Pinchin Street Torso - who did it?

[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.

[Fisherman]

Im not pounding my chest my friend, I just believe that when it comes to assessing evidence its much clearer when you actually have the evidence to do so. These men, even in a more primitive state of investigative practices, had access to the physical evidence. When you see flesh cut first hand you have a better comprehension than by reading about it.

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.

[Fisherman]

Old habits die hard.

Perhaps after his frustrated attempt with McKenzie, he wanted to see if he still had "it" but after that initial cut he didn't derive the same sense of satisfaction?

I cannot exclude it, but to my mind, he would have cut the abdomen open, and not just made a slice to the surface. 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.

[Fisherman]

interesting fish. I think chapman was also living at cable street at the time, but of course couldn't have been the torsoripper as he only recently arrived to London.

True - he lived at 126 Cable Street between late 1888 and October of 1889. He was just a boy in 1873, and not living in GB at that stage.

[Fisherman]

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.

Of course dismemberments may differ very much in how they are performed. But there is no need as such to open up the abdomen and take organs out to dismember a body. The typical transport dismemberment involves the six parts mentioned and the trunk serves as a container for the viscera in such cases. There is no intention to mislead by pointing this out. And to be fair, all that IS needed to dismember a body is to take it apart in the classical six parts, which means that taking out organs IS above and beyonf the basic requirements.
I think we should try not to be too scared of how "above and beyond" takes the torso killings out of the equation of ordinary practical dismemberments. It would be far worse not to acknowledge how many details point clearly to such a need.
What is your personal take? That it was just a run of the mill series of ordinary practical dismemberment murders - or that we may need to keep a door ajar for that possibility?

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.

The option that a barrow was perhaps used was looked into, but the police ended up accepting that there was no evidence of such a thing whereas there were sack imprints on the body suggesting a possible manual transport. In no other case was it believed that human transport was what got the parts to where they were dumped.

[Abby Normal]

Maria Lousias place was in Cable Street, at a distance that was easily bridged walking. And as Edward has pointed out, at this time Joseph Forsdyke was hospitalized and dying (he passed some weeks after the Pinchin Street murder), perhaps meaning that Maria Louisa was basically tending to her husband, leaving her place empty. And, just perhaps, she asked somebody to look after it for her.

I know of no suspect living nearer to the site than this place. It was in 147 Cable Street, around 300 yards to the east of Pinchin Street as I remember it.

interesting fish. I think chapman was also living at cable street at the time, but of course couldn't have been the torsoripper as he only recently arrived to London.

[Harry D]

Okay. But why would somebody who had lost his taste for abdominal mutilation slice into the abdomen and make a 15 inch cut there? Would such a person not abstain from cutting the abdomen at all?

Old habits die hard.

Perhaps after his frustrated attempt with McKenzie, he wanted to see if he still had "it" but after that initial cut he didn't derive the same sense of satisfaction?

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, Michael, the authorities did opt for no link between the Ripper and the Torso kille back in 1888. So if you want to join ranks with those with an 1880:s insight level about dismemberment murders, be my guest.

And yes, most peoiple today donīt the the series were linked, on account of how hundreds of books have suggested this as if it was a fact.

But many of the more insightful and knowledgeable reseearchers have already changed their mindsets on this business, and more will follow, for logical reasons.

So it is a procedure over time. And you are perfectly correct to pound your chest and say that you are in the majority so far: better now than never.

Im not pounding my chest my friend, I just believe that when it comes to assessing evidence its much clearer when you actually have the evidence to do so. These men, even in a more primitive state of investigative practices, had access to the physical evidence. When you see flesh cut first hand you have a better comprehension than by reading about it.