Cutting Point

[MrBarnett]

Since there has been no fistfighting about Cutting Point so far, I thought I would take the opportunity to thank those who have said many nice things about it. Tom, Herlock, Gary, Abby, many thanks for your kind words about the book!
A few remarks have been made about matters that two of you would have liked to see but been deprived of, and I may as well comment on that too.

Gary, you would have liked to see more about Ma Lechmere and her potential role in the business, plus I believe you before the book came out expressed a wish to see the psychology commented upon. Of course, these are connected matters.
One of my aims with the book was to keep it simple, and to write not so much for ripperologists as for a broader audience, the way journalists normally do. Another aim of mine was to concentrate on making as clear and concise as possible a case for Lechmere being the combined killer - and accordingly leave a lot of material aside that has no real bearing on that issue, things that neither detract from nor add to the case. To that end, I did not want to submerge myself to deepy into the psychology. I find that generally speaking, psychology has done much less to explain the case than to muddle it. And that spans over the whole spectre of time. A medico like Hebbert was very skilled in his work and was able to clarify in a very exact manner how the damage done to the torso victims looked and how it would have come about. But when he enters the realms of psychology, everything goes horribly wrong. It is, I find, the exact same today - people lock themselves into positions, based on their convictions about how psychology would have ruled what the killer did or not. "He would have run, because my take on psychology tells me so". "He would not kill en route to work becasue psychologically, that does not sit well with me". "The Ripper and the Torso killer were very different men, psychologically speaking". And so on.

Psychology, I feel, will never help us solve the case. Only factual matters can do that. And so, I base my case on factual matters and avoid most of the psychological reasoning, although I have a chapter discussing these matters - with a statement acknowledging that my own take on the psychology may be totally wrong.
This is why I never ventured into the finer points of motherhood, dominance, horsecutting and stepfathers versus stepsons. It is a field abundant in interesting implications but devoid of substance when it comes to factually proveable points.

Abby, you would have liked for me to hammer home the matter that Lechmere was found close to the body without having raised the alarm, the matter that the Tottenham torso and Eddowes seemingly bore resemblances and the detail that Lechmere had a police stepfather, which is interesting in light of how a torso was found in the New Scotland Yard building.

My answer to Gary answers that last point of yours, I believe. As for the commonalities between the Tottenham torso and Eddowes, I briefly mention it in the chapter about the victims. The reason that I did not press it further is that I chose what I think is by far the best pair (Chapman/Jackson) when it comes to pointing to similarities. Going deep into Eddowes/Tottenham torso comparisons would not only be based on less clear material (the Tottenham material is not very clear in many ways), and it would also represent a less good case and so overall, I think it would take away from the clarity of the case I chose. The clearer, the better! As for raising the alarm, that point has been made before and it generally results in how people say that Lechmere DID raise the alarm by contacting Paul and seeking out a PC. This is why I left that point out - it is to a degree unclear.
I was very happy about your statement that the points I make do n ot require any leaps of faith. I strived to get there in as high a degree as possible, and so I liked that passage of yours very much, Abby!

I am looking forward to a discussion about the book - I cannot imagine that everybody is in agreement with me about everything I say in the book - and I will likely be starting threads relating to various parts of my presentation. One of them will in all probability be called "Framing Charles" and another "Every minute counts".

Thanks for the response, Christer.

Maria L has intrigued me for some time, so I would have liked to see more about her in the biog. section. Personally I feel that the stark contrast between her upbringing and where she brought up her son may be of more relevance to how he turned out than the details of his father’s ancestry.

The idea that the Pinchin Street case contains elements of both series struck me some time ago. As did as the personal relevance of the location to Lechmere. I would add to that that the building of the railway viaduct in question required not only the demolition of the south side of Pinchin(Thomas) Street but also of Frederick Street*. While the ‘Cross’s’ were living in Thomas Street, Frederick Street, the next street to the south, was one of the notorious thoroughfares that earned itself and the general area the title of Tiger Bay.

Maria’s ‘husband’, Thomas Cross, an H Div. PC, patrolled those streets and no doubt encountered the area’s ‘Tigresses’ on a frequent basis. One can only imagine what Maria thought of her much younger ‘husband’ dealing with prostitutes as part of his day-to-day routine. And how/if she communicated her feelings towards those women to her adolescent son.

I’ve read the book once and when I’d finished I was left with the impression of the Charles Lechmere I was familiar with having receded somewhat into the background.


* Some time ago I discovered a press report concerning boys maiming (stabbing) pigs that were kept beneath a Pinchin/Frederick Street railway arch. I can’t recall the date, but I think it may have been in the 1860s. I believe I posted the details either on here or on JTRF, but I’m buggered if I can find it now.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for the response, Christer.

Maria L has intrigued me for some time, so I would have liked to see more about her in the biog. section. Personally I feel that the stark contrast between her upbringing and where she brought up her son may be of more relevance to how he turned out than the details of his father’s ancestry.

I tend to think that both of these factors may well have worked in combination with each other. The family´s descent into the East End abyss coupled with an insight on Charles´behalf that he was descended from people used to spending their days in the polar opposite of society, may have been a recipe for disaster. If we add a possible narcissism, a common enough ingredient within the serial killers ranks, it´s not as if we have any shortage of disturbing elements when looking at Charles Lechmeres early years. But all of this is speculation, and so I opted not to expand on it in the book.

The idea that the Pinchin Street case contains elements of both series struck me some time ago. As did as the personal relevance of the location to Lechmere. I would add to that that the building of the railway viaduct in question required not only the demolition of the south side of Pinchin(Thomas) Street but also of Frederick Street*. While the ‘Cross’s’ were living in Thomas Street, Frederick Street, the next street to the south, was one of the notorious thoroughfares that earned itself and the general area the title of Tiger Bay.

Maria’s ‘husband’, Thomas Cross, an H Div. PC, patrolled those streets and no doubt encountered the area’s ‘Tigresses’ on a frequent basis. One can only imagine what Maria thought of her much younger ‘husband’ dealing with prostitutes as part of his day-to-day routine. And how/if she communicated her feelings towards those women to her adolescent son.

That is of course an intriguing possibility, and one that I have thought a whole deal about. However, there is an element involved in the killings that needs another explanation if you ask me.
If we were to work from the assumption that Maria Louisa kindled a hatred against prostitutes within Charles that made him go out an kill unfortunates when he grew older, then the generical picture of the Kelly deed fits that kind of scenario neatly. But as you know, I do not buy into the idea that Kellys murder was an example of a frenzied, uncontrolled attack. Her organs were plucked out, one by one and seemingly undamaged (we do not have Bond describing half a liver, chopped up kidneys and a sliced uterus) and placed neatly around the body in the bed. The uterus, a breast and a kidney were tucked in under her head as a makeshift pillow and thigh flesh and abdominal flaps were placed on the bedside table.
If it had all been about annihilation, I would have expected the organs to be left inside the body, chopped and mauled, and the flesh and flaps to be thrown on the floor. Something like that. But instead, we have a bizarre but orderly scene in many ways.
I therefore think that we have a fascination with taking apart the female body on display, to a significant degree. And I think much of what happened to the other victims is in line with this; the neat cutting in the torso series, the laid out colon beside Eddowes, the meticulously cut away face and scalp in 1873.
There is more going on than just a wish to destroy prostitutes (working from the assumption that the victims were all prostitutes). And I cannot see this part of the deeds as something Maria Louisa led on.
Of course, this does not mean that your hunch must be wrong. On the contrary, it may well be part of the deal. But it is not the whole deal, the way I see it.
These things too could have been touched upon in the book, but I left most of it out for the same reason as before - it rests too much on speculation, and I wanted the bare bones first and foremost.

I’ve read the book once and when I’d finished I was left with the impression of the Charles Lechmere I was familiar with having receded somewhat into the background.


* Some time ago I discovered a press report concerning boys maiming (stabbing) pigs that were kept beneath a Pinchin/Frederick Street railway arch. I can’t recall the date, but I think it may have been in the 1860s. I believe I posted the details either on here or on JTRF, but I’m buggered if I can find it now.

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.

[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?

[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 killer´s 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 it´s a complete no-brainer that the killer was likely the same in all cases, as far as I´m concerned.

[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 killer´s 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 it´s a complete no-brainer that the killer was likely the same in all cases, as far as I´m 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]

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 it´s 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 Ripper´s work!

[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 it´s 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 Ripper´s 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
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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[jerryd]

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