Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pinchin Street Torso - who did it?

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

  • Also the news reports of the inquest have Dr. Clark's testimony.

    Here is one example. There are others.

    https://www.casebook.org/official_do...t_pinchin.html

    Comment


    • Originally posted by jerryd View Post

      Thanks Abby.

      There really isn't even a hint of conspiracy involved in the multiple killer theory. If you read the link I am providing here, The Philadelphia Times report in December of 1888, you will see the London City police held the view that Eddowes and Stride were killed by two separate hands. A copy of this news clipping was included in the Metropolitan Police files, btw.

      Here is a quote from the clip for example.

      The city detectives then early in the first week of October came to a definite conclusion, namely, that the two women met their death at the hands of different men

      https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../pt881203.html
      Hi Jerry,
      I'm not sure why you say there isn't even a hint of conspiracy, there's definitely a couple of hints in the artice!

      The very next line after the one you quoted says "It was but taking a single step further to conclude that these two men were acting in collusion."

      Also the headline "Probably a Conspiracy to Murder Unfortunates Conceived by Religious Monomaniacs."

      They may be suggesting two separate killers, but acting in concert.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
        Also the news reports of the inquest have Dr. Clark's testimony.

        Here is one example. There are others.

        https://www.casebook.org/official_do...t_pinchin.html
        Interesting that the Times report had Dr Phillips agreeing with Clarke's comments.on the two cuts to the wrist, but the Pall Mall Gazette has him suggesting they were collateral damage from the leg removal;

        "The two small cuts mentioned on the arm appeared to him as likely to have been caused with the sweep of the knife when dividing the muscle covering the upper part of the thigh."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

          Interesting that the Times report had Dr Phillips agreeing with Clarke's comments.on the two cuts to the wrist, but the Pall Mall Gazette has him suggesting they were collateral damage from the leg removal;

          "The two small cuts mentioned on the arm appeared to him as likely to have been caused with the sweep of the knife when dividing the muscle covering the upper part of the thigh."
          that is interesting. however they were caused --reminiscent of the cuts to Mary Kellys arm.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            that is interesting. however they were caused --reminiscent of the cuts to Mary Kellys arm.
            Indeed. The outer side of the left forearm in both cases, around three inches from the wrist in both cases, two apparent cuts in both cases. Well spotted, and very interesting!
            Last edited by Fisherman; 10-15-2019, 04:12 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              that is interesting. however they were caused --reminiscent of the cuts to Mary Kellys arm.
              Mmm, good point. Perhaps Mary Jane's arm cuts weren't defence wounds as some have suggested, but caused by the cuts to her thighs? Hence the arm was moved to get it out of the way?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                Mmm, good point. Perhaps Mary Jane's arm cuts weren't defence wounds as some have suggested, but caused by the cuts to her thighs? Hence the arm was moved to get it out of the way?
                I'm no forensics expert, which may come as a shock, and all we have is the coroner reports and inquest testimony, but the visible wounds on Mary's left arm as pictured in the crime scene photos don't look defensive. They're on the outside of the forearm, very deep and localised, they look deliberate, which given the later mutilations might suggest an aborted attempt at de-fleshing the arm?
                That said, if we were defending against someone murdering us in bed, who knows what position our arm would be?
                Your evening of swing has been cancelled.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                  Mmm, good point. Perhaps Mary Jane's arm cuts weren't defence wounds as some have suggested, but caused by the cuts to her thighs? Hence the arm was moved to get it out of the way?
                  Itīs a very real possibility, at least. And another point of similarity inbetween the Ripper and the Torso series.

                  The ring around Mary Kellys lower right leg, what has been made of that? Do people agree it is a garter? Isnīt it kind of thin to be a garter? Or were there garters that thin in those days?

                  Anybody?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    Itīs a very real possibility, at least. And another point of similarity inbetween the Ripper and the Torso series.

                    The ring around Mary Kellys lower right leg, what has been made of that? Do people agree it is a garter? Isnīt it kind of thin to be a garter? Or were there garters that thin in those days?

                    Anybody?
                    I always took it to be a stocking,like the knee high tights old ladies wear these days? Either that or she was a member of Opus Dei. The Catholic connection...
                    Your evening of swing has been cancelled.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                      I always took it to be a stocking,like the knee high tights old ladies wear these days? Either that or she was a member of Opus Dei. The Catholic connection...
                      On enhanced photos it seems obvious that whatever it is, it consists only of the ringshaped dark material. It is no stocking, the leg is bare under it all the way down. There is something above it that may or may not be cloth, but it may just as well be flesh with no covering skin. I believe Kattrup has suggested this, and I think he may have hit the nail on the head.

                      But once more: were there garters that thin? Or could it be a makeshift garter, fashioned from whatever Mary had lying around?

                      Whatever it is, why is it that it was not mentioned by Bond? It is so prominent a detail, is it not?
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 10-15-2019, 05:59 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        On enhanced photos it seems obvious that whatever it is, it consists only of the ringshaped dark material. It is no stocking, the leg is bare under it all the way down. There is something above it that may or may not be cloth, but it may just as well be flesh with no covering skin. I believe Kattrup has suggested this, and I think he may have hit the nail on the head.

                        But once more: were there garters that thin? Or could it be a makeshift garter, fashioned form whatever Mary had lying around?

                        Whatever it is, why is it that it was not mentioned by Bond? It is so prominent a detail, is it not?
                        I don't wish to question your knowledge of ladies undergarments, I'm sure it's impeccable. It could be that thin, it's essentially the same as a man's shirt sleeve arm band, common at the time and natty today. I can't say surer than anyone, but it appears to be around the leg, above the skin. It's worn. An item of clothing.
                        Your evening of swing has been cancelled.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          On enhanced photos it seems obvious that whatever it is, it consists only of the ringshaped dark material. It is no stocking, the leg is bare under it all the way down. There is something above it that may or may not be cloth, but it may just as well be flesh with no covering skin. I believe Kattrup has suggested this, and I think he may have hit the nail on the head.

                          But once more: were there garters that thin? Or could it be a makeshift garter, fashioned from whatever Mary had lying around?

                          Whatever it is, why is it that it was not mentioned by Bond? It is so prominent a detail, is it not?
                          Hi Christer,

                          I was looking at that when Richard posted the enhanced photos. It almost looks like an indentation from a tight ligature. A tourniquet, so to speak.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by jerryd View Post

                            Hi Christer,

                            I was looking at that when Richard posted the enhanced photos. It almost looks like an indentation from a tight ligature. A tourniquet, so to speak.
                            Yup, you saw right through me there, Jerry. I was thinking about the Whitehall arm, of course. But if it WAS a tourniquet, then why on earth was it not mentioned by Bond? Surely, he could not have just skipped it over? "Oh, that will have been from a tourniquet, well, never mind...", sort of?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              Yup, you saw right through me there, Jerry. I was thinking about the Whitehall arm, of course. But if it WAS a tourniquet, then why on earth was it not mentioned by Bond? Surely, he could not have just skipped it over? "Oh, that will have been from a tourniquet, well, never mind...", sort of?
                              To be fair, on closer inspection, that is visibly tight. Also, not on the other leg? May well be a stocking holder upper, but worth the question.
                              Your evening of swing has been cancelled.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                Yup, you saw right through me there, Jerry. I was thinking about the Whitehall arm, of course. But if it WAS a tourniquet, then why on earth was it not mentioned by Bond? Surely, he could not have just skipped it over? "Oh, that will have been from a tourniquet, well, never mind...", sort of?
                                Again, using the enhanced photo, there is no sock on the left leg/foot, and no similar mark below the left knee.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X