Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Michel Eyraud & The Pinchin Street Torso

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    That is what your naming Eyraud as a likely Pinchin Street killer has contributed, and it is not half bad in a sense - it is a textbook example of how not so solve murder cases.
    Murder cases? I was first on the scene at two murders, both of them detected, one of them detected by me. I don't think that's too bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    Thank you for taking the time to address my points, Fisherman. I would never say that the Thames Torso Murders and Whitechapel murders are not connected. However, it is a sticking point for me that a serial killer who dumped bodies for years at a time would take to the streets and kill at a much higher rate whilst switching between his previous MO. Is there any precedent for this?
    hi Harry
    Good question, probably not that specific, but bundy went from home invasion attacks to public ruses and then dumping back to home invasion. The boston strangler went raping and killing back to just raping. BTK went from home invasions to abduction and dumping.
    Gacy stashed some victims in his house and dumped others. Kemper murdered his grandparents at their house, later abducted victims and left there bodies outside but brought body parts to his place, also buried parts at his moms house, and then killed his mother at her place.

    There are more examples, but not sure of something as specific as you asked, but Ill keep looking. Maybe fish knows more.


    so bottom line serial killers switch up there MOs, sometimes drastically, so the switch between dumping and leaving as is-- is no great impediment IMHO. Also, the end result in both series is horrifically mutilated victims left/distributed in public with no overt attemts to hide, seemingly for some kind of shock value.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Thank you for taking the time to address my points, Fisherman. I would never say that the Thames Torso Murders and Whitechapel murders are not connected. However, it is a sticking point for me that a serial killer who dumped bodies for years at a time would take to the streets and kill at a much higher rate whilst switching between his previous MO. Is there any precedent for this?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    I didn't think you were suggesting anything of the kind, and neither am I, but when the goalposts are as much as 15 years apart, any claims of simultaneity need to be worded with more caution. With overlaps of that magnitude, and bearing in mind the number of (non-Ripper, non-torso) murders that occurred during that period, false positives are a distinct possibility, if not inevitable.
    There WAS a simultaneous existence of these two series, spanning over 100 per cent of the Ripper murders and much less of the Torso murders. That is one of the major reasons for suggesting a common originator. Maybe we should take stock from that instead of quibbling over it?

    And no, "false positives" are not inevitable at all. Don't be silly. I could make a much easier case for myself by leaving those murders out, and we would have an 1887-1889 span, and you would be deprived of your "point". But I don't, because I am certain that the man who killed the 1873 victim was the same man who killed Kelly.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 01-09-2019, 04:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Overlapping equals simultaneous. Nobody is suggesting that he killed all victims in the exact same minute.
    I didn't think you were suggesting anything of the kind, and neither am I, but when the goalposts are as much as 15 years apart, any claims of simultaneity need to be worded with more caution. With overlaps of that magnitude, and bearing in mind the number of (non-Ripper, non-torso) murders that occurred during that period, false positives are a distinct possibility, if not inevitable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Firstly, not simultaneous. Secondly, Battersea and Whitechapel are not the same geographical area.

    Details, Fish, details...
    Overlapping equals simultaneous. Nobody is suggesting that he killed all victims in the exact same minute.

    We have no idea whether he picked up any of the victims in Battersea, by the way - if you can go from Whitechapel to Battersea, you can go from Battersea to Whitechapel. And double quick, too.

    Details, Gareth, details - and facts!

    Of course, your purpose will be to obfuscate. The sum of all matters will nevertheless be that we know of no obstacle at all preventing the two series to have been perpetrated by the same killer. Not a single one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Pinchin Street comes close in that he omitted to remove the arms. What self-respecting or experienced dismemberer would fail to do that? He also barely scored the abdomen, so he was no Ripper either.
    Nice: no "Ripper". Well in Dutfields Yard, not even the Ripper was a ripper.

    You ask why a dismemberer would "fail" to take the arms off a victim. Because he didn't WANT to do so, is the obvious answer. The 1874 victim had one leg attached to the torso - what discerning dismemberer would do that?

    Don't you see that these matters are not something to point fingers at and laugh, but instead important pointers to the character of the. an we are researching? He took the legs off the Pinchin Street victim and left her like that, head attached, for some time. Then, before he dumped the body, he took the head off.

    What discerning dismemberer would do that, ha-ha...!

    A dismemberer who wanted a body with the head on it but with the legs taken away would do that. And so we should perhaps ask ourselves WHY he would prioritize like that instead of laughing and calling him incompetent.

    Similarly, he SAWED off the legs at the hips and the arms at the shoulders win the 1873 victim, where the joints are easy enough to open up. And then he disjointed these limbs at the knees and elbows, where it is more difficult to do that job.

    Should we laugh at it, or should we ask ourselves why he did this?

    Its anybody´s choice.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Once we have simultaneous murders in the same geographical area, these murders are more likely to be by the same man
    Firstly, not simultaneous. Secondly, Battersea and Whitechapel are not the same geographical area.

    Details, Fish, details...

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Harry D: Two serial eviscerators and mutilators existing in the same metropolis at the same time. Unexpected? Yes. Impossible? By no means.

    True enough - but when they do the same odd and peculiar things, it becomes a hopeless suggestion, Harry. If one had tortured his victims, cut small holes in they abdomens and taken the reproductive organs out, whereas the other one did NOT torture his victims, opened them up all the way and taken hearts only, if one of them only had cut away the abdominal walls in flaps and so on, it could still be a possibility that we were dealing with two men, but the many odd commonalities disallows the suggestion.

    By your reckoning, the Torso Killer was active as early as 1873.


    Yes indeed - the killer of the 1873 torso victim is the same man that kiled Mary Kelly.

    He spaced out murders out for years at a time. That's fifteen years. More than enough time for another macabre serial killer to come and go in Victorian London.

    A day is enough time for two killers to strike. There is no chronological limit. The time factor only serves to point to how two murders may or may not have been by the same man. It is then what happens to the victims that must govern whether we accept one killer as the solution. Once we have simultaneous murders in the same geographical area, these murders are more likely to be by the same man the more commonalities there are. And the more odd these similarities are, the more certain we may be of a single killer. In our two cases, we are not close to having a good case for one killer - we are miles ahead of that verdict. It would be beyond miraculous if it was NOT just the one killer.

    We cannot be sure when each series came to an end, either. Alice Mackenzie is an imperfect Ripper murder that could be attributed to a copycat, and the Lambeth 1902 case is also an imperfect torso murder. I've also heard about other dismemberment/torso cases after that. That's the problem with making definitive statements on inconclusive data.

    It is only a problem if we try to involve cases where there are not sufficiently clear indicators of a common originator, Harry. And there are more than enough indicators of such a thing in the two series at hand. Why would we say "what if the torso killer struck in a way that was totally unlike the Ripper deeds in 1902?" It is not something that has anything at all to do with the proven similarities.
    If it is of any interest to you, I would personally say that I think that McKenzie belongs whereas the Salamanca Place torso definitely does not. But I would use neither to prove my case of a common originator inbetween the Torso and the Ripper series.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    hi Fish
    have you looked into whether lech could have a chop shop somewhere? because obviously the torsoripper did-for the torso victims.
    I think there is good reason to believe that the Pinchin Street victim was cut up in Cable Street, where his mother had her lodgings in September of 1889. At that stage, her husband Joseph Forsdyke, was terminally ill (he would pass in December of that year), and so there is the possibility that the apartment was empty and that Maria Louisa tended to her husband at the hospital. The Pinchin Street torso was probably manually carried in a sack to the dumping spot, and so we should look for a place quite close. The Cable Street address was just such a place. Further to that, it may be that Maria Louisa was into the horse flesh trade at that time (we know she was two years later) and that there may have been sharp implements in the apartment.
    As for the other victims, it is less likely the this apartment was used, but I cannot say whether Lechmere had access to any other bolthole. Maybe there was some sort of possibility afforded by Pickfords, I don't know - if he was entrusted with keys to the premises, being such a long-time worker there, this may open up for a solution.
    It all ends up in guesswork, and as always, it is not until we have the solution that we will go "Oh, okay - that's how he did it", normally realizing that the solution was a very simple one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    the Lambeth 1902 case is also an imperfect torso murder.
    Pinchin Street comes close in that he omitted to remove the arms. What self-respecting or experienced dismemberer would fail to do that? He also barely scored the abdomen, so he was no Ripper either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    The series overlapped, Harry. It was not torso murders - Ripper murders - torso murders. The Whitehall torso lands in the thick of things.

    But basically, yes, he mixed his torso killing up with the Ripper series in a few months of 1888. Unexpected? Yes. Impossible? By no means.
    Two serial eviscerators and mutilators existing in the same metropolis at the same time. Unexpected? Yes. Impossible? By no means.

    By your reckoning, the Torso Killer was active as early as 1873. He spaced out murders out for years at a time. That's fifteen years. More than enough time for another macabre serial killer to come and go in Victorian London. We cannot be sure when each series came to an end, either. Alice Mackenzie is an imperfect Ripper murder that could be attributed to a copycat, and the Lambeth 1902 case is also an imperfect torso murder. I've also heard about other dismemberment/torso cases after that. That's the problem with making definitive statements on inconclusive data.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    If the killer returned home after the strikes, then he must have spent ten or fifteen minutes trekking home from the furthest deed, regardless of where he lived. This means that he could have walked that time in ANY direction, spreading his deeds much more than what was the case. For some reason, he never did. Maybe he was just passing by? Perhaps en route to work or something?

    Claiming that a person en route to work would kill only in specific places is of course bonkers, since the police had no idea in the first place that the killer WAS en route to work, let alone where that route passed. The STGE and City murders blurred the picture totally, and Lechmere - who actually passed through the murder area on a daily basis, come to think of it - had no reason to be more afraid than any of the other East End men.
    hi Fish
    have you looked into whether lech could have a chop shop somewhere? because obviously the torsoripper did-for the torso victims.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Not much of a choice, if all you have are a pair of legs to get you back to safety.

    No, I don't. Such a person could have chosen to kill elsewhere on his route, closer to his home, or somewhere else in London, instead of venturing into the middle of a hive of police activity to kill.
    If the killer returned home after the strikes, then he must have spent ten or fifteen minutes trekking home from the furthest deed, regardless of where he lived. This means that he could have walked that time in ANY direction, spreading his deeds much more than what was the case. For some reason, he never did. Maybe he was just passing by? Perhaps en route to work or something?

    Claiming that a person en route to work would kill only in specific places is of course bonkers, since the police had no idea in the first place that the killer WAS en route to work, let alone where that route passed. The STGE and City murders blurred the picture totally, and Lechmere - who actually passed through the murder area on a daily basis, come to think of it - had no reason to be more afraid than any of the other East End men.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    But according to the single killer theory he didn't stop. He went from dumping the occasional torso over fifteen years, to a twelve week frenzy in 1888, and back again?
    The series overlapped, Harry. It was not torso murders - Ripper murders - torso murders. The Whitehall torso lands in the thick of things.

    But basically, yes, he mixed his torso killing up with the Ripper series in a few months of 1888. Unexpected? Yes. Impossible? By no means.

    You see, Harry, we all must bite the bullet in this errand, one way or another. Either we accept that a killer can do a street ripping series and a dismemberment series alongside each other, as I do - or we accept that two serial killers eviscerated and mutilated in much the same fashion, going for the same organ extractions, taking out hearts and uteri, disposing of the uteri, both of them, taking rings from fingers of their victims, targetting prostitutes and cutting away abdominal walls in flaps in the same town and time as if it was a natural thing.

    Its either or.

    The way I see it, I have the upper edge in my choice by a country mile - not only does history tell us that two serial eviscerators and mutilators never have coexisted in any town, but I am also dealing in hard facts: we KNOW that these things happened, that these very parts were taken out, these very rings were taken etc. All of this is on record. What you have is the soft side, the unknown one.

    What is not on record is what the killer/s were about, how he/they thought, planned, what he/they desired to do. We are left with guesswork there. You say that it is illogical with the Ripper deeds in the midst of the torso deeds, but I can tell you to look at Joseph DeAngelo, who attacked and raped lone women until it was said at a town hall meeting that he would not dare enter a home with a man present. Of course, what then happened was that deAngelo attacked ONLY homes with a man present alongside his wife.
    Maybe something similar was the origin of the Ripper business - he could have heard or read about how he was too scared to come out of his hidey-hole, and then he did a DeAngelo; the precedence is there! And this is what I mean when I say that this side is soft - a million explanations can be offered, and before we know what happened, there is no telling if it was illogical with the Ripper business or perhaps actually completely logical - owing to circumstances we do not know.

    All we actually know is that there simply cannot have been two killers. That's where the hard facts come in.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 01-08-2019, 12:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X