Pinchin Street Torso - who did it?

[FrankO]

I was under the impression that you thought that a "tube" of the skin was cut loose, but it seems you are speaking of my favourite topic: flaps!

Sorry to disappoint you here, but I was, in fact, speaking of a tube of sorts, in the sense that he cut the skin loose around the lower thigh and then peeled the skin down over the knee. What I wrote about the autopsy photo of the skin of the head pulled down was just to show that the skin, in that area at least, stays intact after death. But a flap of thigh skin could perhaps work just as well, in case that, if it's a realistic possibility at all, of course.

Itīs on itīs way, Frank - have a little faith!

Now that I know you and Gareth agree on something, I'm very hopeful, Christer!

[Fisherman]

Thanks for the compliment... I think...

It wasnīt a compliment, actually, it was pointing out that your suggestion would have fit my take on the psychological profile of the killer like a glove. But that was before I realized that you were not talking about a tube of skin having been cut and turned inside out, but instead about a much less interesting flap of skin.
However, if you would like a compliment, you are welcome to one - and for many different reasons!


What is this world coming to?...

Yeah, I know. I am losing touch.

[Fisherman]

I haven't said otherwise, Christer.

Striking or otherwise is interpretation, methinks.

Indeed it is - and I have seen interpretors taking it upon themselves to claim that there are no similarities worth mentioning inbetween the ripper and torso series, adding that those who claim there are such similarities fail to see that the incentives that led to what is wrongfully perceived as similarities simply must have been totally different. So I am kind of wary about the interpretation business.

[FrankO]

Just to prove that I am not against the kind of suggestion you make as such, Frank: it would fit 100 per cent perfectly with the psychological profile I favour of the killer, and I would just LOVE it if it was true...!

Thanks for the compliment... I think...

But alas, not even my almighty bias can bring me to embrace the suggestion. Oh, well ...

What is this world coming to?...

[FrankO]

It IS a similarity, quite simply.

I haven't said otherwise, Christer.

Not a perfect copy, but a rather striking similarity nevertheless.

Striking or otherwise is interpretation, methinks.

[Fisherman]

I've seen some autopsy photos of the skin of the head cut loose and pulled downwards towards the chin (this isn't going to be a hobby of mine, mind you!) and, at least, that skin does survive. And it also looked quite similar to what see above the mark (more bloody lines).

I was under the impression that you thought that a "tube" of the skin was cut loose, but it seems you are speaking of my favourite topic: flaps!

I have no idea what it should look like in reality, but you may very well be right, Christer. I threw the suggustion out here for 2 reasons:
1. that, to me, it seemed the best option of all the, not so good, possibilities (meaning that mine isn't necessarily good, but just the best of the rest, for me anyway)
2. to see what others would think of it and that, hopefully, some sort of expert on the subject would react.

So, thanks for your reactions!

As hard as I find it to read them! And it's not even Christmas yet!

Itīs on itīs way, Frank - have a little faith!

[FrankO]

Ah yes, I see now what you say - you think the dark circle is a cut area on top of the thigh skin that has been pulled downwards, right? Sorry, but that does not work for me. What you suggest is basically a "tube" of skin having been detached from the leg, and turned inside out. Iīm not sure that the skin would survive being turned inside out to begin with, ...

I've seen some autopsy photos of the skin of the head cut loose and pulled downwards towards the chin (this isn't going to be a hobby of mine, mind you!) and, at least, that skin does survive. And it also looked quite similar to what see above the mark (more bloody lines).

and I would have expected the border between the skin of the lower leg and the inside out-turned ditto to reveal the operation in a much clearer way.

I have no idea what it should look like in reality, but you may very well be right, Christer. I threw the suggustion out here for 2 reasons:
1. that, to me, it seemed the best option of all the, not so good, possibilities (meaning that mine isn't necessarily good, but just the best of the rest, for me anyway)
2. to see what others would think of it and that, hopefully, some sort of expert on the subject would react.

So, thanks for your reactions!

I find it hard to put into words, but I believe Gareth and I are on the same page here.

As hard as I find it to read them! And it's not even Christmas yet!

[FrankO]

But it's almost perfectly circular, and appears to extend all the way around the leg. Furthermore, it "pinches" the flesh of the shin and calf, which - that "pinch" apart - seems to be continuous and consistent in appearance either side of it. I can't see how something of that appearance could be brought about by the rolled-down skin of a de-fleshed thigh.

It's only a suggestion and if you don't agree with it, that's fine by me, Gareth. What made the suggestion stronger to me, is the fact that, on the front side of the knee above the mark, the skin seems thicker than the skin below it and that that part of the skin looks different (more bloody lines, more 'relief') than the part below the mark.

[FrankO]

That doesn't explain why the mark itself is almost perfectly uniform and three-dimensional, uncannily like a cord of some description encircling the upper part of the shin.

I'm not saying that my suggestion explains everything, Gareth, but what might explain it, though, is if it was resting on/adhering to the skin of the calf.

I've suggested that the reason that the indentation under the knee is more pronounced is because this is where the skin is thinnest and inelastic, and where there'd be less resistance against the cord.

I don't see that, because, as you say, the skin is very thin and it's only skin on bone with no muscle in between. If you tie something around that part of your calf, you'll see that there's hardly any indentation to speak of on that part of the leg, and a lot of indentation on the backside, where the calf muscle is. I don't know if any of that would change after death, but I would be surprised if that would be the case.

We also have to consider the effect of gravity; given the position of the leg, the fluid in the tissues would tend to flow to the underside of the calf with the passage of time, so there may be some œdema contributing to the picture as well.

Quite possibly, Gareth, but I still would find it quite odd if the part where there should be (almost) no indentation would show indentation and the part where we should expect it, would show hardly any.

[Abby Normal]

At the end of the day, there was never going to be any agreement on what the shape around Kellys leg is. What is of importance to me is that we have identified two things that are - or can be viewed as - reminiscent of inclusions in the torso series.

1. The Pinchin Street victim had two cuts to her outer left forearm, around three inches from the wrist. Kelly also seems to have two cuts to her outer left forearm, around three inches from her wrist.

2. The Whitehall victim had a string tied around the arm that was found in the Thames, a string that was suggested by Hebbert to have been applied as a ligature. Kelly has a circular mark around her lower right leg that is reminiscent of a ligature mark.

That is about all we can say (well, some of us can say with 99,9 per cent certainty that it is not a ligature mark, but that must be weighed up against how others disagree).

Personally, if I was dead set on trying to discredit the suggestion of the circle being a ligature mark, I would say that it would be very, very unlikely if Bond had not mentioned it in his report. Therefore, on the whole, I am more inclined to believe it is not a ligature mark. But that does not mean that I can categorically rule it out, and I think that trying to do so would be counterproductive to a fair discussion.

hi fish good post and totally agree.
if it was something that the killer had done than i think it would have been mentioned by one of the doctors or police.
whats of much more interest to me is the double cuts on the arm to kelly and pinchin.
so we have the vertical gash, dumped in ripper territory and double cuts to the arm in roughly the same place as points of similarity between the series.
the more we learn the more it seems they were by the same man.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Dr. Clarke described them as: "On the outer side of the left forearm, about 3in. above the wrist, was a cut about 2in. in length, and half an inch lower down was another cut.". So, one cut at about 3 inches above the wrist and one lower, at about 2.5 inches above the wrist.
Then we have dr. Hebbert describing them as: "On the wrist were two cuts, one just grazing the skin, 3/4 inch long and the other through the skin and 1 inch long. There was no ecchymosis on the edges, and no gaping of the wounds."

Taken together, that doesn't seem much like what we see in the photograph of Mary Jane. The cuts to her left arm extend from perhaps about 3 inches above the wrist to about 1 inch from the inner side of the elbow, which would make it 3 to 4 inches long and it's quite wide and gaping. In addition, there's at least one other cut in a sort of 90 degree angle to that, which must be at least some 2 inches long and it's quite clearly gaping as well.

Whilst the wrist cuts on the Pinchin Street victim may seem collatoral damage to cutting a rope or ligature from the wrist, this certainly can't be said for the cuts on Mary Jane's fore arm and upper arm.

Therefore, I really wonder if the cuts on the Pinchin Street can be viewed as reminiscent of those on Mary Jane's left arm. Superficially, yes, but zooming in, no.

All the best,
Frank

In both cases, we have two cuts to the outside of the left forearm, some significant way from the wrist. The cuts may well be more severe in Kellys case, but so was Chapmans cut neck compared to Eddowes ditto. And Nicholsīcompared to Strides.

It IS a similarity, quite simply. Not a perfect copy, but a rather striking similarity nevertheless.

[Fisherman]

Just to prove that I am not against the kind of suggestion you make as such, Frank: it would fit 100 per cent perfectly with the psychological profile I favour of the killer, and I would just LOVE it if it was true...! But alas, not even my almighty bias can bring me to embrace the suggestion. Oh, well ...

[Fisherman]

I don't quite understand what you're saying here, Christer, but what I'm saying is that the skin of the thigh (after cutting it loose) is pulled down (like a sock, if you will) with the inner side out.

That was exactly what I perceived you were suggesting, Frank, so weīre good on that score. Now, take a look at that dark belt, if you will. You suggest that it is a cut, and that the skin of the lower thigh above it was freed from the leg and pulled downwards so that the skin turned inside out, right? With the skinside agianst the leg and the flesh side where the skin side used to be. Is that correct? If so, have a look at the picture of the dark belt. The upper edge of it seems frayed, while the loweer edge is clean and smooth. Why do you suppose this is so?

So, what we see below the circular mark is the normal, outer skin of the calf and lower part of the leg and what we see above it is the inside of the skin of the lower thigh.

I realize that is what you are suggesting, yes!

And the circular mark itself is part of the skin of the thigh, i.e. the bloody egde of it. Therefore, the upper brim of it seems to show fraying (the here & there bloody inside of the skin), while the lower doesn't. Such is my suggestion, at least. Hope this clears things up.

Ah yes, I see now what you say - you think the dark circle is a cut area on top of the thigh skin that has been pulled downwards, right? Sorry, but that does not work for me. What you suggest is basically a "tube" of skin having been detached from the leg, and turned inside out. Iīm not sure that the skin would survive being turned inside out to begin with, and I would have expected the border between the skin of the lower leg and the inside out-turned ditto to reveal the operation in a much clearer way. I find it hard to put into words, but I believe Gareth and I are on the same page here.

[Sam Flynn]

And the circular mark itself is part of the skin of the thigh, i.e. the bloody egde of it.

But it's almost perfectly circular, and appears to extend all the way around the leg. Furthermore, it "pinches" the flesh of the shin and calf, which - that "pinch" apart - seems to be continuous and consistent in appearance either side of it. I can't see how something of that appearance could be brought about by the rolled-down skin of a de-fleshed thigh.

[FrankO]

That is interesting, Frank! Have a look at the fraying on the upper brim of the circular mark (there is no such fraying on the lower brim) - do you think it is the frayed edge of the skin pulled down towards the cut you suggest, or does that fraying belong to the cut itself? If so, why no fraying on the lower brim?

I don't quite understand what you're saying here, Christer, but what I'm saying is that the skin of the thigh (after cutting it loose) is pulled down (like a sock, if you will) with the inner side out. So, what we see below the circular mark is the normal, outer skin of the calf and lower part of the leg and what we see above it is the inside of the skin of the lower thigh. And the circular mark itself is part of the skin of the thigh, i.e. the bloody egde of it. Therefore, the upper brim of it seems to show fraying (the here & there bloody inside of the skin), while the lower doesn't. Such is my suggestion, at least. Hope this clears things up.