Pinchin Street Torso - who did it?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

The Miyazaki case (which is a new one to me) is interesting, as I posted earlier, it's a bit of a head scratcher why some of the torsos were decomposed. Where had they been stored? And why?
Would a serial dismemberer keep some parts some of the time, or do they have to fit a rigid MO?
Just a thought.

There will be normal dismemberments, where the killer cuts a body up in six parts, head, torso, two arms and two legs, and disposes of them so as not to be caught. And then there will be the not so normal cases, and once we involve an actual interest in the cutting itself, the game plan changes entirely. Then the dismemberment is no longer primarily a defensive strategy, but instead something the killer wants to do. And if he likes some cuts and parts better than others, I donīt see why he would not be able to keep them for a longer time than the parts he takes less of a fancy to.
Letīs make the assumption that a killer wants to use a head of a victim to gouge out the eyes, ā la Charles Albright. He seemingly did this on account of how he as a young boy had shot animals and stuffed them, with a hope of becoming a taxidermist in the future. However, his no glass eyes could be afforded and so he had to use buttons for eyes.
If such a killer keeps a head that he has taken the eyes out of and replaced them with buttons for a longer time than he keeps the legs and arms, we would be able to outline a possible reason for this, would we not? Similarly, there may have been such reasons for the torso killer too. Alternatively, if his main focus was to put fear into people, it would perhaps make sense to dump the parts on various occasions, prolonging the terror that could be gotten out of a single body. Iīm sure there can be other reasons too, some of them perhaps purely practical.

It is fascinating, and there will be a reason, of course. In the end, the circumstances surrounding the deed and the personality of the killer will set the agenda.

[Fisherman]

If no one knew who committed either set of crimes, how could the authorities categorically state they were not connected?
Unless they did know more than they let on? I smell a conspiracy...

There was no categorical denial - there were those who thought the crimes were linked at the time. As you may know, coroner Baxter asked George Bagster Phillips at the inquest into the Pinchin Street dumping about whether there were similarities involved in the work of the torso killer and the Ripper, respectively. And Phillips did say that there were such similarities in the cutting technique used. So the possibility was entertained.

The idea that they series were not connected was more of a majority decision back then, taking hold and developing into an ascertained fact, more or less, over the years. For me, it was Debra Arifs disclosure of Charles Hebberts work that set the ball in motion in the opposite direction. Once I read up on the details, I had little doubt that there cannot have been two separate killers. The idea defies all logic, and is at odds with criminal history, empirically speaking. Once we have the kind and number of similarities we do here, itīs a no-brainer.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

There will be normal dismemberments, where the killer cuts a body up in six parts, head, torso, two arms and two legs, and disposes of them so as not to be caught. And then there will be the not so normal cases, and once we involve an actual interest in the cutting itself, the game plan changes entirely. Then the dismemberment is no longer primarily a defensive strategy, but instead something the killer wants to do. And if he likes some cuts and parts better than. others, I donīt see why he would not be able to keep them for a longer time than the parts he takes less of a fancy to. Letīs make the assumption that a killer wants to use a head of a victim to gouge out the eyes, ā la Charles Albright. He seemingly did this on account of how he as a young boy had shot animals and stuffed them, with a hope of becoming a taxidermist in the future. However, his no glass eyes could be afforded and so he had to use buttons for eyes.
If such a killer keeps a head that he has taken the eyes out of and replaced them with buttons for a longer time than he keeps the legs and arms, we would be able to outline a possible reason for it, would we not? Similarly, there may have been such reasons for the torso killer too. Alternatively, if his main focus was to put fear into people, it would perhaps make sense to dump the parts on various occasions, prolonging the terror that could be gotten out of a single body. Iīsure there can be other reasons too, some of them perhaps purely practical.
It is fascinating, and there will be a reason, of course. In the end, the circumstances surrounding the deed and the personality of the killer will set the agenda.

Yeah, that's what I was angling at. There are differences in the torso crimes taken as a whole. Likewise there are differences in the Whitechapel crimes as a whole. Why do we expect a killer to fit a rigid framework? I think that in Ripperology there's to much emphasis on demanding a suspect behaves in a predictable, consistent way. I totally agree with the authorities at the time not connecting the cases, why would they? I'm not 100% of the opinion that the two sets of crimes are by the same man, but I don't think it wise to dismiss any or all of the killings because of the differences in how a body was cut to peices or a section of colon removed.
The fact that these truly atrocious crimes happened at the same time and place is nothing short of remarkable. And I emphasise atrocious, we also forget that these were not like any other tangible murders at the time. Some hell of a coincidence.

[Abby Normal]

Yeah, that's what I was angling at. There are differences in the torso crimes taken as a whole. Likewise there are differences in the Whitechapel crimes as a whole. Why do we expect a killer to fit a rigid framework? I think that in Ripperology there's to much emphasis on demanding a suspect behaves in a predictable, consistent way. I totally agree with the authorities at the time not connecting the cases, why would they? I'm not 100% of the opinion that the two sets of crimes are by the same man, but I don't think it wise to dismiss any or all of the killings because of the differences in how a body was cut to peices or a section of colon removed.
The fact that these truly atrocious crimes happened at the same time and place is nothing short of remarkable. And I emphasise atrocious, we also forget that these were not like any other tangible murders at the time. Some hell of a coincidence.

Amen Al, Amen
what got me started into thinking they were possibly linked is when I learned that ALL the torso victims had post mortem mutilation above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment only. and as the list of specific similarities rolled in-Like stomach flesh removed in flaps, noses cut off, vertical gashes to the abdomen etc etc it pushed me further to lean by the same man. Now im not at 100% because there are unique differences-the biggest one for me is that none of the ripper victims were dismembered. but the similarities far outweigh the differences and the differences can be explained by simple fact of change in circumstances and or escalation for the killer.

but I agree these murders are horribly atrocious (and rare!)and the thought that there were two such creatures lurking about in the area at the same time is too much for me.

just to add-what if chapmans or kellys head been taken off? they almost were anyway. then it would have been game over. amazing how only a couple more inches of cutting could have turned this whole thing around at the start.

[Fisherman]

Yeah, that's what I was angling at. There are differences in the torso crimes taken as a whole. Likewise there are differences in the Whitechapel crimes as a whole. Why do we expect a killer to fit a rigid framework?

Because if we are about anything, then that is about trying to explain and make sense of the world around us. And to do that, we try to find patterns. Which is sometimes useful but less so on other occcasions.

I think that in Ripperology there's to much emphasis on demanding a suspect behaves in a predictable, consistent way.

Hear, hear!

I totally agree with the authorities at the time not connecting the cases, why would they?

Especially since they had no idea that there was such a thing as offensive dismemberment! That alone sank that particular ship effectively.

I'm not 100% of the opinion that the two sets of crimes are by the same man, but I don't think it wise to dismiss any or all of the killings because of the differences in how a body was cut to peices or a section of colon removed.

In many cases, we donīt even know that there WAS differences - it is something that is suggested as facts by the naysayers, though. Like the flaps from Jacksons abdomen, where a whole meal is made of how Hebbert called them slips of flesh, while not a word is said about how he ALSO named them "large flaps of skin" - which was EXACTLY what Kellys abdominal flesh panes were also called.
It is also said by some that the similarities were superficial only (which we cannot know, only guess at) and that the similarities are not significant (which is the exact same, we cannot possibly know that). So I advice caution against believing in what we are told by these posters.

The fact that these truly atrocious crimes happened at the same time and place is nothing short of remarkable.

Or not. It is only remarkable it there were two killers. If there was just the one, it becomes much less remarkable, of course.

And I emphasise atrocious, we also forget that these were not like any other tangible murders at the time. Some hell of a coincidence.

Yes, the deeds in these two series have always - and rightfully - been regarded as extremely unsettling. There are inclusions in both series that look like inexplicable evil. That is the very reason that they attract so much attention. And yes, it would be extremely strange if two such killers emerged in the same timeframe and within walking distance of each other.

[Errata]

Do we know how many Torso victims had their diaphragms cut or punctured? Which I’m aware is a weird question?

[Kattrup]

Would I qualify for a discussion that required reasonability and politeness? Thatīs really not for me to say, is it? In the end, I think there would be those - you included - that would claim I do not qualify. Then again, there would be others saying that you would not be fit to take part yourself.

So itīs not very much use asking the question if the first place, is it?

At the end of the day, it would be nice if everybody out here WAS reasonable and if everybody out here WAS polite. Sadly, that is not the case. Some have no intention of being polite, others enter a discussion with that aim and leave it after having shamed themselves. A few people manage to stay reasonably polite although they have ample reason not to. There are all kinds out here, and that is to be expected, actually.

We can discuss these things all day long, and we will disagree over them too, Iīm sure. Therefore I tend to think that making as good a case as we can for whatever we argue out here is and remains the most important thing. If we can couple it with being charitable and making friends, then so much the better. But I find not all posters invite that kind of a debate. It has resulted in me discussing things in a friendly manner with some and with a less friendly manner with others. I donīt doubt that I am to be blamed to a degree for the failures to keep a polite tone many a time. Nor do I doubt that others are also to blame for it on other occasions. But as I say, in the end, it is not for me to judge myself in that department. Or for you to judge your own efforts.

My overall recommendation would be not to focus on other posters personally if we can avoid it, but instead debate the case as such. No matter how annoying we think another poster is, allowing that annoyance to take precedence over our interest in the case will always be wrong.
Whether you think that I am polite enough for your taste is never going to be as important as whether the Ripper series and the torso ditto had the same originator. So can we return to the case facts now, please?

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

Do we know how many Torso victims had their diaphragms cut or punctured? Which I’m aware is a weird question?

None of the four 87-89 torsos, I think. I'm not sure there is enough detail known from the earlier cases to comment, unless anyone knows more?

[Errata]

None of the four 87-89 torsos, I think. I'm not sure there is enough detail known from the earlier cases to comment, unless anyone knows more?

And all of the 87-89 torsos had pelvises cut off? Not just legs removed?

every time I picture it, I see disarticulated Barbie dolls, which is problematic for a host of reasons.

[Joshua Rogan]

And all of the 87-89 torsos had pelvises cut off? Not just legs removed?

every time I picture it, I see disarticulated Barbie dolls, which is problematic for a host of reasons.

Not all, no. The Pinchin St torso was whole, for a torso; complete(!) with arms, but minus the head, of course, and the legs, which had been removed by disarticulating the hip joints....So the Barbie image kind of works for that one.

[Fisherman]

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.

Yes, I am aware of that, but since you thought it was a useful idea to ask me whether I considered myself reasonable and polite enough to participate in discussions that called for such matters, I didnīt feel it unjust to point out that you could perhaps be regarded unfit yourself by fellow posters. It is always a good thing to put matters into perspective, I find.

But let us continue in the spirit of further discussion and get back to the case.

What a splendid idea. I am all for it.

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.

It is a question that can have no definitive answer. There WAS damage to the genital region in at least two cases. Exactly how that damage looked is something we donīt know, just as we donīt know whether it came about as a result of the killer cutting all the way beween breastplate and groin. If we knew where the cut commenced in these cases, it would perhaps make a difference - if it commenced in the genital region, it would be more likely that we are dealing with genital mutilation. From the top of my head, I canīt tell if Hebbert had a view on this in Jacksons case, whereas he did say that he cut in Pinchin Street ended at the vagina.
As an aside, I think that an interesting inclusion in both series is how the killer takes out organs from bodies that are of both a sexual (uterus) AND a non-sexual (kidney, heart) character. It can therefore be reasoned that the killer seems not to have done what he did with a background in traditional sexual thinking, if you will. It may however be that he got a sexual kick out of cutting out ANY organ, a kick that in such a case would have had itīs ground in him feeling that he had aquired total control over a body and was able to do what he wanted to it, plucking parts out at will.

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.

I donīt think we can conclude that the damage was accidental. There reason to think it was the other way around, actually. And that lies in the Pinchin Street deed. The cut to the abdomen never passed through the momentum - it was a shallow cut, with no real force behind it. It was fifteen inches long, and it involved the vagina. But the vagina was opened up by the cut, so it seems that there was more force to the cut in that region than there was as the knife sliced through the skin of the stomach. If the vagina was only cut as a result of the cut to the stomach tapering off too slow to leave the vagina unharmed, then if anything, the would should be more shallow there, should it not? Hebbert said that the cut went through skin and muscle tissue on the abdomen, but not into the abdominal cavity, and that sounds like either a powerless or a carefully monitored cut to me, since the abdominal wall is not very thick.

We are probably not going to be able to decide on these matters, but I would advice against claiming that the damage to the genitals was purely coincidental, becasue I really donīt think there is enough in it to make such a call. it is a suggestion, but viable suggestions can be made to the contrary too.

[Harry D]

Fisherman, do you have any ideas on why the Pinchin torso's mutilation was only superficial?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, do you have any ideas on why the Pinchin torso's mutilation was only superficial?

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?

[Kattrup]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

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.

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.