Pinchin Street Torso - who did it?

[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.

[Michael W Richards]

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

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

[Fisherman]

But if he wanted to leave a "calling card" as it were, he could've gutted the victim, removed the uterus, something to show more definitively that this was the same man.

On the whole, I think putting a fifteen inch cut into the abdomen of a dismembered and dumped torso of a woman took care of all the calling card business there was to take care of. It was never as if the Pinchin Street victim was going to be looked upon as an unrelated one off by somebody else - it was clear from the outset that she belonged to the mutialtion murders gong on in London.
Maybe that was something he relished in, even? Maybe he was happy with himself that he could do that only and still count of getting the message through?

Mind you, as I said before, I believe these murders were NOT primarily about getting attention. I think they were first and foremost intended to satisfy himself, and that whichever degree of publicity and attention seeking there may have been involved was secondary. It may still have been a vital part of the murders, but not the decisive one.

During todays morning dog walk, I thought about whether it could be that he never intended to kill in the open streets from the beginning. If he was a user of prostitutes (which is very common with serial killers), then maybe Tabram was just a prostitution affair turning into an act of a sudden rage for whatever reason, and not a premeditated murder. But once he saw the kind of coverage the murder got, he came up with the idea of taking a crude variety of his torso murders to the streets, and started out with Nichols? Just a thought - but a thought that would perhaps explain the anomalies present in the Tabram murder.

[Harry D]

There is that part too, yes - although I am not in any way certain that the series DID end after the Pinchin Street murder. Anyways, I remain at my stance that if he WAS a creature of habit, then he broke that habit when he did not cut through the omentum in the Pinchin Street case. I have a hard time imagining him putting the knofe to the abdomen and start slicing into it, moaning "Nah, I just cannot bring myself to cut any deeper".
If anything, I believe it would be quite an accomplishment to cut through the skin and muscle but not through the omentum for a stretch of 15 inches. It would require a steady hand an a lot of control, methinks. So it seems premeditated to me - he did what he had decided to do. Thatīs my five cents, at least.

But if he wanted to leave a "calling card" as it were, he could've gutted the victim, removed the uterus, something to show more definitively that this was the same man.

[Fisherman]

Philips also said he saw great dissimilarity with the Stride wound, and had doubts about Kates. Yet we still have a Canonical Group that includes them both. Presumptions. When there isn't even a valid group of Five by one killer based on that, then how can there be one that still includes those victims, (which I assume is your stance), and more...unlike the Torso murders that took place before and after the Rippers Fall of Terror, and had wound patterns that were almost identical, within just that Torso group.

Phillips did not see the same weapon in the Stride case as in the Chapman case, for example, so that would result in dissimilar wounds. Phillips didnīt word any suspicion that Stride was killed by another hand as such. What was said was this:
"There is very great dissimilarity between the two. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertebral bones being marked with two sharp cuts, and there had been an evident attempt to separate the bones."
As you can see, it all boils down to how Chapmans wounds were far more extensive and deep and how the vertebrae were notched. Not a word is said about how the man who cut Chapman would/could not have been the same man that cut Stride. And there is more to the investigation than the appearance of the cuts to a neck - there is the victimology, there is the silent deed, there is the district, there is the time and so on.
So making the rather rash assumption that "there isnīt even a valid group of five" becomes rather premature and baseless, since we know quite well that it was enough for the police to accept a common killer. Asking how the series can involve even more murders is just not good enough. Samuel Little, the news of the day, serial killer-wise, killed around 80 or so women. I bet there were dissimilarities in all of those cases too.

As for the wound patterns, they were not "almost identical" within the group at all. There were major differences involved.

[Abby Normal]

If one is the torso killer, and wishes to remove the pelvis, as was done on EJ and Whitehall case, then yes, dismemberment would start with a vertical gash, in order to remove the viscera first.
That is also the way it is done in animal slaughter. One does not cut the hams from the pig before removing the intestines

And “my” theory is not without empirical basis, since it was proposed by a senior police officer in 1888 who saw the wound himself.

So it is not an merely an unproven possibility, but a contemporary theory. It might not be correct but it is sourcebased which makes it “stronger” than modern assumptions.

Hi Kattrup

If one is the torso killer, and wishes to remove the pelvis, as was done on EJ and Whitehall case, then yes, dismemberment would start with a vertical gash, in order to remove the viscera first

your assuming that a dismemberer would want to remove internal viscera first and that is certainly not always the case, and most certainly specifically not the case with pinchin since no dismemberment actually happened along the vertical cut! and it certainly also is your "modern assumption" that the killer made the vertical cut for this reason but then changed his mind.
and in the case of Jackson she also had her lungs and heart removed, which wouldn't need to be removed to sperate the pelvis.

That is also the way it is done in animal slaughter. One does not cut the hams from the pig before removing the intestines : )

these weren't pigs, they were human beings and I take offence at the inference ; )

And “my” theory is not without empirical basis, since it was proposed by a senior police officer in 1888 who saw the wound himself.

point taken. So then it was also empirical basis, that pinchin was carried manually to the dump site, since the contemporaneous police thought the evidence showed that.

So it is not an merely an unproven possibility, but a contemporary theory. It might not be correct but it is sourcebased which makes it “stronger” than modern assumptions.

Ok fair enough, but eventhough it is a contemporary theory it still is an unproven possibility, but I get your point. However, it certainly is no stronger (and IMHO much weaker)than the simple factual similarity of vertical gashes on both torso the ripper victims. no assumptions, modern or otherwise, needed.

[Michael W Richards]

There is only one comparison we know of in terms of cutting technique, and it favours a link: Phillips said that there were great similarities between the cuts to the neck in the Pinchin Street case as compared to the Kelly ditto.

Philips also said he saw great dissimilarity with the Stride wound, and had doubts about Kates. Yet we still have a Canonical Group that includes them both. Presumptions. When there isn't even a valid group of Five by one killer based on that, then how can there be one that still includes those victims, (which I assume is your stance), and more...unlike the Torso murders that took place before and after the Rippers Fall of Terror, and had wound patterns that were almost identical, within just that Torso group.

[Fisherman]

If one is the torso killer, and wishes to remove the pelvis, as was done on EJ and Whitehall case, then yes, dismemberment would start with a vertical gash, in order to remove the viscera first.
That is also the way it is done in animal slaughter. One does not cut the hams from the pig before removing the intestines

And “my” theory is not without empirical basis, since it was proposed by a senior police officer in 1888 who saw the wound himself.

So it is not an merely an unproven possibility, but a contemporary theory. It might not be correct but it is sourcebased which makes it “stronger” than modern assumptions.

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.

[Fisherman]

Like I said, he was a creature of habit. Obviously the mutilation was part of his paraphilia but I'm guessing that his appetite for it might have been waning. It could be why the series ostensibly ended after that.

There is that part too, yes - although I am not in any way certain that the series DID end after the Pinchin Street murder. Anyways, I remain at my stance that if he WAS a creature of habit, then he broke that habit when he did not cut through the omentum in the Pinchin Street case. I have a hard time imagining him putting the knofe to the abdomen and start slicing into it, moaning "Nah, I just cannot bring myself to cut any deeper".
If anything, I believe it would be quite an accomplishment to cut through the skin and muscle but not through the omentum for a stretch of 15 inches. It would require a steady hand an a lot of control, methinks. So it seems premeditated to me - he did what he had decided to do. Thatīs my five cents, at least.

[Harry D]

Again, if he didnīt feel like cutting into the abdomen, why then do it at all? My money remains on the "branding" option - but I am quite willing to concede that it does not feel as 100 per cent safe placement of assets.

Like I said, he was a creature of habit. Obviously the mutilation was part of his paraphilia but I'm guessing that his appetite for it might have been waning. It could be why the series ostensibly ended after that.

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup


Is a vertical gash down the center of the abdomen how one usually goes about dismembering a body? I don't think so. Especially since no dismemberment ACTUALLY took place along that cut.
While the vertical gash is something that took place in the ripper murders.
Its a simple factual similarity.

What is "unproven possibilities" is that the vertical gash, that didn't include dismemberment along those lines, was for dismemberment. and that the killer started this but then changed his mind or that two victims also had there vaginas cut accidentally while this cut was made.

I could just as easily turn it around and say you thinking it was for dismemberment is because you have decided in advance that it was for the reasons you mentioned above.
and I think my case is stronger because you have more "unproven possibilities" and Im just pointing out simple factual similarities.

If one is the torso killer, and wishes to remove the pelvis, as was done on EJ and Whitehall case, then yes, dismemberment would start with a vertical gash, in order to remove the viscera first.
That is also the way it is done in animal slaughter. One does not cut the hams from the pig before removing the intestines

And “my” theory is not without empirical basis, since it was proposed by a senior police officer in 1888 who saw the wound himself.

So it is not an merely an unproven possibility, but a contemporary theory. It might not be correct but it is sourcebased which makes it “stronger” than modern assumptions.

[Abby Normal]

Opening the abdomen is probably of great importance if one wishes to divide the body as happened in EJ’s case and the Whitehall torso. So the idea that dismemberment is only arms, legs, head, trunk is not correct, which refers back to the discussion about how words are not always neutral but can be misleading. In this case the idea (also expressed by Abby Normal) that the abdominal cut is “above and beyond” what is needed for dismemberment and therefore postmortem mutilation which makes it similar to the rippers work.From my point of view, this is just unproven possibilities; the cut is only above and beyond if one decides in advance that dismemberment is only “classic” arms legs head trunk.
Ok thanks. Don’t have access to the sourcebook at present, but the many questions and focus on barrows show that the possibility was entertained during the inquest. If you say the police concluded differently then fine, as I recalled there was some idea that possibly a cart or barrow had been used but it may have been another case.

Hi Kattrup

.From my point of view, this is just unproven possibilities; the cut is only above and beyond if one decides in advance that dismemberment is only “classic” arms legs head trunk.

Is a vertical gash down the center of the abdomen how one usually goes about dismembering a body? I don't think so. Especially since no dismemberment ACTUALLY took place along that cut.
While the vertical gash is something that took place in the ripper murders.
Its a simple factual similarity.

What is "unproven possibilities" is that the vertical gash, that didn't include dismemberment along those lines, was for dismemberment. and that the killer started this but then changed his mind or that two victims also had there vaginas cut accidentally while this cut was made.

I could just as easily turn it around and say you thinking it was for dismemberment is because you have decided in advance that it was for the reasons you mentioned above.
and I think my case is stronger because you have more "unproven possibilities" and Im just pointing out simple factual similarities.