. And of course, you go wildly wrong with that assumption, because it was established that all the torso victims were cut up quickly after death. BOTH men were fast workers, therefore. In the 1873 case, the killer hit the victim over the temple, possibly killing her that way, then he strung her up and cut her open and emptied the vessels, all of them of blood, whereafter he cut the victim down and set about dismembering her double quick. We know this becasue there was significant muscle contraction, and that onl occurs when a victim is cut up in quick succession after having died.
Get the facts right, read them, make sense of them, and STOP producing ideas that are out of line with the evidence! YOU are the one inventing things, "demons" if you like, who cut into bodies for hours, taking ages to be done with it. That never happened, and your reasoning is therefore not applicable.

The additional fact that in Mary Kellys case, there is no reason at all why she wouldn't, or couldn't be dismembered if her killer had that preoccupation.

Then read the writing on the wall, Michael: The two killers MUST have been one killer only, and therefore he never HAD the preoccupation to dismember Kelly. Becasue, just as you say, he had time to and he had previously shown that he could disarticulate arms and legs by way of knife, even if he could not disarticulate a head at that stage. He only learn that the following year, as proven by the Pinchin Street victim.
What he did to Kelly had a purpose. He was creating an image that would have gone lost if he dismembered her. He didnīt WANT to do it, it is that simple.

With your kind of "logic", we should claim that the Pinchin Street victim could not have been a victim of the torso killer, becasue he could disarticulate arms, but didnīt do so in spite of this, and in spite of probably having had time to do it. This is the logic you apply: If he does it one or more times, then when he does not do it, it is not him.

You fumble in vain and total darkness to try and find the motivation behind the deeds. I can tell you that the motivation behind them MUST have entailed an explanation for why he sometimes dismembered and other times not. Go see if you can find it!

[Abby Normal]

What I think is important here is not to fall in any traps of preconception. There is always the risk that we have a look at the wound in the abdomen of the Pinchin Street woman and go "Whoa, he botched that cut real bad, did he not?" But when/if we do so, then we may be missing out on how the would can have been precisely what the killer intended. He had time on his hands, he disjointed the legs with great care and very precisely, he succeeded in cutting the head of by way of knife, something he had not achieved in the other cases - and so why would not the cut to the abdomen be another precise and intended damage? As I said before, I donīt think it is easy to cut through skin and muscle while avoiding to go through the omentum, and so we may well be looking at a very skilfully applied cut, with a strictly limited depth designed not to open the abdomen up.
If it was a botched cut and the intention was to open. the abdomen up, then surely he would have proceeded to do so, either by adding depth to the existing cut or by cutting another one alongside it! I remain left with the impression that we look at is exactly what he wanted to do.

hi fish and harry
who knows why he did it? the torso/ripper liked cutting up women, and I think the vertical gash might have been the first thing he did once he had a woman down whether or not he decided to open up and take out organs.
Perhaps with McKenzie and Nichols he was disturbed before he could go further, and/or with the torsos he just liked making the cut.

I think the most reasonable assumption is that he liked cutting up women and the vertical gash to the abdomen is just something he liked to do.
And I find it highly intriguing its on both ripper and torso victims whether or not he went further doing anything with that cut.

bottom line, both torso and ripper victims have vertical gashes via knife to their midsections, similarities which point to a common originator.

[Fisherman]

What I think is important here is not to fall in any traps of preconception. There is always the risk that we have a look at the wound in the abdomen of the Pinchin Street woman and go "Whoa, he botched that cut real bad, did he not?" But when/if we do so, then we may be missing out on how the would can have been precisely what the killer intended. He had time on his hands, he disjointed the legs with great care and very precisely, he succeeded in cutting the head of by way of knife, something he had not achieved in the other cases - and so why would not the cut to the abdomen be another precise and intended damage? As I said before, I donīt think it is easy to cut through skin and muscle while avoiding to go through the omentum, and so we may well be looking at a very skilfully applied cut, with a strictly limited depth designed not to open the abdomen up.
If it was a botched cut and the intention was to open. the abdomen up, then surely he would have proceeded to do so, either by adding depth to the existing cut or by cutting another one alongside it! I remain left with the impression that we look at is exactly what he wanted to do.