Pinchin Street Torso - who did it?

[Dane_F]

It seems as with politics that JtR research is filled with arguments over semantics more than the case itself. It's a shame that context is so easily set aside when someone simply wants to disagree.

[Sam Flynn]

They aren't any more vague than someone claiming there aren't any "significant" similarities.

There's nothing vague about it, as there are any number of categorical dissimilarities between the two series. For example:

- All Ripper murders in small part of the East End, vs majority of torsos dumped in various locations in West London
- Five Ripper murders committed in a few weeks, vs a handful of torsos spread over a period of 15 years
- 4 out of 5 Ripper murders committed outdoors, vs none of the torso victims killed/dismembered outdoors
- Dismemberment features in 0% of the Ripper murders, vs dismemberment featuring in 100% of the torso cases
- Evisceration/intent to eviscerate in 4 from 5 Ripper murders, vs evisceration in a tiny minority of torsos (and then arguably for practical reasons)

[Sam Flynn]

It seems as with politics that JtR research is filled with arguments over semantics more than the case itself. It's a shame that context is so easily set aside when someone simply wants to disagree.

I'm not talking semantics. I'm talking objective facts.

[Kattrup]

I went back to the Hebbert Autopsy reports that Debra was so very kind to link to earlier in this thread and read what they had to say about the Pinchin St. Torso.

Fact #1: From just below the neck there was a long gash that cut through the skin and the muscle of the abdomen all the way down past the pubes opening the vagina and stopping slightly past it in the left inner thigh area.

Fact #2: The neck was very clearly cut. Two incisions were made. One starting from behind beginning opposite the spine and moving left to right ending in the front on the right side. The 2nd beginning in the front right and continuing to the back meeting the other incision. The muscle and tissue down to the spine were cut to the same level. In the report he states that the neck and leg incisions had very clear-cut edges. The edges of the cuts show a very sharp knife was used.

Fact #3: The autopsy report states (and I will direct quote this to be clear), "The incisions were evidently made with design, and were skillfully performed. . ."

So we have the autopsy report by Hebbert (with permission of Dr. Bond to reproduce) stating, 1) the vagina was in fact cut. 2) the neck was in fact cut. 3) these cuts were made with design and skillfully performed.

-----



What start to narrow things down as highly unlikely, at least IMO, is having two killers in the same general time frame, in the same general area, both focusing on "unfortunates", both mutilating bodies, both taking organs in some cases, both mutilating genitals in some cases, both never being seen in the act or around the bodies, both never being caught, and both showing no signs of actually having sex with the victims. That starts to build up a long list of "coincidences" that becomes hard to ignore. Again, IMO.

Hello Dane

I agree it is important to be precise. So I'm hoping I get this right: Hebbert states "The skin and muscles of the abdomen had been cut by a vertical incision, running from 2 inches below the ensiform cartilage downwards, and ending on the left side of the external genitals, just opening the vagina, but not opening the peritoneal cavity."

Regarding the intentionality and design of the cuts: "The edges of the cuts showed that a very sharp knife had been used; all the cuts had been made after death. All the cuts were made from left to right except those separating the right thigh and right arm, which had been carried from right to left across the flexures of the joints, and so probably done by a right-handed man.
The incisions were evidently made with design and were skillfully performed, as by a man who had some knowledge of the position of joints and the readiest means of separating limbs"

So 1: I personally really fail to see any deliberate "genital mutilation" in the single abdominal cut.

and 2: when the good doctor spoke of the design and skill, he was referring to the cuts separating the limbs.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Dane

I agree it is important to be precise. So I'm hoping I get this right: Hebbert states "The skin and muscles of the abdomen had been cut by a vertical incision, running from 2 inches below the ensiform cartilage downwards, and ending on the left side of the external genitals, just opening the vagina, but not opening the peritoneal cavity."

Regarding the intentionality and design of the cuts: "The edges of the cuts showed that a very sharp knife had been used; all the cuts had been made after death. All the cuts were made from left to right except those separating the right thigh and right arm, which had been carried from right to left across the flexures of the joints, and so probably done by a right-handed man.
The incisions were evidently made with design and were skillfully performed, as by a man who had some knowledge of the position of joints and the readiest means of separating limbs"

So 1: I personally really fail to see any deliberate "genital mutilation" in the single abdominal cut.

and 2: when the good doctor spoke of the design and skill, he was referring to the cuts separating the limbs.

hi kat
yes lets be precise.

so 1. genital mutilation. fact same as the ripper

so 2. the good dr. spoke of design and skill. fact same as the ripper.

so you see you and others on the other side need to resort to interpretation, while the simple cold hard facts of the similarities are on our side.

i also note that you and sam need to slip in words like "deliberate" and "distinctive" and "significant" and "superficial" and such to hedge your interpretations. so yes semantics are on your side.

[Abby Normal]

I'm not talking semantics. I'm talking objective facts.

ah yes like the objective fact that eddowes only had the "tip of her nose" (your quote) cut off. nice try.

[Kattrup]

hi kat
yes lets be precise.

so 1. genital mutilation. fact same as the ripper

so 2. the good dr. spoke of design and skill. fact same as the ripper.

so you see you and others on the other side need to resort to interpretation, while the simple cold hard facts of the similarities are on our side.

i also note that you and sam need to slip in words like "deliberate" and "distinctive" and "significant" and "superficial" and such to hedge your interpretations. so yes semantics are on your side.

Hello Abby

you seem to be under the impression that I am on some side of something. And you accuse me of hedging my bets by being deliberately imprecise and vague.
Which I find ever so slightly unfair.

Be that as it may, my conversation with Dave regarded his assertion that the torso victims had genital mutilations, and that these were deliberate. Now, it may surprise you, but in order to understand what is meant by that, we must resort to interpretation. Because we might not all agree on what Dane means.
So I asked for clarification. Genital mutilation, to me, suggests deliberate targeting of external genitals. Abdominal wounds that happen to hit the genitals are perhaps not what most people think of when they hear the term.

One could use other examples where the choice of words might lead the conclusion in an inadmissible manner, e.g. dismemberer or eviscerator, both suggestive terms used to bolster a certain perspective.

The idea that the similarities between the ripper and torso cases are more than superficial is unproven. It is in fact also an interpretation. I know you wrote that you’re tired of listing all those damning similarities but I must inform you that it is still not very convincing.

[Errata]

One thing that drives me batty here is the terminology used, and I don’t know if it’s a British/American thing or a 1800s/2000 thing, Or if it’s an effort to not use correct terminology in order not to offend. But it drives me nuts.

first of all there’s the word genitals as it applies to females. That is the labia, vulva, clitoris as the external genitalia, and the vagina is internal genitalia. There is a weird tendency today and back then to refer to all of it as the vagina. It’s incorrect, and in this case it gives the impression that an organ behind the pubic bone has been severed by a knife. Which can happen, but it’s a big deal. A medical examiner would have to describe how that happened. Like one explained removing a heart without cracking the chest. Far more likely the mons pubis was divided by the knife, terminating through the labia into the thigh.

[John G]

Hello Abby

you seem to be under the impression that I am on some side of something. And you accuse me of hedging my bets by being deliberately imprecise and vague.
Which I find ever so slightly unfair.

Be that as it may, my conversation with Dave regarded his assertion that the torso victims had genital mutilations, and that these were deliberate. Now, it may surprise you, but in order to understand what is meant by that, we must resort to interpretation. Because we might not all agree on what Dane means.
So I asked for clarification. Genital mutilation, to me, suggests deliberate targeting of external genitals. Abdominal wounds that happen to hit the genitals are perhaps not what most people think of when they hear the term.

One could use other examples where the choice of words might lead the conclusion in an inadmissible manner, e.g. dismemberer or eviscerator, both suggestive terms used to bolster a certain perspective.

The idea that the similarities between the ripper and torso cases are more than superficial is unproven. It is in fact also an interpretation. I know you wrote that you’re tired of listing all those damning similarities but I must inform you that it is still not very convincing.

I agree. Arguing that a simple cut to the abdomen is the same as eviscerating and hacking a victim to pieces (Kelly) is stretching credulity to breaking point.

It also conveniently ignores the vast dismiliarities between the Torso crimes and the C5. To recap:

One set of crimes victims abducted or inveigled to dismemberment site. The other set, victims slaughtered in the street, implying at the very least a totally different strategy. One set of victims dismembered and decapitated. The other set, no dismemberment, no decapitation. One set of victims, evidence of some victims being stored (Whitehall for around 6 weeks). The other set, this didn't happen. One set of victims targeted within an area of just over one square mile, overwhelmingly suggestion a local perpetrator with lical knowledge and no access to transport. The other set involving body parts scattered over a much wider area, overwhelmingly suggesting a perpetrator with access to transport and no link to Whitechapel.

Not suprisingly, no serial killer in history has ever alternated between a dismemberer and none dismemberer. What's being argued for is totally unique and unsupported by the evidence.

Like I've said before, simply roping in as many knife crimes that you can find and attributing them all to a single perpetrator is simply lazy thinking.

[Fisherman]

One could use other examples where the choice of words might lead the conclusion in an inadmissible manner, e.g. dismemberer or eviscerator, both suggestive terms used to bolster a certain perspective.

Are you saying that the Torso killer (presuming that the victims had the same killer) did not dismember and eviscerate?

I think not. We both know he did precisely that.

So what you are suggesting will instead be that he perhaps did not dismember on account of a wish to dismember and that he did not eviscerate on account of a wish to do so; maybe he simply took the bodies apart to facilitate transport and maybe he took out organs to make his burden lighter, that will be your suggestion. And you add that it would be to lead conclusions in an inadmissible manner to say that the killer was a dismemberer and an eviscerator.

I would say that this never can be true, because dismemerment and evisceration are not terms that necessarily involve an urge to perform these acts. Once we take of a limb, we dismember, regardless of why we do it. People can be accidentally dismembered, even.
The same goes for eviscerating: it describes the act of taking innards out of a body, and does not necessarily involve any wish to do so.

So what you SHOULD warn against would instead be any claiming that the dismemberment and evisceration we know took place in the torso murders was led on by an inner urge on behalf of the killer to do so, and NOT against using the words dismemberment and evisceration. Using these terms is not in any way leading conclusions in an inadmissable manner, but instead pointing out important facts of the case.

What is the REAL problem here is that you want different terminologies for the Ripper and the torso killer. You want us to say that the Ripper was an eviscerator whereas the torso killer was not - he was simply a guy who took out a heart, lungs and a uterus for whatever reason. And he was not a dismembered, he was instead somebody who was practical in his way of reasoning. And from there, we presumably move on to Trevors gem of how we should not call him a killer, I suppose?

So there we are: no killer, no eviscerator and no dismemberer. Meaning that he was very far removed from what the Ripper was. And THAT is "admissible" evidence, all as per you.

It is all semantics, nothing else. It is a demonstration of how far from the probable truth (and the probable truth is that the killers were one and the same because there are far too many similarities involved for them not to be) a warped reasoning can take us.

It was a Dane who wrote about the emperors new clothes. You would have made your countryman proud with this kind of reasoning.

[Fisherman]

I agree. Arguing that a simple cut to the abdomen is the same as eviscerating

But who does that? Before anything is taken out of the body, there has been no evisceration. Afterwards, there has been an evisceration. It is that easy.

and hacking a victim to pieces (Kelly) is stretching credulity to breaking point.

I do not see your point. Kelly was hacked AND eviscerated.

It also conveniently ignores the vast dismiliarities between the Torso crimes and the C5.

No, it does not. The differences are there, but they do not involve one of the killers being an eviscerator and the other not.

To recap:

One set of crimes victims abducted or inveigled to dismemberment site.

We should not conclude how the killer gor hold of his victims. They may have knocked on his door for all we know.

The other set, victims slaughtered in the street, implying at the very least a totally different strategy.

Yes. And who denies it? But actually, who can prove that the torso victims were NOT "slaughtered in the street, and then dismembered? Jerry D, I think, has suggested that the Whitehall victim was killed in the New Scotland Yard building. The thing is, we do not KNOW, how the torso killer did what he did, all we know is that he dismembered his victims and dumped the parts afterwards. That leads us (very logically) to thinking that he had a bolthole of sorts, but we should be very, very careful to claim it as a fact. Much of what is presented as differences are unestablished matters, I´m afraid. The one thing that really stands out and that is factually established is that the torso killer dismembered his victims and dumped them. End of.

One set of victims dismembered and decapitated.

Just like I say, yes. And just like I also say, there are examples of killers who sometimes engage in dismemberment, sometimes not. And it cannot be denied that the REASON for the dismemberment and dumping may have been that these victims were killed in premises that could link them to the killer, whereas the Ripper victims could NOT be linked to the killer by way of where they were left dead. It is a very simple and logical explanation and a totally, totally viable one. In just about every dismemberment case, this is the exact reason for why the dismberment takes place. I of course think there was more to it than so, but the factual grounds for dismemberment look like this in case after case.

The other set, no dismemberment, no decapitation.

Which can well be because there was no need whatsoever to cover up any link. It´s not problem solved, it is a pointing out that there may never have been a problem in the first place. It is NOT about HOW one series involved dismemberment - it is ab out whether a killer CAN dismember in some cases (for whatever reason) while not doing it in other cases. And the answer is yes, he can.

One set of victims, evidence of some victims being stored (Whitehall for around 6 weeks). The other set, this didn't happen.

And why would he "store" the C5? Moreover, HOW would he store them? By ligting them up on his shoulder, carrying them to an ice warehouse and knocking on the door? There was never even any practical possibility to store the C5, was there?

One set of victims targeted within an area of just over one square mile, overwhelmingly suggestion a local perpetrator with lical knowledge and no access to transport.

Suggesting? Aha. Well, let´s just agree that all we can say is that the killer did not USE any transport, whether he had access to such a thing or not, and we will be on the safe side.

The other set involving body parts scattered over a much wider area, overwhelmingly suggesting a perpetrator with access to transport and no link to Whitechapel.

Yes, in the torso cases the killer used transport. Then again, if the bodies were killed in a site linkable to himself, then he MUST tgransport them out of that place, and if he didn´t want to dump the bodies on his doorstep, then he MUST transport them further afield. It is really, really not rocket science, is it? Once again, it all boils down to the question whether a killer can kill in both these ways, and the answer is a simple "of course he can, there is absolutely no practical obstacles at all".

Not suprisingly, no serial killer in history has ever alternated between a dismemberer and none dismemberer.

Ooops! Oooops, ooooops, ooooops.

What's being argued for is totally unique and unsupported by the evidence.

No, not at all. There are examples of serial killers who dismember on some occasions and not on others. Randy Kraft, Tsomuto Miazaki, Herbert Mullin ...

Like I've said before, simply roping in as many knife crimes that you can find and attributing them all to a single perpetrator is simply lazy thinking.

I´d rather be lazy than in conflict with the evidence, I´m afraid. And if you think it is lazy to recognize that odd and rare damages to murder victims point to a common killer, then you may need to get lazy too. Because that´s actually how it works.

Trying to find a separate killer for every murder, regardless of how they may involve these types of rare and odd inclusions is certainly not lazy - but in many cases, it is plain dumb and a waste of valuable time, I´m afraid.

[Kattrup]

Are you saying that the Torso killer (presuming that the victims had the same killer) did not dismember and eviscerate?

I think not. We both know he did precisely that.

So what you are suggesting will instead be that he perhaps did not dismember on account of a wish to dismember and that he did not eviscerate on account of a wish to do so; maybe he simply took the bodies apart to facilitate transport and maybe he took out organs to make his burden lighter, that will be your suggestion. And you add that it would be to lead conclusions in an inadmissible manner to say that the killer was a dismemberer and an eviscerator.

I would say that this never can be true, because dismemerment and evisceration are not terms that necessarily involve an urge to perform these acts. Once we take of a limb, we dismember, regardless of why we do it. People can be accidentally dismembered, even.
The same goes for eviscerating: it describes the act of taking innards out of a body, and does not necessarily involve any wish to do so.

So what you SHOULD warn against would instead be any claiming that the dismemberment and evisceration we know took place in the torso murders was led on by an inner urge on behalf of the killer to do so, and NOT against using the words dismemberment and evisceration. Using these terms is not in any way leading conclusions in an inadmissable manner, but instead pointing out important facts of the case.

What is the REAL problem here is that you want different terminologies for the Ripper and the torso killer. You want us to say that the Ripper was an eviscerator whereas the torso killer was not - he was simply a guy who took out a heart, lungs and a uterus for whatever reason. And he was not a dismembered, he was instead somebody who was practical in his way of reasoning. And from there, we presumably move on to Trevors gem of how we should not call him a killer, I suppose?

So there we are: no killer, no eviscerator and no dismemberer. Meaning that he was very far removed from what the Ripper was. And THAT is "admissible" evidence, all as per you.

It is all semantics, nothing else. It is a demonstration of how far from the probable truth (and the probable truth is that the killers were one and the same because there are far too many similarities involved for them not to be) a warped reasoning can take us.

The only thing I “want” in this context is for your posts to contain fewer simplistic arguments.

It was a Dane who wrote about the emperors new clothes. You would have made your countryman proud with this kind of reasoning.

Thank you, but you overestimate my importance and your theory’s acceptance. I agree that as the tailor in the story, your posts with this thread and others weave a beguiling phantasy. But every time you parade it, it fails to fool.

[Fisherman]

The only thing I “want” in this context is for your posts to contain fewer simplistic arguments.

It seems to me that you want something entirely different - to pretend that I have a need as such to use a specific terminology to couple the Ripper and the Torso series. Which is why you bang on about how it is "inadmissible" to use the words dismemberment and evisceration when speaking of the torso killings. But I don´t. I could not care less whether we speak of evisceration or simply about "taking organs out", because no matter how hard we try to conceal that truth, it remains that both series involve examples of the originators taking out hearts and uteri from their victim´s bodies.
To any police force worth their salt, that alone is an almighty indicator of a common originator. Then again, the poor sods are of course "simplistic" and do not possess your gifts of imagining things.

Thank you, but you overestimate my importance and your theory’s acceptance. I agree that as the tailor in the story, your posts with this thread and others weave a beguiling phantasy. But every time you parade it, it fails to fool.

It warms, at least. Standing with your butt bare does neither warm nor beguile. And to be perfectly fair, I really, really hope I am not overestimating your importance.

[Kattrup]

It warms, at least. Standing with your butt bare does neither warm nor beguiling. And to be perfectly fair, I really, really hope I am not overestimating your importance.

I am not sure I understand what you mean. It warms but it does not warm?

It seems to me you’ve misunderstood my post, which was about the metaphor you brought up (The Emperor’s New Clothes, by Hans Christian Andersen).

[Fisherman]

I am not sure I understand what you mean.

I am sure you don´t understand what I mean, generally speaking. But I am happy to explain!
You said that I "wove" a fantasy with this thread (and "thread" can mean a section of a message board as well as part of a fabric). So you spoke of something that could be interpreted as me having access to a woven piece of cloth.
I then contrasted this to how you have no fabric at all to cover up your behind with, à la the emperor in Andersens fairytale. Ergo, I had something to warm me (the first "warm" you refer to), whereas you had nothing to keep you warm (the second "warm"), but instead had to endure the discussion with a naked butt.
Is that clear enough for you? No?

It seems to me you’ve misunderstood my post, which was about the metaphor you brought up (The Emperor’s New Clothes, by Hans Christian Andersen).

As I said, I am not the one misunderstanding. Anyway, it seems you quickly ran out of air concerning the dismemberment/evisceration terms and resorted to petty semantic discussions about proverbs, and that´s as it should be. Stick with your area of expertise and you will be fine!