Cutting Point

[MrBarnett]

Christer,

I hope you don’t mind if I fire off a series of small questions. As I went through the book, I underlined anything I felt needed clarification or deserved to be challenged.

The first is your statement that Dr Killeen claimed that Tabram’s groin was part of the ‘main focus’ of the attack. If he did indeed make that claim, then we really do need to consider whether his evidence is credible.

There were nine wounds in Tabram’s throat and just one somewhere near the groin area, weren’t there? It would surely be more accurate to say his focus was not on the groin if only one of 39 wounds was to that area.

So, my questions are:

Did Killeen even express an opinion on the killer’s ‘focus’? Did he use the somewhat loaded words ‘breasts, belly and groin’?

Gary

[Fisherman]

Playing devils advocate here, could the cut in the abdomen have been from cutting the chemise from top to bottom to remove it from the body?

Inspector Charles Pinhorn-

The chemise was entire, although at first site it had the appearance of being in pieces, as it had been cut open from top to bottom. The arm holes were cut right up to the neck. There was no name on the garment or lettering of any kind.

Could? Yes. But I think it is not the likeliest solution. Just as you say, the arm holes were cut while it was said that the opened up front was due to tearing. We do not know exactly what the chemise looked like, but if it was there was a buttoned opening at the top, as you suggest, then that opening would have lent itself well to tearing - you grab the cloth at each side of the opening and tear, and the structure of the fabric will make the tear go straight down.
But there were likely no such openings at the arm holes, and so that can explain why he cut there.

Anyways, if we assume that he DID cut both the armholes and the front of the chemise, the he cut the armholes with the edge of the knife pointing away from the body while he would have used the edge downwards against the flesh as he cut the front to produce the shallow cut in the victim. There is no evidence that there were cuts on the shoulders, which there woud have been if he used the same cutting technique there. That raises the question why he would have cut in different ways at these places.

Furthermore, there was no testimony to tell us that the cut sides of the front were bloodied, and they would have been if the killer cut through the garment into the chest and abdomen of the victim. It would have pushed the chemise into the wound.

Finally, it is an awkward exercise to cut cloth that is not stretched, especially if the surface you cut against is soft and uneven. That indicates that if the front was cut, then the killer would likely have cut away from the body, stretching the chemise as he proceeded.

But the answer to your initial question must nevertheless be yes - it could have happened that way, I guess. Although it would predispose one unbroken, clean cut, and that would be hard to produce through cloth.

[jerryd]

A mid-late 19th century chemise. From: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

[jerryd]

yeah but i doubt it would go below the boobs! especially in victorian england lol

The arm holes were cut as well ( remember the arms were attached to the torso). That would seem to indicate the chemise was on the body and was cut off to remove it. The doctors indicated it was torn so I'm wondering if it was a combination of being torn and cut off the body?

Some of the chemises I've searched online have a few buttons at the top, about down to the breastbone.

[Abby Normal]

Hey Abby!

Nice to hear from you! Hope all is well.

If we can find a picture of a "Horrocks Type A" chemise, we will know exactly how low the neckline started. I believe a chemise in general was a lower cut neckline typically.

yeah but i doubt it would go below the boobs! especially in victorian england lol

[jerryd]

hi Jerry!
as usual very astute from you. Ive often wondered the same thing, but wouldnt there be a cut starting from higher up-just below the neck, high up on the chest?

Hey Abby!

Nice to hear from you! Hope all is well.

If we can find a picture of a "Horrocks Type A" chemise, we will know exactly how low the neckline started. I believe a chemise in general was a lower cut neckline typically.

[Abby Normal]

I tend to think the throatcutting may be more of a practicality, securing swift death, silence and a bleeding out of the victim.

agree.

[Abby Normal]

Playing devils advocate here, could the cut in the abdomen have been from cutting the chemise from top to bottom to remove it from the body?

Inspector Charles Pinhorn-

The chemise was entire, although at first site it had the appearance of being in pieces, as it had been cut open from top to bottom. The arm holes were cut right up to the neck. There was no name on the garment or lettering of any kind.

hi Jerry!
as usual very astute from you. Ive often wondered the same thing, but wouldnt there be a cut starting from higher up-just below the neck, high up on the chest?

[jerryd]

Playing devils advocate here, could the cut in the abdomen have been from cutting the chemise from top to bottom to remove it from the body?

Inspector Charles Pinhorn-

The chemise was entire, although at first site it had the appearance of being in pieces, as it had been cut open from top to bottom. The arm holes were cut right up to the neck. There was no name on the garment or lettering of any kind.

[Fisherman]

thanks fish
seems the calling card in both series is a vertical gash to the mid section, if i had to pick out one specific thing. Ive said it before, seems like its the first thing he does, after killing the victim, cutting the throat etc. the first sign of his sig so to speak. although the neck cut could be a combo of sig and MO too. i suppose.

I tend to think the throatcutting may be more of a practicality, securing swift death, silence and a bleeding out of the victim.

[Abby Normal]

Rainham, Jackson and Pinchin had a vertical gash. The reason for not taking out organs from the Pinchin Street victim I suggest in the book is that that Lechmere may have been annoyed by how the torsos were ascribed to another killer, and decided to clarify who he was by placing a torso in Ripper country. And then he did not eviscerate the victim, but instead very graphically placed his calling card on itīs abdomen.
If this was so, then it was ironical that the police suggested that the victim was an effort on behalf of the Torso killer to emulate the Ripperīs work!

thanks fish
seems the calling card in both series is a vertical gash to the mid section, if i had to pick out one specific thing. Ive said it before, seems like its the first thing he does, after killing the victim, cutting the throat etc. the first sign of his sig so to speak. although the neck cut could be a combo of sig and MO too. i suppose.

[Fisherman]

thanks fish-good summation.
hey i dont have access to your book right now-whats the reason you gave for no organs taken out of pinchin again?

also, I know pinchin had the vertical gash to the mid section, and jackson with the flaps removed-what other torsos had a vertical gash to the abdoman?

Rainham, Jackson and Pinchin had a vertical gash. The reason for not taking out organs from the Pinchin Street victim I suggest in the book is that that Lechmere may have been annoyed by how the torsos were ascribed to another killer, and decided to clarify who he was by placing a torso in Ripper country. And then he did not eviscerate the victim, but instead very graphically placed his calling card on itīs abdomen.
If this was so, then it was ironical that the police suggested that the victim was an effort on behalf of the Torso killer to emulate the Ripperīs work!

[Abby Normal]

I say that we do not know the extent of the abdominal mutilations within the torso victims to begin with. We know that the Rainham torso had no lungs and heart, and since it is so very close to the dismemberment of Jackson (the torso split in three parts), I would say that the likely thing is that these organs were taken out by the killer.
We do not have the pelvic section of the Whitehall victim, and so organs can have been taken out from it too.
Organs were missing in the 1873 case, and the possibility that they were taken out by the killer is obvious.
Jackson WAS eviscerated.
That leaves us with the Pinchin Street woman which is the one and only case where we can be certain that no organs were taken out. But I give a possible reason for this in the book, as you will know.

Regardless of how there may have been extensive eviscerations in these cases, I think we must accept that the killer may not have been about eviscerations only. If he emulated the anatomical Venuses, there are many other options. As you know, the 1873 victim lost her face, cut away with great care. It can be suggested that the other torso victims suffered the same fate, and that this detail was the main course, if you will, for the killer. I am not saying this was so, but the possibility is certainly there. Further to that, taking the limbs off may also have served to satisfy the killerīs urge.

What I am saying is that if the killer was first and foremost into taking bodies apart, then the eviscerations we see may have been only one reflection of a wider scope of an urge to cut.

Once again, this kind of reasoning takes us into the field of psychology, and I think it is wise not to make demands about what we want to see based on our own takes on that psychology. There were factually extremely rare and far-reaching similarities inbetween the torsos and the Ripper victims, and so itīs a complete no-brainer that the killer was likely the same in all cases, as far as Iīm concerned.

thanks fish-good summation.
hey i dont have access to your book right now-whats the reason you gave for no organs taken out of pinchin again?

also, I know pinchin had the vertical gash to the mid section, and jackson with the flaps removed-what other torsos had a vertical gash to the abdoman?

[Fisherman]

hi fish
i agree the work of the ripper and torsoman does not seem to be wanton destruction and rage (except for tabram of course).it seems all rather careful and meticulous to me. they like to take a apart a woman with knives. and i do see the similarities with the anatomical venuses, which i find very intriguing.

however, i would expect to see more abdominal eviscerations in the torso victims, especially as they were probably done in his bolt hole, and had more time.
what say you?

I say that we do not know the extent of the abdominal mutilations within the torso victims to begin with. We know that the Rainham torso had no lungs and heart, and since it is so very close to the dismemberment of Jackson (the torso split in three parts), I would say that the likely thing is that these organs were taken out by the killer.
We do not have the pelvic section of the Whitehall victim, and so organs can have been taken out from it too.
Organs were missing in the 1873 case, and the possibility that they were taken out by the killer is obvious.
Jackson WAS eviscerated.
That leaves us with the Pinchin Street woman which is the one and only case where we can be certain that no organs were taken out. But I give a possible reason for this in the book, as you will know.

Regardless of how there may have been extensive eviscerations in these cases, I think we must accept that the killer may not have been about eviscerations only. If he emulated the anatomical Venuses, there are many other options. As you know, the 1873 victim lost her face, cut away with great care. It can be suggested that the other torso victims suffered the same fate, and that this detail was the main course, if you will, for the killer. I am not saying this was so, but the possibility is certainly there. Further to that, taking the limbs off may also have served to satisfy the killerīs urge.

What I am saying is that if the killer was first and foremost into taking bodies apart, then the eviscerations we see may have been only one reflection of a wider scope of an urge to cut.

Once again, this kind of reasoning takes us into the field of psychology, and I think it is wise not to make demands about what we want to see based on our own takes on that psychology. There were factually extremely rare and far-reaching similarities inbetween the torsos and the Ripper victims, and so itīs a complete no-brainer that the killer was likely the same in all cases, as far as Iīm concerned.

[Abby Normal]

I must have missed the maiming thing when you posted it - interesting stuff. It is equally interesting to hear that my book - at least to a degree - has made you reconsider elements of your former picture of Charles Lechmere. I look forward to future discussions about these matters.

hi fish
i agree the work of the ripper and torsoman does not seem to be wanton destruction and rage (except for tabram of course).it seems all rather careful and meticulous to me. they like to take a apart a woman with knives. and i do see the similarities with the anatomical venuses, which i find very intriguing.

however, i would expect to see more abdominal eviscerations in the torso victims, especially as they were probably done in his bolt hole, and had more time.
what say you?