Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pinchin Street Torso - who did it?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    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.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      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.
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        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.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

          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.






          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            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.

            Comment


            • 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.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                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?
                Last edited by Fisherman; 10-10-2019, 12:59 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                  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!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                    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.
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      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?

                      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.
                        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?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                          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.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                            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.”
                            Thanks, Joshua!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              Thanks, Joshua!
                              disemboweled?!?
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                                disemboweled?!?
                                Disemboweled, who? The Pinchin Street torso wasnīt.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X