Pinchin Street Torso - who did it?

[Kattrup]

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.”

Thank you Joshua, that could certainly explain it. Of course, the account is very inaccurate, as the body had not been fearfully disembowelled. Still, interesting. I do not think such marks on skin fade on bodies as they do on the living, though?

[Fisherman]

This snippet from the Times of the 11:th can perhaps cast a little light on things:

"About half past 5 o'clock yesterday morning Police constable Bennett, 239 H, was passing on his beat by a railway arch in Pinchin street, St. George's, when he noticed something in the arch. The place in question is used as a receptacle for stones belonging to the District Board of Works, and in front of it there is a hoarding. Part of this, however, has been broken down, and the officer, getting through it, was horrified to find the trunk of a woman in a condition which showed it had been hacked about in a most brutal manner. The head had been severed from the body, while both legs were also missing, and from the lower part of the stomach was a deep gash through which the bowels were protruding."

The day before, Swanson had written a report about the murder. In it, he wrote: "The wound beginning at the lower part of the sternum, cutting through the skin, fatty substance, and penetrating the bowels, and uterus slightly, extended to the left side of the labia major".

[Kattrup]

This snippet from the Times of the 11:th can perhaps cast a little light on things:

"About half past 5 o'clock yesterday morning Police constable Bennett, 239 H, was passing on his beat by a railway arch in Pinchin street, St. George's, when he noticed something in the arch. The place in question is used as a receptacle for stones belonging to the District Board of Works, and in front of it there is a hoarding. Part of this, however, has been broken down, and the officer, getting through it, was horrified to find the trunk of a woman in a condition which showed it had been hacked about in a most brutal manner. The head had been severed from the body, while both legs were also missing, and from the lower part of the stomach was a deep gash through which the bowels were protruding."

The day before, Swanson had written a report about the murder. In it, he wrote: "The wound beginning at the lower part of the sternum, cutting through the skin, fatty substance, and penetrating the bowels, and uterus slightly, extended to the left side of the labia major".

Honestly fisherman, I don’t think it does. I mean, you don’t believe the bowels were protruding, do you?

[Abby Normal]

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 for posting this.

I note that including the word "disemboweled" (perhaps poor choice of words-or maybe not?) this article also states-

who found the body of Jack the Ripper's latest victim.

interesting.

[Fisherman]

Honestly fisherman, I don’t think it does. I mean, you don’t believe the bowels were protruding, do you?

What I am certain of is that I never let others decide for me what I believe or not, Kattrup. If the bowels were penetrated and the uterus was partially damaged, then the knife must have passed into the abdominal cavity. That means that there must have been an opening into the abdominal cavity. And what is required for the bowels to protrude is exactly that: an opening into the abdominal cavity.
The Pinchin Street trunk was lying on it´s stomach. The bowels would have been striving downwards by way of gravity. And if there was an opening into the abdominal cavity, that may have offered a possibility for the bowels to protrude through it.

That is not the same as saying that all of them or a large portion of them protruded. It is merely to say that the sources actually open up for a possibility that some portion of them did.

Hebbert said that the peritoneal cavity was not opened whereas the vagina was. But Swanson clearly speaks of damage done to the bowels and uterus, and he must have gotten that information from somewhere. Clarke, at the inquest, said that there was a 15 inch wound through the external coat of the abdomen. Phillips said nothing about the wound at all, as per the Times of the 25:th, but in his report he stated that the wound did not open the abdominal cavity.

As usual, we have no clear picture. Some more digging seems to be needed. Swanson must have been informed by somebody about the damage to the bowels and the uterus, and that somebody was of course not Pennett.

At any rate, if there was an initial take on matters that involved protruding bowels, and damaged innards (and it seems there was, stretching all the way to Swanson), that may have lain behind why disembowelment was spoken of by Pennett. Right or wrong.

[Abby Normal]

This snippet from the Times of the 11:th can perhaps cast a little light on things:

"About half past 5 o'clock yesterday morning Police constable Bennett, 239 H, was passing on his beat by a railway arch in Pinchin street, St. George's, when he noticed something in the arch. The place in question is used as a receptacle for stones belonging to the District Board of Works, and in front of it there is a hoarding. Part of this, however, has been broken down, and the officer, getting through it, was horrified to find the trunk of a woman in a condition which showed it had been hacked about in a most brutal manner. The head had been severed from the body, while both legs were also missing, and from the lower part of the stomach was a deep gash through which the bowels were protruding."

The day before, Swanson had written a report about the murder. In it, he wrote: "The wound beginning at the lower part of the sternum, cutting through the skin, fatty substance, and penetrating the bowels, and uterus slightly, extended to the left side of the labia major".

hi fish
are they talking about the horizontal cut here which separated the legs or the vertical gash down the midsection?

[Harry D]

Okay, so lets´hear it, Harry!

Think I'll take a leaf out of Pierre's book and withhold my half-baked theory until I've had time to develop it.

[Fisherman]

Think I'll take a leaf out of Pierre's book and withhold my half-baked theory until I've had time to develop it.

Okay, then I´ll just sit back and wait. Take your time and good luck!

[Fisherman]

hi fish
are they talking about the horizontal cut here which separated the legs or the vertical gash down the midsection?

The 15 inch gash to the abdomen, Abby.

[Abby Normal]

Think I'll take a leaf out of Pierre's book and withhold my half-baked theory until I've had time to develop it.

hey no fair! well from what you said before -he was losing his desire to kill/mutilate anymore? well if it is that then its a definite possibility. while rare, some serial killers just stop for personal reasons-they get burnt out/ tired of it, grow out of it, etc. Kemper is one example and I cant help but feel the GSK also stopped for personal reasons (family?)

[Abby Normal]

The 15 inch gash to the abdomen, Abby.

yeah that's what I thought- I didn't realize it was that superficial lol ; )

[Abby Normal]

cmon fish and harry now that's both of you holding out. cmon dish! send me a PM if you like!

[Kattrup]

What I am certain of is that I never let others decide for me what I believe or not, Kattrup. If the bowels were penetrated and the uterus was partially damaged, then the knife must have passed into the abdominal cavity. That means that there must have been an opening into the abdominal cavity. And what is required for the bowels to protrude is exactly that: an opening into the abdominal cavity.
The Pinchin Street trunk was lying on it´s stomach. The bowels would have been striving downwards by way of gravity. And if there was an opening into the abdominal cavity, that may have offered a possibility for the bowels to protrude through it.

That is not the same as saying that all of them or a large portion of them protruded. It is merely to say that the sources actually open up for a possibility that some portion of them did.

Hebbert said that the peritoneal cavity was not opened whereas the vagina was. But Swanson clearly speaks of damage done to the bowels and uterus, and he must have gotten that information from somewhere. Clarke, at the inquest, said that there was a 15 inch wound through the external coat of the abdomen. Phillips said nothing about the wound at all, as per the Times of the 25:th, but in his report he stated that the wound did not open the abdominal cavity.

As usual, we have no clear picture. Some more digging seems to be needed. Swanson must have been informed by somebody about the damage to the bowels and the uterus, and that somebody was of course not Pennett.

At any rate, if there was an initial take on matters that involved protruding bowels, and damaged innards (and it seems there was, stretching all the way to Swanson), that may have lain behind why disembowelment was spoken of by Pennett. Right or wrong.

Well, I think we have a very clear picture. Clearer than most, considering we have doctors describing the wound? So I hope you'll dig in further and eventually tell us whether you think the bowels were protruding or not.

As mentioned, I'm also interested in the idea that the police concluded the torso was carried there. Is that based solely on the inquest testimony of Bennet and Pinhorn (I think those were the names) or is there something else?

Concerning multiple killers, the bruises on her arms seem consistent with at least two killers, do you agree? Just saying that there are indications that could indicate more people involved in the crimes.

[Fisherman]

Well, I think we have a very clear picture. Clearer than most, considering we have doctors describing the wound? So I hope you'll dig in further and eventually tell us whether you think the bowels were protruding or not.

As mentioned, I'm also interested in the idea that the police concluded the torso was carried there. Is that based solely on the inquest testimony of Bennet and Pinhorn (I think those were the names) or is there something else?

Concerning multiple killers, the bruises on her arms seem consistent with at least two killers, do you agree? Just saying that there are indications that could indicate more people involved in the crimes.

I´m afraid a picture that involves a high police official like Swanson speaking of damage done to the bowels and uterus must to a degree mean that we have no totally clear picture. That is the nature of things - once different high-ranking and normally reliable sources say different things, the picture is blurred. I am very much aware that the doctors say that the abdominal cavity was not opened, and I agree very much that this makes it very likely that it was not - but Swansons report nevertheless means that a measure of uncertainty creeps in.

This aside, the point I was originally making was that the statement about protruding innards and Swansons report on damaged bowels and uterus may have been what lay behind Pennett speaking about "disembowelment". Clearly, there was an initial idea that the abdominal contents were to a degree damaged. And I for one would be very interested to know how this information was formed. Who told Swanson that the uterus had been damaged together with the bowels? It would take an examination involving an opening up of the body to conclude that. So it sounds to me like somebody attached to the medical investigation provided the information. Swanson could not have taken it out of thin air. Ergo, there is an enigma here that would be interesting to find out more about - regardless if you agree about this or not.

As for the notion that the body was carried to the spot manually, it remains that Pennet and Pinhorn seems to have provided the information behind it. A distance of 250 yards from the spot was searched and people were interviewed in those quarters on account of how it was thought that the torso was manually carried to the spot. No certainty could be reached and so no decision could be made about how the torso got there. I offered this information as a response to how you claimed that the Pinchin Street torso was the one torso where it was decided that it must have been transported by way of cart (or something such). That could easily mislead people into thinking that this was a natural thing since the body was found in Whitechapel, whereas the facts are that the police sought the perp in quarters close to the dumping site, thinking the dumping may well have been a manual one.

When it comes to the bruising on her arms, exactly what is it that makes you think that there were two persons involved?

[Kattrup]

I´m afraid a picture that involves a high police official like Swanson speaking of damage done to the bowels and uterus must to a degree mean that we have no totally clear picture. That is the nature of things - once different high-ranking and normally reliable sources say different things, the picture is blurred. I am very much aware that the doctors say that the abdominal cavity was not opened, and I agree very much that this makes it very likely that it was not - but Swansons report nevertheless means that a measure of uncertainty creeps in.

This aside, the point I was originally making was that the statement about protruding innards and Swansons report on damaged bowels and uterus may have been what lay behind Pennett speaking about "disembowelment". Clearly, there was an initial idea that the abdominal contents were to a degree damaged. And I for one would be very interested to know how this information was formed. Who told Swanson that the uterus had been damaged together with the bowels? It would take an examination involving an opening up of the body to conclude that. So it sounds to me like somebody attached to the medical investigation provided the information. Swanson could not have taken it out of thin air. Ergo, there is an enigma here that would be interesting to find out more about - regardless if you agree about this or not.

Well, whether I agree or not, how do you propose to find out more about it? I mean, we have every single source from the Pinchin case available to us, so what exactly should be done to find out more?

As for the notion that the body was carried to the spot manually, it remains that Pennet and Pinhorn seems to have provided the information behind it. A distance of 250 yards from the spot was searched and people were interviewed in those quarters on account of how it was thought that the torso was manually carried to the spot. No certainty could be reached and so no decision could be made about how the torso got there. I offered this information as a response to how you claimed that the Pinchin Street torso was the one torso where it was decided that it must have been transported by way of cart (or something such). That could easily mislead people into thinking that this was a natural thing since the body was found in Whitechapel, whereas the facts are that the police sought the perp in quarters close to the dumping site, thinking the dumping may well have been a manual one.

Okay, so we're probably going to be disagreeing a little bit about the chronology of things here, but no matter.

I was just asking why you stated the police decided no cart was used. Did the police conclude that?

When it comes to the bruising on her arms, exactly what is it that makes you think that there were two persons involved?

This was just a thought I had when you stated there was no indication that more killers were involved. I believe the bruises on her arms are consistent with her being held tight. Since there was no cause of death discernible on her body, she was likely strangled or had her throat cut. Which is difficult to do when holding her arms. She also had bruises on her back. So overall, the bruises are consistent with her being assaulted by more than one man.