Pinchin Street Torso - who did it?

[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.

[Sam Flynn]

The thing has always appeared to me the most to be the skin from just above the knee peeled downwards over her knee, meaning that what we see above the mark is the inside of skin of her lower thigh and that the mark is in fact the bloody margin where he cut the skin loose from the thigh

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'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. 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.

[FrankO]

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.

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

[Fisherman]

I completely agree, Joshua. There seems to be indentation under the knee and only above the mark, while that is, as you say, an area where it would be illogical as it's just skin on bone there and nothing more. That, to my mind, really points away of it being a tight garter, tie, rope or marks of a tourniquet. The thing has always appeared to me the most to be the skin from just above the knee peeled downwards over her knee, meaning that what we see above the mark is the inside of skin of her lower thigh and that the mark is in fact the bloody margin where he cut the skin loose from the thigh. To me, that seems the best of the options.

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?

[FrankO]

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.

I completely agree, Joshua. There seems to be indentation under the knee and only above the mark, while that is, as you say, an area where it would be illogical as it's just skin on bone there and nothing more. That, to my mind, really points away of it being a tight garter, tie, rope or marks of a tourniquet. The thing has always appeared to me the most to be the skin from just above the knee peeled downwards over her knee, meaning that what we see above the mark is the inside of skin of her lower thigh and that the mark is in fact the bloody margin where he cut the skin loose from the thigh. To me, that seems the best of the options.

[Fisherman]

im with sam on this one. i think its a piece of clothing of some sort.

while its possible, i just dont think theres enough there to say its more likely a tourniquet.

Not more likely, no. But I would not rule it out as a clear and very real possibility. And such things must count too, or we are at risk of missing out very badly.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

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?

[Abby Normal]

im with sam on this one. i think its a piece of clothing of some sort.

while its possible, i just dont think theres enough there to say its more likely a tourniquet.

[jerryd]

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.

Gareth,

Does it ever get boring playing the devils advocate?

[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.

[Errata]

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.

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.

[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?