Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Pinchin Street Torso - who did it?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
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?
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?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostIt would make little sense to almost cut through the omentum if the cut was meant for dismemberment. Not would a cut to the abdomen promote any dismemberment at all. I think we must keep im mind that dismembement always was a defensive act to the victorian police, and so they would not think in terms of aggressive and offensive dismemberment.Originally posted by Fisherman View PostThere 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Harry D View Post
Hello Fish,
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Me? My best guess would be that the killer was losing his knack for abdominal mutilation, as evidenced in Alice McKenzie's case. Although arguably McKenzie's murder was more opportunistic and time-pressured than the Pinchin one. Perhaps he begun mutilating the body, but it didn't bring him the same satisfaction as it did in the past. He still had to dismember and dispose of the body. However, this time he decided to dump it in his old stomping ground for added effect.
I think we must accept that he made this cut with an intention, and I fail to see that the intention was to signal a lack of interest in abdominal mutilation.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
thanks for this fish
i didnt know the police actually thought her murder took place near pinchin and she was carried manually. how far was lechs mum from pinchin again? any other suspcts live near pinchin?
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
I have ideas about everything! Whether the ideas are right or wrong is another matter...
In the case of the shallow wound to the Pinchin Street torso, I tend to think that it was an intended thing, to begin with - reasonably, the killer had ample time with the body, and could have made any sort of cut he chose to, including one that opened up the abdomen and laid bare the innards. After all, he had the time to carefully disjoint the legs and to take the head of by way of knife, something that (if Hebbert is on the money) was a progress on his learning curve.
So what do we make of it if he had the time, had access to a sharp knife, sturdy and flexible enough to take a head off, and nevertheless opted for a shallow cut only to the abdomen, while cutting open the vagina?
My best guess would be that it was about "branding" the body. This was a killer who took control over the bodies of his victims, who took them apart cleanly and neatly, in pieces at his will. He more or less used the bodies as building kits, to a smaller or lesser degree, I believe. Now that he did not open a victim up, I think he may have turned her into a sort of blueprint, if you take my meaning: "This is where I would have made the cut if I had wanted to take the innards out - but I decided against it on this occasion, but she is still a property of mine, whom I could use at will". Sort of. Estetics of murder, actually.
There is a thin line between this suggestion and the suggestion of the killer having provided the body with a calling card, so as to mark her out as his work. A calling card would have more far-reaching implications in terms of getting the message through to the public, and I am not certain that he intended to do so in the first place. I think most of what he did was evey bit as egotistical as is normally the case in serial murder, and aimed at his own satisfaction. But I can see my way clear to accepting that he at least did not mind sending a message to the Londoners. Many serial killers take great pride in what they do, and do not want it to go unnoticed.
I also think that the arms were left on the body to make it look more like a real person, instead of a hunk of flesh only. Hands are very expressive, and in my world, a torso with the arms attached is far more expressive - and frightening - than one with no limbs. There is an interesting parallel in the 1874 torso, where a leg was left attached to the torso. More murder estetics, therefore.
What about yourself, do you have any thoughts on the matter?
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Me? My best guess would be that the killer was losing his knack for abdominal mutilation, as evidenced in Alice McKenzie's case. Although arguably McKenzie's murder was more opportunistic and time-pressured than the Pinchin one. Perhaps he begun mutilating the body, but it didn't bring him the same satisfaction as it did in the past. He still had to dismember and dispose of the body. However, this time he decided to dump it in his old stomping ground for added effect.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
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.
i didnt know the police actually thought her murder took place near pinchin and she was carried manually. how far was lechs mum from pinchin again? any other suspcts live near pinchin?Last edited by Abby Normal; 10-08-2019, 11:15 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Kattrup View PostI think the police were probably right in thinking it was a cut preparatory to dismemberment. The person then changed his mind and decided not to cut the body into such small pieces.
Why would he decide that and why leave the arms? The Pinchin “torso” is the only one where it was supposed that the person dumping it had transportation, I believe. So, if he had access to a cart, there was less need for small carryable pieces.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
I have ideas about everything! Whether the ideas are right or wrong is another matter...
In the case of the shallow wound to the Pinchin Street torso, I tend to think that it was an intended thing, to begin with - reasonably, the killer had ample time with the body, and could have made any sort of cut he chose to, including one that opened up the abdomen and laid bare the innards. After all, he had the time to carefully disjoint the legs and to take the head of by way of knife, something that (if Hebbert is on the money) was a progress on his learning curve.
So what do we make of it if he had the time, had access to a sharp knife, sturdy and flexible enough to take a head off, and nevertheless opted for a shallow cut only to the abdomen, while cutting open the vagina?
My best guess would be that it was about "branding" the body. This was a killer who took control over the bodies of his victims, who took them apart cleanly and neatly, in pieces at his will. He more or less used the bodies as building kits, to a smaller or lesser degree, I believe. Now that he did not open a victim up, I think he may have turned her into a sort of blueprint, if you take my meaning: "This is where I would have made the cut if I had wanted to take the innards out - but I decided against it on this occasion, but she is still a property of mine, whom I could use at will". Sort of. Estetics of murder, actually.
There is a thin line between this suggestion and the suggestion of the killer having provided the body with a calling card, so as to mark her out as his work. A calling card would have more far-reaching implications in terms of getting the message through to the public, and I am not certain that he intended to do so in the first place. I think most of what he did was evey bit as egotistical as is normally the case in serial murder, and aimed at his own satisfaction. But I can see my way clear to accepting that he at least did not mind sending a message to the Londoners. Many serial killers take great pride in what they do, and do not want it to go unnoticed.
I also think that the arms were left on the body to make it look more like a real person, instead of a hunk of flesh only. Hands are very expressive, and in my world, a torso with the arms attached is far more expressive - and frightening - than one with no limbs. There is an interesting parallel in the 1874 torso, where a leg was left attached to the torso. More murder estetics, therefore.
What about yourself, do you have any thoughts on the matter?
because the boy just couldnt help himself. as i mentioned before the vertical gash is just something he liked to do, no matter what he ended up doing.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
Thank you for this reply. Whether others or I would say you are qualified was not the issue, I was just wondering whether you would consider yourself qualified.
But let us continue in the spirit of further discussion and get back to the case.
I started out asking Dane if there was genital mutilation on any of the torso victims? I didn't think so and I still don't.
While there was some damage to the genitals of EJ, and Pinchin's vagina had a cut, they were not specifically targeted and the damage was not "mutilation", but incidental to slashing the abdomen. I am sorry I don't have time to respond further tonight.
except that its happened twice. i could see incidental in one case, two not so much.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Kattrup View PostI think the police were probably right in thinking it was a cut preparatory to dismemberment. The person then changed his mind and decided not to cut the body into such small pieces.
It would make little sense to almost cut through the omentum if the cut was meant for dismemberment. Not would a cut to the abdomen promote any dismemberment at all. I think we must keep im mind that dismembement always was a defensive act to the victorian police, and so they would not think in terms of aggressive and offensive dismemberment.
Why would he decide that and why leave the arms? The Pinchin “torso” is the only one where it was supposed that the person dumping it had transportation, I believe. So, if he had access to a cart, there was less need for small carryable pieces.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
I think the police were probably right in thinking it was a cut preparatory to dismemberment. The person then changed his mind and decided not to cut the body into such small pieces.
Why would he decide that and why leave the arms? The Pinchin “torso” is the only one where it was supposed that the person dumping it had transportation, I believe. So, if he had access to a cart, there was less need for small carryable pieces.
Leave a comment:
-
In the case of the shallow wound to the Pinchin Street torso, I tend to think that it was an intended thing, to begin with - reasonably, the killer had ample time with the body, and could have made any sort of cut he chose to, including one that opened up the abdomen and laid bare the innards. After all, he had the time to carefully disjoint the legs and to take the head of by way of knife, something that (if Hebbert is on the money) was a progress on his learning curve.
So what do we make of it if he had the time, had access to a sharp knife, sturdy and flexible enough to take a head off, and nevertheless opted for a shallow cut only to the abdomen, while cutting open the vagina?
My best guess would be that it was about "branding" the body. This was a killer who took control over the bodies of his victims, who took them apart cleanly and neatly, in pieces at his will. He more or less used the bodies as building kits, to a smaller or lesser degree, I believe. Now that he did not open a victim up, I think he may have turned her into a sort of blueprint, if you take my meaning: "This is where I would have made the cut if I had wanted to take the innards out - but I decided against it on this occasion, but she is still a property of mine, whom I could use at will". Sort of. Estetics of murder, actually.
There is a thin line between this suggestion and the suggestion of the killer having provided the body with a calling card, so as to mark her out as his work. A calling card would have more far-reaching implications in terms of getting the message through to the public, and I am not certain that he intended to do so in the first place. I think most of what he did was evey bit as egotistical as is normally the case in serial murder, and aimed at his own satisfaction. But I can see my way clear to accepting that he at least did not mind sending a message to the Londoners. Many serial killers take great pride in what they do, and do not want it to go unnoticed.
I also think that the arms were left on the body to make it look more like a real person, instead of a hunk of flesh only. Hands are very expressive, and in my world, a torso with the arms attached is far more expressive - and frightening - than one with no limbs. There is an interesting parallel in the 1874 torso, where a leg was left attached to the torso. More murder estetics, therefore.
What about yourself, do you have any thoughts on the matter?Last edited by Fisherman; 10-08-2019, 08:28 AM.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: