Pinchin Street Torso - who did it?

[Fiver]

Two different motives but same man. The Pinchin St. Torso kill was the period at the end of both murders. He was signifying this was his last. It was a Torso kill placed in the Ripper’s territory. He gave her a belly gash to help make it clear the Ripper was also operating. The date was significant to the killer. It provided a sense of completion he sought.

* The Ripper killings had a strong emotional content based on the excessive mutilations. The Torso Killer's cutting up the bodies appears to be functional, not emotional, done to reduce the bodies into pieces small enough to carry.
* The Ripper liked to pose the bodies of his victims and sometimes their personal effects. The Torso Killer did not.
* The Ripper killed his victims on the spot, as testified to by several police detectives and surgeons. The Torso Killer transported the bodies to where they were found.
* The Torso Killer disposed of his victims' heads in a way they were never found, probably in an attempt to conceal their identities. The Ripper made no attempt to hide his victims' identities.
* Based on period surgeons' observations, the Torso Killer probably had knowledge of anatomy comparable to a butcher, while the Ripper did not even have that much skill.
* The Torso Killer appears to have operated over a significantly wider area and over a much longer time than the Ripper.
* The Ripper was much more of a risk taker because of the far more public locations of his killings and the time the Ripper was willing to spend at those locations doing more mutilations, taking organs, and posing the victims. Further evidence of risk taking is the Ripper appears to have been interrupted twice, appears to have killed twice in one night, and his continued killing in spite of the increased wariness of the general population, as well as increased patrolling by the police and the Whitechapel vigilance Committee.
* The Ripper liked taking internal organs as trophies. The Torso Killer took heads, and probably not as trophies.

[Vincent alias Jack]

Two different motives but same man. The Pinchin St. Torso kill was the period at the end of both murders. He was signifying this was his last. It was a Torso kill placed in the Ripper’s territory. He gave her a belly gash to help make it clear the Ripper was also operating. The date was significant to the killer. It provided a sense of completion he sought.

[Abby Normal]

Very interesting thread indeed.

I think the Pinchin Street Torso is the crossover between the Ripper and Torso killer.

Whether they were the same killer is anyones guess, but there's certainly a link there somewhere.

yes fascinating subject!

vertical gash to the midsection,- common link between both series.

[The Rookie Detective]

Very interesting thread indeed.

I think the Pinchin Street Torso is the crossover between the Ripper and Torso killer.

Whether they were the same killer is anyones guess, but there's certainly a link there somewhere.

[Fisherman]

hmm. bloody apron found on route back to lechs house from mitre square victim and one found on route back to lechs from pinchin. interesting. oh and welcome back fish.

Thank you, Abby! Yes, it is always about similarities, is it not. And they are amazingly easily come by, for whatever reason …

[Abby Normal]

So, time to start the ball rolling again! And we are going to do so by commenting on the neighboring site of JTR Forums - where I am not welcome to post. Therefore, I am making a point over here.

On JTR, there is a thread about the finding of a bloodied piece of cloth up at St Philips Church, on the day after the Pinchin Street victim was found dumped. The initiator of the thread is Susie Huntington, and in her original post, she says that people have tried to show that there is a link between Charles Lechmere and the bloodied piece of cloth, but that she herself thinks that this is not a good suggestion. She goes on to say that she finds that there are two better explanations for the bloodied piece of cloth. Explanation number one lies in how the place where the cloth was found was situated near the London Hospital. Huntington reasoning goes along the lines of a medico having wiped his hands on the cloth, and then he would have discarded it were it was later found. Explanation number tow is that since the cloth was found at the building site of St Philips Church, it may well be that one of the builders had come to harm under the construction work, and so he could have used the cloth to bandage or wipe himself, then discarding the cloth where it was subsequently found.

There are those who agree with Huntington, and there are those who disagree with her. One of the posters, Gary Barnett, made the point that it would be odd if a medico at the London Hospital dried his hands of blood, and then brought the cloth used with himself as he left the hospital, dumping it on the construction site of a church. There would, Gary Barnett presumed, likely would have been bins around at the hospital where that could be easily down instead.

Overall, the suggestion that a construction worker would have laid behind it all, seemingly went down overall better with most posters as being the better suggestion of the two.

Before we go any further, we need to get more information about a number of matters. And that is best taken care of by way of reproducing the article in the Echo where the find of the piece of cloth was reported. Here it is:

"It was reported last evening that at noon yesterday, while Police-constable 449 H division was patrolling his beat in Oxford-street, Stepney, he was accosted by a man who said he was a mason, and that he had discovered a portion of a woman's attire saturated with blood. The officer immediately proceeded to St Philips Church, now in course of erection, in the above street, and beneath a plank within the hoarding the constable discovered a coarse apron, such as is usually worn by the poorer classes of the East-end. The apron had apparently contained human remains, as it was coated with coagulated blood. After taking the name and address of the mason, the officer took the suspicious garment to Arbour Street Police-station. Superintendent Arnold carefully examined the stained apron, and it was subsequently sent to Dr. Clarke, the assistant divisional surgeon, and Dr. Gordon Brown, the City police surgeon. The police, in reply to inquiries last night, however, disclaim any knowledge of this matter."

So, in here, we find a few bits and bobs that are of great interest to the question about how the cloth ended up where it did, and who discarded it there. We have already seen the point made that it would be unexpected for a medico from the hospital to take a bloodied piece of cloth along from his work at London Hospital. We must now att that there are details involved that make it even more unexpected; the doctor would have to climb over a hoarding first, to get into the building site, and he would then, for some reason, have hidden the cloth underneath a plank.

So lets move on to the next suggestion, the construction worker who hurt himself. He would of course have had a very good reason to be at the construction site, but why would he hide the cloth after having used it to stem his blood flow? That seems odd too.

But the most interesting factor is missed out on in the JTR Forums discussion! And it is this factor that really suggests that the killer from Pinchin Street may have been the one who put the bloodied piece of cloth under a plank at the construction site of St Philips Church: The cloth was a "a coarse apron, such as is usually worn by the poorer classes of the East-end"!

Is there anybody who can explain why an injured construction worker with a need for some cloth to stop his blood flow would come across that kind of an apron? The same goes for the medico at London Hospital, of course - did the medicos have coarse aprons from the lower classes lying around at the hospital, in case of an accident?

This is where it becomes a tantalizing suggestion that the killer of the Pinchin Street woman could also have been the person who dumped the apron at St Philips, where he may well have chosen to hide it. It is the exact type of garment we know was taken away by the killer in the Mitre Square murder, and it's origin was always likely going to be a woman of the poor East End class - which is the typical victim of Jack the Ripper, and the one identified victim in the Thames Torso murder series, Liz Jackson.

And this is of course also why Charles Lechmere fits the suggested bill like a glove: because the apron was dumped in an exact line between the dumping site of Pinchin Street (where Lechmere grew up) and his lodgings at 22 Doveton Street.

We all now that the matter is not proven per se, but the fact of the matter is that it is - as always - either a mind boggling set of more coincidences in the Lechmere case, or useful evidence pointing to guilt on behalf of the carman. No suspectologist arguing that Lechmere is the likely killer could ask for a better outcome in the details, also involving how we know that the erection of the railway arch where the body was dumped, was made possible by tearing down a building in which Lechmeres mother had lived together with Joseph Forsdyke.

And those who dislike the idea are of course served with what they must explain away as yet another mountain of coincidences. That's just how it goes.

hmm. bloody apron found on route back to lechs house from mitre square victim and one found on route back to lechs from pinchin. interesting. oh and welcome back fish.

[Fisherman]

So, time to start the ball rolling again! And we are going to do so by commenting on the neighboring site of JTR Forums - where I am not welcome to post. Therefore, I am making a point over here.

On JTR, there is a thread about the finding of a bloodied piece of cloth up at St Philips Church, on the day after the Pinchin Street victim was found dumped. The initiator of the thread is Susie Huntington, and in her original post, she says that people have tried to show that there is a link between Charles Lechmere and the bloodied piece of cloth, but that she herself thinks that this is not a good suggestion. She goes on to say that she finds that there are two better explanations for the bloodied piece of cloth. Explanation number one lies in how the place where the cloth was found was situated near the London Hospital. Huntington reasoning goes along the lines of a medico having wiped his hands on the cloth, and then he would have discarded it were it was later found. Explanation number tow is that since the cloth was found at the building site of St Philips Church, it may well be that one of the builders had come to harm under the construction work, and so he could have used the cloth to bandage or wipe himself, then discarding the cloth where it was subsequently found.

There are those who agree with Huntington, and there are those who disagree with her. One of the posters, Gary Barnett, made the point that it would be odd if a medico at the London Hospital dried his hands of blood, and then brought the cloth used with himself as he left the hospital, dumping it on the construction site of a church. There would, Gary Barnett presumed, likely would have been bins around at the hospital where that could be easily down instead.

Overall, the suggestion that a construction worker would have laid behind it all, seemingly went down overall better with most posters as being the better suggestion of the two.

Before we go any further, we need to get more information about a number of matters. And that is best taken care of by way of reproducing the article in the Echo where the find of the piece of cloth was reported. Here it is:

"It was reported last evening that at noon yesterday, while Police-constable 449 H division was patrolling his beat in Oxford-street, Stepney, he was accosted by a man who said he was a mason, and that he had discovered a portion of a woman's attire saturated with blood. The officer immediately proceeded to St Philips Church, now in course of erection, in the above street, and beneath a plank within the hoarding the constable discovered a coarse apron, such as is usually worn by the poorer classes of the East-end. The apron had apparently contained human remains, as it was coated with coagulated blood. After taking the name and address of the mason, the officer took the suspicious garment to Arbour Street Police-station. Superintendent Arnold carefully examined the stained apron, and it was subsequently sent to Dr. Clarke, the assistant divisional surgeon, and Dr. Gordon Brown, the City police surgeon. The police, in reply to inquiries last night, however, disclaim any knowledge of this matter."

So, in here, we find a few bits and bobs that are of great interest to the question about how the cloth ended up where it did, and who discarded it there. We have already seen the point made that it would be unexpected for a medico from the hospital to take a bloodied piece of cloth along from his work at London Hospital. We must now att that there are details involved that make it even more unexpected; the doctor would have to climb over a hoarding first, to get into the building site, and he would then, for some reason, have hidden the cloth underneath a plank.

So lets move on to the next suggestion, the construction worker who hurt himself. He would of course have had a very good reason to be at the construction site, but why would he hide the cloth after having used it to stem his blood flow? That seems odd too.

But the most interesting factor is missed out on in the JTR Forums discussion! And it is this factor that really suggests that the killer from Pinchin Street may have been the one who put the bloodied piece of cloth under a plank at the construction site of St Philips Church: The cloth was a "a coarse apron, such as is usually worn by the poorer classes of the East-end"!

Is there anybody who can explain why an injured construction worker with a need for some cloth to stop his blood flow would come across that kind of an apron? The same goes for the medico at London Hospital, of course - did the medicos have coarse aprons from the lower classes lying around at the hospital, in case of an accident?

This is where it becomes a tantalizing suggestion that the killer of the Pinchin Street woman could also have been the person who dumped the apron at St Philips, where he may well have chosen to hide it. It is the exact type of garment we know was taken away by the killer in the Mitre Square murder, and it's origin was always likely going to be a woman of the poor East End class - which is the typical victim of Jack the Ripper, and the one identified victim in the Thames Torso murder series, Liz Jackson.

And this is of course also why Charles Lechmere fits the suggested bill like a glove: because the apron was dumped in an exact line between the dumping site of Pinchin Street (where Lechmere grew up) and his lodgings at 22 Doveton Street.

We all now that the matter is not proven per se, but the fact of the matter is that it is - as always - either a mind boggling set of more coincidences in the Lechmere case, or useful evidence pointing to guilt on behalf of the carman. No suspectologist arguing that Lechmere is the likely killer could ask for a better outcome in the details, also involving how we know that the erection of the railway arch where the body was dumped, was made possible by tearing down a building in which Lechmeres mother had lived together with Joseph Forsdyke.

And those who dislike the idea are of course served with what they must explain away as yet another mountain of coincidences. That's just how it goes.

[Errata]

lol. A. if your drunk the pain of gravel driveway on barefeet is negligable. it never would have stopped me. B. you could also just walk on the grass next to the driveway. C. if you already passed out chances are your not driving any where any way right?

i thought you got your boots stolen because its a rough crowd/ bad part of town lol.

either way still hilarious.

ok two of the torsos had vaginas cut as part of the mutilations (i forgot which omes, but pretty sure pinchin was one) but apparently the debate is if it was intentional or not. one instance i would say ok unintentional, but two, not so much.

whats of amazing coincidence is the the tottenham torso head was found and her face was mutilated almost exactly like kate eddowes.
what say you about that?

Well, Kate Eddowes have a near labial cut I’m pretty sure was a mistake, because it terminates oddly. But otherwise to that I say “interesting!”. I’ve always found it interesting that so many people see a sexual component to the ripper murders, when none of the usual sexual markers are targeted. So where they are targeted, I find that interesting. I’m not convinced either way on the subject of the torsoripper.

[Abby Normal]

Fine. Most of us knew how to hotwire cars, so we didn’t take keys at parties. If you got drunk and passed out they would confiscate your boots and socks. As it was a gravel driveway at the apartment complex, that was sufficient to keep people from driving drunk. But a:I couldn’t Hotwire a car and B: the guy who took the boots and the socks went home before the rest of us woke up, so we were all trapped there for an extra day. So I decided to make sure my boots would not be confiscated again. Even if it meant cutting the laces off when I got home. Teenage logic.

lol. A. if your drunk the pain of gravel driveway on barefeet is negligable. it never would have stopped me. B. you could also just walk on the grass next to the driveway. C. if you already passed out chances are your not driving any where any way right?

i thought you got your boots stolen because its a rough crowd/ bad part of town lol.

either way still hilarious.

ok two of the torsos had vaginas cut as part of the mutilations (i forgot which omes, but pretty sure pinchin was one) but apparently the debate is if it was intentional or not. one instance i would say ok unintentional, but two, not so much.

whats of amazing coincidence is the the tottenham torso head was found and her face was mutilated almost exactly like kate eddowes.
what say you about that?

[Errata]

ill tell you if you tell me about your boots.lol

Fine. Most of us knew how to hotwire cars, so we didn’t take keys at parties. If you got drunk and passed out they would confiscate your boots and socks. As it was a gravel driveway at the apartment complex, that was sufficient to keep people from driving drunk. But a:I couldn’t Hotwire a car and B: the guy who took the boots and the socks went home before the rest of us woke up, so we were all trapped there for an extra day. So I decided to make sure my boots would not be confiscated again. Even if it meant cutting the laces off when I got home. Teenage logic.

[Abby Normal]

privates targeted? On purpose? When?

ill tell you if you tell me about your boots.lol

[Errata]

that's a lot of "interpretation"- from both of us, so if you want to just look at the plain cold hard facts of points of similarity:

same time frame
same general location
same victimology
all post mortem mutilation
knife used
ruse used to get victims where he wants them
faces targeted
vertical gashes to midsection
stomach flesh removed in sections
internal organs removed
privates targeted
rings removed
left in odd and shocking public places
huge risks involved
both series end same time
unsolved

of course they could still be two post mortem mutilators operating in the same place at the same time targeting unfortunates, but with this and all the other similarities I find it too much of a coincidence and lean heavily they were the same man-the torsoripper.[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

privates targeted? On purpose? When?

[Abby Normal]

I don't understand why so many votes think the Ripper and the Torso Killer are the same person.

* The Ripper killings had a strong emotional content based on the excessive mutilations. The Torso Killer's cutting up the bodies appears to be functional, not emotional, done to reduce the bodies into pieces small enough to carry.
* The Ripper liked to pose the bodies of his victims and sometimes their persona effects. The Torso Killer did not.
* The Ripper killed his victims on the spot, as testified to by several police detectives and surgeons. The Torso Killer transported the bodies to where they were found.
* The Torso Killer disposed of his victims heads in a way they were never found, probably in an attempt to conceal their identities. The Ripper made no attempt to hide his victims' identities.
* Based on period surgeons' observations, the Torso Killer probably had knowledge of anatomy comparable to a butcher, while the Ripper did not even have that much skill.
* The Torso Killer appears to have operated over a significantly wider area and over a much longer time than the Ripper.
* The Ripper was much more of a risk taker because of the far more public locations of his killings and the time the Ripper was willing to spend at those locations doing more mutilations, taking organs, and posing the victims. Further evidence of risk taking is the Ripper appears to have been interrupted twice, appears to have killed twice in one night, and his continued killing in spite of the increased wariness of the general population, as well as increased patrolling by the police and the Whitechapel vigilance Committee.
* The Ripper liked taking internal organs as trophies. The Torso Killer took heads, and probably not as trophies.

hi fiver

The Ripper killings had a strong emotional content based on the excessive mutilations. The Torso Killer's cutting up the bodies appears to be functional, not emotional, done to reduce the bodies into pieces small enough to carry.

I don't see any obvious emotional content in any of the ripper slayings, except maybe tabram and her excessive stab wounds. excessive mutilations yes, but that dosnt mean it was emotional. He could have gone about his mutilations in very non emotional "clinical" fashion. same as torsoman. and while torsoman probably did cut up into smaller pieces for ease in transport, it also seems he did it because he simply enjoyed it. Both torsoman and ripper victims showed no obvious signs of torture, killed quickly and all mutilations post mortem. they were all about post mortem mutilation-cutting up of the female body. not sure if we can really determine emotion from it.

The Ripper liked to pose the bodies of his victims and sometimes their persona effects. The Torso Killer did not.

I think they were both posed-or displayed. and in both series they are displayed in odd and public ways/places.

The Ripper killed his victims on the spot, as testified to by several police detectives and surgeons. The Torso Killer transported the bodies to where they were found.

yes-which could be easily explained if the torso victims he had his chop shop available, while the others he did not-and had to kill on the streets. the situation changes but the urge is still there.

The Torso Killer disposed of his victims heads in a way they were never found, probably in an attempt to conceal their identities. The Ripper made no attempt to hide his victims' identities

.

not totally true.The totenham torso head was found and the face was mutilated in the same way as eddowes. the 1873 torso-the face was found, scalped off the head. so in either case the taking of the heads dosnt really point to hiding identity. something more is going on here.

Based on period surgeons' observations, the Torso Killer probably had knowledge of anatomy comparable to a butcher, while the Ripper did not even have that much skill.

while different doctors had different opinions as to the skill level and what kind of skill-in both series doctors saw considerable skill. IMHO they both showed at least considerable skill with a knife and anatomical knowledge, while actual surgical experience is open to debate.

The Torso Killer appears to have operated over a significantly wider area and over a much longer time than the Ripper.

both series overlap in location and time and thats good enough for me. whats of great interest is that they both appear to end at the same time with pinchin and mackenzie.

The Ripper was much more of a risk taker because of the far more public locations of his killings and the time the Ripper was willing to spend at those locations doing more mutilations, taking organs, and posing the victims. Further evidence of risk taking is the Ripper appears to have been interrupted twice, appears to have killed twice in one night, and his continued killing in spite of the increased wariness of the general population, as well as increased patrolling by the police and the Whitechapel vigilance Committee

.

I think both series show a huge amount of risk. you've already pointed out the ripper risk. torso man took huge risks in killing in his own place, tying murder location to him, went to extremely risky measures in where and how he dumped torsos/ parts-the Tottenham torso, inside new SY building, pinchin. and the transporting to these places, having victims on his person for apparently long periods in public was incredibly risky. chancing being caught red handed just like the ripper.

The Ripper liked taking internal organs as trophies. The Torso Killer took heads, and probably not as trophie

internal organs were missing from several of the torso victims, and all had post mortem mutilation above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment. the head/faces were targeted in both series so I imagine he had an interest in the heads, if he did keep them, as trophies of a sort.


to me the main difference, and its a biggee (and im surprised you didn't explicitly mention it) is that none of the ripper victims were dismembered, which is mainly why im only at about 80% they were the same man and not totally convinced. but as I mentioned, that could be due to the killers and the crime scene circs.

To me there basically the same-post mortem mutilator who enjoys cutting up women.

now that's a lot of "interpretation"- from both of us, so if you want to just look at the plain cold hard facts of points of similarity:

same time frame
same general location
same victimology
all post mortem mutilation
knife used
ruse used to get victims where he wants them
faces targeted
vertical gashes to midsection
stomach flesh removed in sections
internal organs removed
privates targeted
rings removed
left in odd and shocking public places
huge risks involved
both series end same time
unsolved

of course they could still be two post mortem mutilators operating in the same place at the same time targeting unfortunates, but with this and all the other similarities I find it too much of a coincidence and lean heavily they were the same man-the torsoripper.

[Michael W Richards]

Not more likely, no. But I would not rule it out as a clear and very real possibility. And such things must count too, or we are at risk of missing out very badly.

At the risk of bolstering your theorizing that Jack and Torso man were the same Fisherman, I believe its either the rolled down fabric of a stocking or something tied there, even an elastic band, possibly to stem the bleeding. If correct, that would infer her heart was still beating at the time. It is something I wouldn't be surprised to see ...dare I say it...on a victim being dismembered. Problem with that is its well below the joint.

[Fiver]

I don't understand why so many votes think the Ripper and the Torso Killer are the same person.

* The Ripper killings had a strong emotional content based on the excessive mutilations. The Torso Killer's cutting up the bodies appears to be functional, not emotional, done to reduce the bodies into pieces small enough to carry.
* The Ripper liked to pose the bodies of his victims and sometimes their persona effects. The Torso Killer did not.
* The Ripper killed his victims on the spot, as testified to by several police detectives and surgeons. The Torso Killer transported the bodies to where they were found.
* The Torso Killer disposed of his victims heads in a way they were never found, probably in an attempt to conceal their identities. The Ripper made no attempt to hide his victims' identities.
* Based on period surgeons' observations, the Torso Killer probably had knowledge of anatomy comparable to a butcher, while the Ripper did not even have that much skill.
* The Torso Killer appears to have operated over a significantly wider area and over a much longer time than the Ripper.
* The Ripper was much more of a risk taker because of the far more public locations of his killings and the time the Ripper was willing to spend at those locations doing more mutilations, taking organs, and posing the victims. Further evidence of risk taking is the Ripper appears to have been interrupted twice, appears to have killed twice in one night, and his continued killing in spite of the increased wariness of the general population, as well as increased patrolling by the police and the Whitechapel vigilance Committee.
* The Ripper liked taking internal organs as trophies. The Torso Killer took heads, and probably not as trophies.