Pinchin Street Torso - who did it?

[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.

[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]

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!

[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]

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.

[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?...

[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.

[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.

[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!

[FrankO]

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.

Yes, it goes both ways and is, of course, (sometimes) heavily dependent on ones views on various aspects of the whole case. For example, I don't see the similarities of the cuts on the wrists as especially striking. The abdominal cut on the Pinchin Street victim, in my view, is more striking, although, mind you, still far removed from clincher-type striking.

[FrankO]

However, if you would like a compliment, you are welcome to one - and for many different reasons!

Thanks for the compliment - and for many different reasons, too! Now I really feel that Christmas is on its way!

[Fisherman]

Thanks for the compliment - and for many different reasons, too! Now I really feel that Christmas is on its way!

I we can prove that the skin of Kellys lower thigh was cut loose in a tubular shape and pulled down over the calf, then Christmas is already here...! I will spend some time fortwith to take a look at that possibility, crossing my fingers for it being the case. And, of coruse, for you and me being able to persuade the rest out here to accept it...

[Errata]

Absolutely, Errata. I agree that Kelly most likely would wear socks. It sunds eminently logical. Maybe it is a little less logical if she wore socks only on her right foot, but thatīs another matter - she very likely wore socks.

That, however, must not mean that what we are looking at must be a garter or the border of a sock, a lace or something. It can also be a ligature mark. I presented three pictures of neck ligature marks earlier, and we cannot reason that they are ties or necklaces, instead of ligature marks, can we? The habit of wearing socks cannot exclude how a ligature may have been used on Kellys leg, thatīs what I am saying.

If it is a sock cuff - and please observe that I am not saying that it cannot be, because it obviously CAN - then why is all that fabric fuss pointing upwards, towards the knee? Should they not point downwards? And if it is a sock cuff, where is the sock? Has it been cut away? With an even lining towards the foot and an uneven one towards the knee?

Hey, just because I can’t think of why a psycho killer would tourniquet a leg in mid calf doesn’t mean there isn’t a perfectly good reason somewhere. Or even a rubbish reason. It only has to make sense to one dude.

though I will say it looks exactly like the marks my long bootlaces would make when I wrapped them around the top of the boot, around my leg before tying them. Back in the days when I wore one pair of boots for a decade. If you were to fill that depression with blood, I think it might look reversed. Like something raised instead of something depressed. Like an optical illusion.

just a thought

[Abby Normal]

Hey, just because I can’t think of why a psycho killer would tourniquet a leg in mid calf doesn’t mean there isn’t a perfectly good reason somewhere. Or even a rubbish reason. It only has to make sense to one dude.

though I will say it looks exactly like the marks my long bootlaces would make when I wrapped them around the top of the boot, around my leg before tying them. Back in the days when I wore one pair of boots for a decade. If you were to fill that depression with blood, I think it might look reversed. Like something raised instead of something depressed. Like an optical illusion.

just a thought

Hi errata

Hey, just because I can’t think of why a psycho killer would tourniquet a leg in mid calf doesn’t mean there isn’t a perfectly good reason somewhere. Or even a rubbish reason. It only has to make sense to one dude.

bingo! I remember the Richard Chase case and one of the victims had their entrails/intestines spread out amongst some tree branches and bushes and the investigators were absolutely confused why the killer would do something like that. when he was eventually caught and asked-it was a very simple explanation. He was curious and wanted to get a better close up look at them in the light.

and such is the case when a lot of these seemingly inexplicable things are done by serial killers.

who knows why these weirdos do the things they do, but makes perfect sense to them.

[Errata]

Hi errata



bingo! I remember the Richard Chase case and one of the victims had their entrails/intestines spread out amongst some tree branches and bushes and the investigators were absolutely confused why the killer would do something like that. when he was eventually caught and asked-it was a very simple explanation. He was curious and wanted to get a better close up look at them in the light.

and such is the case when a lot of these seemingly inexplicable things are done by serial killers.

who knows why these weirdos do the things they do, but makes perfect sense to them.

Not just serial killers are weird. I used to tie my boots on like I described above so no one would steal them if I passed out at a party. Because fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...