Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pinchin Street Torso - who did it?

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

  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
    A hose supporter in Victorian times was a kind of belt which was worn near the knee which kept stockings or socks up. A belt pulled tight and worn regularly could have made that mark.
    Regards Darryl
    I donīt think so, no. No woman (and likely no man either) would wear something that made that kind of a mark on her/his body out of her/his own free will. Have you ever worn anything at all that has left that kind of a marking on your body, Darryl? I know I havenīt and I know of nobody who has.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
    A hose supporter in Victorian times was a kind of belt which was worn near the knee which kept stockings or socks up. A belt pulled tight and worn regularly could have made that mark.
    Hello Darryl

    If you look at the closeup, the "mark" isn't a dent as such, but a 3D object in its own right, like a cord, a shoelace or a length of wool encircling Kelly's leg. It's not the echo of something that had once been there.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Lace-Garter Thing.jpg Views:	0 Size:	22.8 KB ID:	725201

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

    1 - How do you know he enjoyed tying knots on the other torso victims,? Even if he did it could have been for necessity which is not the case with Mary

    You were actually the one who introduced the concept of the killer liking to tie knots on victims - and you suggested that the Ripper had shown no such inclination. Which is why I said that the torso killer - who is the same man, as faer as I am concerned - DID show that inclination. So it is not about me knowing that either series involved any enjoyment led on by tying knots, itīs about how there is the inclusion as such in the torso series.

    2- I don't subscribe to Jack and torso being one and the same but even if they are what evidence do you have that he tied a knot or used a rope , string whatever on any other of the C5 plus Martha.

    There is no such evidence. Nor did I claim that there was. So I am having a hard time understanding why you would ask it of me.

    3- Again, why tie something round Mary's leg and then take it off without using it for a purpose

    You should ask the killer that, not me. All I can contribute is the knowledge that many post mortemn mutilatiors do things to their victims that seem illogical to us, and that fill no other purpose but to humour the killer.

    4- The Boston strangler for example left signature bows on his victims if Jack liked to use string or whatever were are they ?

    I am suggesting that the evidence may be the circle around Kellyīs leg. Suggesting. May. It seems a problem to you?

    5- Sam as come up with a perfectly plausible explanation to my mind what that mark on Mary's leg is.
    Regards Darryl
    Yes, he has, to a degree - there are things pointing away from him being correct. But I must ask you whether you consider the fact that Gareth has presented one take on it an obstacle to other theories? Sort of "since he may be right, you must be wrong"? Or?

    Leave a comment:


  • Darryl Kenyon
    replied
    A hose supporter in Victorian times was a kind of belt which was worn near the knee which kept stockings or socks up. A belt pulled tight and worn regularly could have made that mark.
    Regards Darryl

    Leave a comment:


  • Darryl Kenyon
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Well, that settles it, then. If you donīt think he would "tie a knot" on a victim of his, then he really could not have done so, I guess.

    (For the rest of us, who do not ascribe to Darryls pessimism, it of course applies that there is something that looks like a ligature mark on that leg, plus we know that there is another series of murders at the same time with many similarities enough to make the assumption of a common killer - and in THAT series, the killer DID enjoy "tying knots on his victims"...)
    1 - How do you know he enjoyed tying knots on the other torso victims,? Even if he did it could have been for necessity which is not the case with Mary
    2- I don't subscribe to Jack and torso being one and the same but even if they are what evidence do you have that he tied a knot or used a rope , string whatever on any other of the C5 plus Martha.
    3- Again, why tie something round Mary's leg and then take it off without using it for a purpose
    4- The Boston strangler for example left signature bows on his victims if Jack liked to use string or whatever were are they ?
    5- Sam as come up with a perfectly plausible explanation to my mind what that mark on Mary's leg is.
    Regards Darryl

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    By the way, we can also add the colon section from Eddowes to this pattern. Arguably, somebody who happens to cut away part of a xxxx-filled colon and get part of it over his hands, will fling that colon section away as far as possible, and it will end up in a sorry heap seven yards from the body.

    But in Mitre Square, it was placed by design (as Brown put it) stretched out and parallel to the body. One must imagine that the killer used both hand to do that, gently holding the section at itīs ends, stretching it out and laying it down alongside Eddowes.

    Is that weird, or what? But it is in line with what happened to Kelly. Itīs about care and about keeping eyes and innards intact.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    Thanks, Fish. Glad I was not the only one! I noticed from Richard's enhanced photo that the face looks like a cracked egg, which I assume is down to damage to the photo, like you said.

    Do you think anything can be read from the fact the killer left the eyes intact?
    Yes, I do. Or at the least, I have an idea about it. And it is not only the eyes that are intact. Have a look at that liver between the feet. It looks undamaged to me. And there are no notes about damage done to the organs, no half kidneys, no sliced spleen; it seems he plucked them out carefully and seemingly with the intent of leaving them whole and undamaged. That is very much in accordance with the eyes.
    It has been suggested that the killer drove over Kelly with a lawnmower, oblivious about how much damage he inflicted and actually trying to maximize it.

    But he didnīt. And there will be a reason for why he took care the way he did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Nor can I. I am fascinated by how a reporter stated that tha face made him think of the wax models in doctors residences - it reminds me more of mincemeat. But I think we may be missing out on a whole deal. There seems, for example, to be cracks in the surface of the photo, making it even harder to read what is what. The wax models owned by doctors were reasonably pedagogical ones, with clearly defined and visible eyes, blood vessels, muscle tissue etcetera.
    Thanks, Fish. Glad I was not the only one! I noticed from Richard's enhanced photo that the face looks like a cracked egg, which I assume is down to damage to the photo, like you said.

    Do you think anything can be read from the fact the killer left the eyes intact?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    Doesn't matter how many times I see that photo of MJK, I can never make out the eyes.
    Nor can I. I am fascinated by how a reporter stated that tha face made him think of the wax models in doctors residences - it reminds me more of mincemeat. But I think we may be missing out on a whole deal. There seems, for example, to be cracks in the surface of the photo, making it even harder to read what is what. The wax models owned by doctors were reasonably pedagogical ones, with clearly defined and visible eyes, blood vessels, muscle tissue etcetera.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

    Because that was part of what he wanted to do, to kill and try and dehumanise his victims. Whoever the ripper was and whatever psychological make up compulsed him to act that way one thing i don't think he had was a fetish for tying knots on his victims.
    Well, that settles it, then. If you donīt think he would "tie a knot" on a victim of his, then he really could not have done so, I guess.

    (For the rest of us, who do not ascribe to Darryls pessimism, it of course applies that there is something that looks like a ligature mark on that leg, plus we know that there is another series of murders at the same time with many similarities enough to make the assumption of a common killer - and in THAT series, the killer DID enjoy "tying knots on his victims"...)

    Leave a comment:


  • Darryl Kenyon
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Why would anybody carve out the organs from a body and place them around the eviscerated body in a bed? Because it seems rational to us or because it seems rational enough to the killer?
    Because that was part of what he wanted to do, to kill and try and dehumanise his victims. Whoever the ripper was and whatever psychological make up compulsed him to act that way one thing i don't think he had was a fetish for tying knots on his victims.
    Last edited by Darryl Kenyon; 10-16-2019, 12:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Doesn't matter how many times I see that photo of MJK, I can never make out the eyes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    it almost looks like its the bottom section of something like bloomers? because it also looks like fabric above it.
    i have no clue what it is or why its there. i had always just assumed it was a garter or something.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

    Perhaps because the skin and subcutaneous fat is thinner at the front, thus easier to indent than the calf. The calf is muscular and its skin is more elastic, both of which would offer slightly more resistance to a comparatively loosely tied "garter".

    Whatever it was, it's not a tourniquet. For one thing, it's perfectly placed to encircle the leg just at the point where you'd expect a "pop sock" would need holding up, i.e. just below the knee joint. For another, I see no reason at all why a mutilator would (a) want to apply a tourniquet in the first place; and (b) if he did - for some bizarre reason - why he should put it there.

    Re (a), there was blood absolutely everywhere, so applying a tourniquet to the leg would have been utterly pointless.
    Are you aware of how many "pointless" things post mortem mutilators do to their victims...? Plus the suggestion is not that it is a tourniquet, but instead the marks after a tourniquet/ligature.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 10-16-2019, 11:21 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
    If it is something tied round her leg, it's not uniformly tight. There appears to be most indentation in the skin at the front on the bony shin area, and none at all at the back in the softer calf area. Which is the opposite to the way a garter or tourniquet would work. Strange.
    The only thing I can think of is that the string (or whatever) is tying her leg down to the bed?
    I think that if what we are looking at is a ligature, then it is the indentation marks from it and not the ligature itself. There are pictures of ligature marks that are very close to what we see here, with marks running at a ninety degree angle to the circular ligature mark itself. Look, for example, at these pictures:

    https://www.documentingreality.com/f...e-mark-107986/

    https://www.documentingreality.com/f...k_hanging2.jpg

    and figure 2 in this link:

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/45e...f2931a6471.pdf

    ... and you may see what I am talking about. These marks were probably made by thicker rope than the kind of string that seems more consistent with the circle around Marys leg, since they depict hanging ligature marks, but overall, they are not very far from what we see in the Kelly pic.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X