Pinchin Street Torso - who did it?

[Fisherman]

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.

[Harry D]

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?

[Fisherman]

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 didn´t. And there will be a reason for why he took care the way he did.

[Fisherman]

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 it´s 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. It´s about care and about keeping eyes and innards intact.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Well, that settles it, then. If you don´t 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

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

[Fisherman]

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, it´s 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 Kelly´s 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?

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Fisherman]

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 don´t 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 haven´t and I know of nobody who has.

[Fisherman]

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 loop of wool that was still encircling Kelly's leg. It's not the echo of something that had once been there.

The part that has me wondering is the part in the top left corner of the pic that seems to follow the leg in a "southwesterly" direction, towards the foot, like an extension of the circle where it should disappear in under the upper part of the leg. Maybe it is just a shadow, though, because one can see that the fabric forms a "valley" in under the leg.
If that part belongs to the circle, then I would vote for the circle being a lace or garter, otherwise I think it may well be a ligature mark. I would have wanted the fuzz that seems like ripped strands of thread to point downwards to think it is a garter, because a garter is pulled upwrds along the leg, and that will not leave the thread fuzz pointing upwards. However, as I pointed to in the pics I posted, damage looking much like this is often around in ligature marks.

I´m sure we will all agree in a very short time, as always.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

That enhanced close up looks like rounded threads in a double helix, or a plait? It really does look like something tied tight.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I asked, 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.
You replied Fish
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.

So you agree with me then, the victims most likely to have been Jack's had no ligature or tourniquet marks on them ?

You also say that I brought up the idea of the killer tying knots but Fish you are the one who suggests it could be a ligature or tourniquet mark left by the killer using one.

[Fisherman]

I agree that 4 out of 5 ripper victims seem to have no such marks. The 5th may have, though. If it does, it is a further link. And one example per series is enough to propose a link.
Is that helpful?

[Errata]

I don´t 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 haven´t and I know of nobody who has.

Hair ties on the wrist make similar marks. One time when convenience trumps just about anything else.

clearly that’s not from a hair tie, but have you ever wondered why in the dead of winter, in a not superlatively well heated room is she not wearing socks? Because it was freezing. I can’t imagine why she wouldn’t be wearing socks. As someone who apparently had an impressive amount of alcohol, that could cause leg swelling, causing the sock cuff to cut into the leg.

[Sam Flynn]

That enhanced close up looks like rounded threads in a double helix, or a plait? It really does look like something tied tight.

Not very tight, though. It looks for all the world like a cheap garter, perhaps a cord, shoelace or a length of wool, designed to hold up a stocking. Personally, I think she's still wearing that stocking, not that it matters that much. The key thing is that I'm 99.99% certain that it's not a tourniquet.