|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through May 03, 2004 | Suzi Hanney | 25 | 1 | 5-03-04 4:00 pm |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 337
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 4:47 pm: |       |
Jennmelo,
Welcome to the boards. There is a TON of useful information here. You can find things for and against virtually every suspect named. There is also a list of probable victims and others who might also be victims. You can stay busy reading this site for months. There are also a good many books out there. Look at the Media list. Everything is there. Enjoy!
Mikey |
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 6:16 am: | |
Go to the thread "Paintings, letters and a french alibi".
Take a close look at Walter Sickerts painting "Mrs Barett". Look for the woman you can find in the mirror (or maybe painting) to the right of Mrs Barett. You will see a woman in a bed, in front of a man in a top hat. Look a the womans arm. How close can a painter come?
Regards, Tommy Nilsson
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
Hi Jennmello,
Like you I became interested in the Jack the ripper case because of a movie. The movie was called Murder by Decree. It is a Sherlock Holmes movie were Holmes and watson hunt down Jack the ripper. Of course the story is fictional but it borrows from the royal conspiracy theory. The same theory that the movie From Hell was based.
My advice is to read the casebook. It is a great resourse. Read the boards there are alot of serious ripperologist here and you can learn alot. I think once you spend some time on this site you will see how many facts the movie From Hell got wrong. I would suggest you examine the facts of the case and draw your own conclusions.
The Casebook provides a opertunity to share a common interest with people from all over the world. That is one of the reasons that this site is so apealing. The subject matter may be a little dark but if you throw out the name Jack the ripper and realize it is just a murder mystery it can be fun.
ALL THE BEST,CB |
Lucy Sambrook
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 9:14 am: | |
is it a real 1??? can you tell me where i can find out anymore information on him? |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 725
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 4:04 pm: | |
Hi all!!!!!
Fun as they are......PERLEASssE forget the movies and look to the facts chaps......they're much more interesting at the end of the day!
Sorry but its true!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Dan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 4:52 am: | |
Hi,
First post on this board, but I've been looking around the site for a few months. English is a second language so bear with me. I would be curious to know, in the first photo, where do you place the left knee? Judging by Mr. Ryder's colourization of the first photo, it may be that I have an alternative suggestion to make. Or maybe we see the same thing.
According to the Bond report, "The legs were wide apart, the left thigh at right angles to the trunk and the right forming an obtuse angle with the pubes."
On this picture (click but be warned it's still gruesome), which I made a few of months ago trying to figure out what was what in the second photo (very hard to interpret at first!), I identified the left knee with the letter 'E' (according to this interpretation the left thigh cannot be seen in the photo; it is aligned with the focal point of the camera, and lies "behind" the knee).
This would account for the position of the left knee in the second photo. Much to my suprise, it has been argued, in the long thread discussing the hypothesis of a longitudinally-split femur, that it was piece of "rumpled up" cloth, which seems highly unlikely. Moreover, in my opinion, no other interpretation concurs with the previously cited statement in the Bond report, that the legs were wide apart and that the left thigh was at right angles with the trunk (thus implying a partially bent knee, according to the position of the lower leg). The placement of the thigh "at right angles with the trunk" seems suggest something not unlike the famous yoga pose of the Stork, as far as the thigh is concerned.
However, and this is readily apparent in the first coloured photo, this placement of the left knee makes for a rather long (and misshapen) lower leg. I am not wholly unconvinced that the end of the leg is hidden behind the bedsheet and that the left foot, as identified on the coloured photo, is just a fold in the sheets. This may seem like another conjuration of "rumpled up" cloth, but for my defense the contours are very pale on that part of the leg; and you can see a sheet hanging at the side of the bed nearby.
In my jpeg, the second photo has been colorized to sepia and de-contrasted, while the first photo has been contrast enhanced (showing, as I think, that the cut below the right knee is in fact a garter, and that the victim is wearing a sock -- noticeably whiter than the rest of the leg as a result of the contrast boost; and I think it is noticeable in the original scan too).
But that's just my opinion... I thought it might be interesting.
Regards,
Dan |
angel_eyes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 4:33 pm: | |
Dan,
I clicked on the link that you offered and nothing came up. All I saw was that the site was hosted by Angelfire. Is there anything you could do?
Angel |
Dan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 5:11 am: | |
Oops, sorry. The file was already in my cache, so I didn't notice the problem. This link should work. If it doesn't, try copying the shortcut from my previous post and paste it into your address bar.
Anyway, since I got no feedback I guess I must be wrong.
Dan
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 522
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
Hello Dan --
I didn't notice your earlier post until today. By the way, your English is very good. Much better than any "second language" of mine!
I've been trying to piece these photographic details together myself and I find they just don't make sense. Visually, in photo 1 it seems to me that Mary left knee must be further down her leg than your letter E, i.e. where the leg narrows noticeably. This is the only way to explain the appearance of her lower leg and foot, which as you note is impossibly long and misshapen if her knee is at point E. I just don't think I can agree with your suggestion that this is not in fact her lower leg and foot. If that lower leg is hidden under the bedsheets, at what point does the bedsheet begin to cover her leg. We should see this point where the leg would disappear under the sheet clearly. Furthermore, there seems clearly to be a foot at the end of her apparent leg, with a big toe and toenail visible.
But there are two problems with my interpretation of the location of Mary's left knee. The first, you have already pointed out. Bond's post-mortem describes her left thigh as being at right angles with the trunk. This would put her knee at approximately your point E. Also, Bond's report states that the skin on both thighs was removed. This is not what is pictured if my interpretation is correct. So I am left with a dilemma of inconsistency. I lean towards accepting your identification of Mary's knee since I accept Bond's report as better evidence than the photograph (since Bond had the actual corpse before him for examination).
Moreover, could you provide labels for the various points you have lettered? I am curious as to how you identify point D. I see it as a ruffled piece of cloth.
Andy S.
|
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 115
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:05 pm: | |
Hi Dan,
I think you have the knee labeled correctly on the long shot displaying the full body. I went back and forth on this in the past, but I think the thing that kind of looks like a knee lower down the leg is only an illusion caused by a knife mark gashing into the leg and putting an extra dip in there that otherwise wouldn't exist. As Bond says: "The left calf showed a long gash through skin & tissues to the deep muscles & reaching from the knee to 5 ins above the ankle." I also think the leg may only look longer than the other because it's closer to the camera and because her lower right leg goes out of the frame.
I'm still a little uncertain of what the closeup photo all entails, but I think you've got the knee labeled wrong on that one. From what I can tell based upon the angle of the shot, the knee wouldn't be in the photo at all. I think it can still be a right angle or close to it and be out of the frame, largely based upon the way the camera is aimed and the apparent slant of the body on the bed.
So, yeah, I'm personally still leaning toward the thing sticking up being the bump in the fabric (sheet or whatever) that we see extending above the body in the other shot.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 34
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:29 pm: | |
Hi Dan, Dan and Andrew,
Dan, Andrew is right your English is exceptional, you need never apologise for it.
There are definately some apparent discrepancies between the autopsy report and the photos, particularly the wide angle shot. I state clearly two things which I have come to believe. Firstly I do not believe the bed, body, table or anything else in the room was moved between the two photos (or prior to them for that matter). Secondly in the close up that is material soaked in blood that we are seeing which appears to be a knee. In fact I believe that the left thigh is under that material. We can clearly see the bulge of material in the wide shot. My main point is this, the autopsy report states: "The legs were wide apart, the left thigh at right angles to the trunk & the right forming an obtuse angle with the pubes." If we look at the wide shot I don't think anyone could say the legs are not wide apart. To interpret this as both legs laying outwards would be wrong. The legs are not even close to being together. If we expected the left thigh to be laying outward in the same position as the right then wouldn't Doctor Bond have described both as being at an Obtuse angle with the pubes? Rather he describes the left thigh as being at right angles to the trunk. Ok here's my point, I believe that the left thigh forms a right angle with the trunk where it joins the trunk and that the wording of the report is poor but not innacurate. Look down at your own pubic region. With your left leg pointing straight down, a right angle is formed.
The dictionary definition of an obtuse angle is "more than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees". The left thigh is clearly not at an obtuse angle to the pubes but the right in the wide angle photo is.
Also a word of caution, the colored photographs are wonderful and have been a great asset, I in no way wish to discourage anyone from using them (might even try some of my own!). It is however worth remembering that the color is someone's interpretation of a greyscale image. It is because these photos are in black and white that we have debate over what is sheet, flesh, blood and bone. Don't treat the colors as gospel.
Scotty. |
Eric J. Matatics
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 1:21 pm: | |
It seems to me that the "E" in Dan's photo #2 link is "C" in photo #1--rumpled, bloody bed material, which just looks very high because of the angle of the photo on the left--or perhaps the material had been moved up a bit by the photographer to block what would otherwise be an extreme close-up of the victim's lacerated pelvic region. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 1:13 pm: | |
Hi all,
I wonder what made the ripper stop his mutilation of Kelly? It seems like he may have been planning too skin the whole leg rather then just the thigh. I wonder how long he was in Kelly's room and if Daylight became a factor. He may have wanted to make his escape in darkness.
All the best,CB |
joan o'liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 7:32 pm: | |
Dear Dan and others: What is your opinion of the large "object" on the table in the background of the first picture? Do you see, as I do, the flesh taken from the right thigh, pubic area and left thigh and calf muscle all in one reversed slab? Or do you see, as others have, a pillow?
The calf on her left leg looks skinny because there is no muscle left, and you can see a zig-zag of flesh hanging down from there near the underside of the knee. where there were strong tendons to contend with.
I think he would have done the other leg the same way, but after making the round circumferential cut where you see a garter, he went up higher instead and made a circumferential cut at the thigh. as the knee area was too bony and tough to remove, as shown by the scrape marks all over the left knee. It looks like a serrated knife was used there to skin the flesh from the bone.
I am interested in your fresh perspective of these pictures.
Take care
Joan
|
angel_eyes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Dan,
The link worked and I saw the pictures. They were clear and I was able to tell what was on them. But I think in the second one it was more clear that the "garter" on Mary Kelly's leg was actually not a "garter" but it was a cut. Someone sliced open her leg.
Angel |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 524
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
The item on the left side of the table in the background of photo 2 is a pillow or blanket roll or some other fabric. This seems obvious to me, although I know Joan disagrees. I see striping on the fabric, although Joan attributes it to shadows caused by sunlight shining though window curtains or blinds.
The item on the right side of that table is flesh. It can be seen more clearly in this reproduction than in any other I have seen. I believe it probably the flesh from the top of Mary's right thigh, but it is impossible to say for sure.
As for the appearance of Mary's left lower leg, it may well be that it's abnormal look is due to tissue being removed from the calf. the "zig-zag" of flesh I think is the bedsheet, however. Look carefully and you can trace the edge of this sheet. Its top corner is wrapped around Mary's left shoulder (looking like a puffy sleeve) and it continues down to her hip (below the letter D in Dan's image) then disappears under leg (between the D and E), re-appears (just to the left of the E), disappears very briefly and then re-appears a final time as it drops to cover the side of the mattress (below Mary's left foot).
Andy S.
|
Eric J. Matatics
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 4:02 pm: | |
I agree that the material on the table looks like just that--material (cloth). It doesn't seem to have the same "wet" texture as the wounds on the victim's body.
Such a shame that these poor individuals' murders were not more thoroughly documented/investigated. |
Dan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 8:17 pm: | |
Whoa. Now I’ve got my work cut out for me. 
I apologize in advance for the wordiness (born out of the desire to be as clear as possible).
Andrew:
> If that lower leg is hidden under the bedsheets,
> at what point does the bedsheet begin to cover her leg.
Heh, good question. I don’t know. As you have observed, the bed sheet is dropping down in front of the mattress at the left of the picture. Follow it right up to the leg, and extrapolate that line over the leg. In fact, there is a faint mark there (and it coincides with the part that seems like a slightly bent knee). My suggestion is far from convincing, I know; but I’m just trying to find a coherent whole, and to me it just doesn’t add up if the knee is to be placed in this location on photo 1. On the other hand, you’re right about the “zig-zag” of flesh: it is a bed sheet, and it seems to be same one that I would have covering the left foot.
> Also, Bond's report states that the skin on both thighs was
> removed. This is not what is pictured if my interpretation is correct.
That’s right. Let’s say the E location for the left knee is correct in photo 1; then perhaps the inner part of the left thigh, largely stripped of its flesh, is partly visible at the left of the piece of cloth (her chemise?) which I labelled C and D. At the left and a little down. (I started this discussion in the wrong thread. A gridlined picture would be useful.)
> there seems clearly to be a foot at the end of her
> apparent leg, with a big toe and toenail visible.
This is what I thought at first; it appears obvious. However, as I looked closer, I thought something was wrong. If I correctly identify your big toe and toenail (which I have seen before), and compare it with my own anatomy, that big toe should be on the other side... So you see, if the interpretation of the colourized photo is correct, then that’s not the big toe. Suppose it is. Then you’ve got a different interpretation of the foot, but how it is supported by what's on the picture (the location of the ankle, etc.) I cannot guess. This part of the picture looks very fuzzy. To me, this is an ‘approximate’ foot, almost like a hasty sketch from a drawing. I think this interpretation of the foot can easily be challenged, but I am unable to provide a satisfactory alternative.
Labels for the lettering:
A - Left thighbone
B - Circumferential cut / garter below right knee
C - Tip of the chemise
D - Protuberant fold in the chemise
E - Rough position of the knee
F - Newspaper/book placed on the table
G - Left hand resting on abdomen
Not sure if it’s the chemise in C and D, but it seems likely. In any case it’s a piece of cloth, no doubt about that.
Dan N.:
My main goal is to make the pictures agree with the Bond report, and so the apparent knee may well be a deep gash, or may not be; in any case it is difficult to prove or disprove, so it appears to me a valid suggestion.
> I also think the leg may only look longer than the other
> because it's closer to the camera and because her lower
> right leg goes out of the frame.
I think you’re right. However, I still can’t see how that foot got there, at all, or how it is placed.
Now, as for photo 2, if that (huge) thing sticking up is a piece of fabric or whatever, then where is the left thigh? I mean, all the other parts have been identified with relative certainty, and it just seems to me that the left thigh has to be in the vicinity of this huge thing sticking up. I say huge, because if you compare this to the size of the hand, you’ll find, as I think, that it is much too large to be the piece of ruffled bed material or chemise labelled C and D in photo 1.
Of course, there is the argument that things were moved around, and that photo 2 has this fold in the chemise sticking up in the air (whereas it was resting on Mary's belly in photo 1); but I am trying to find an explanation that does not entail the moving of the body or of the sheets, as I find this extremely unlikely; and I don't think the contours of E in the second photo look like a piece of cloth at all: they are much too smooth, and incidentally look just like a knee. It almost seems to me that you guys are determined to see anything else, and I don't really understand what makes the knee interpretation so improbable.
Back to photo 1 (the long shot) and points C and D. I clearly see this as (possibly) part of her chemise, not sticking up in the air but merely resting on the side of Mary’s lower belly (the left hip, I guess). Accordingly, on the second photo, I identify C as the tip of her chemise ‘peeping’ up from behind the whole mess that is Mary’s lower body. D is rather more iffy (and facultative to my argument); but I wanted to provide an additional point of reference to make my interpretation clearer. Observe the distance between that piece of her chemise (?) and her wrist on photo 1, and compare with my interpretation of photo 2. To me, it accords; and the point labelled E is too far to the right to be the same piece of cloth we see on photo 1, especially since it is away from the foreground (the distance should appear less, if anything). And indeed, if E is the knee and this thing that we all see (?) is a thighbone receding into the flesh, it appears shortened by perspective, which does not seem unlikely, keeping in mind the position of the left thigh as indicated in the Bond report. I still see this as the simpler, most probable explanation.
Scott:
As I said, I also find it very hard to believe that the body was moved before the photos were taken. I do not know much about police practice in 1888 London, but am inclined to think that they were careful enough to leave the body in place before the photos were taken. However, I still can’t see how photo 2 could have been taken without moving the bed, which appears to be set against the wall in photo 1.
> If we expected the left thigh to be laying outward in the same
> position as the right then wouldn't Doctor Bond have described
> both as being at an Obtuse angle with the pubes?
“At right angles with the trunk” implies, in my view, a position more extreme than “an obtuse angle to the pubes”. The trunk, anatomically, is the whole of the body excluding the head, the neck and the limbs. Like that of a tree, the trunk is basically like a cylinder, and as such constitutes a ‘vertical’ point of reference. If Bond meant (as you would have it) at right angles with the pubes, i.e. fully stretched, he might have written (although this seems like a roundabout way to put it, but what do I know) “forming a 180-degree angle with the trunk”. I do not agree with your interpretation of this phrase; and I think the meaning is quite clear and precise, as it should be.
> Don't treat the colors as gospel.
I would like to point out that my “colourization” of photo 2 was produced through a single “colorize” operation in Photoshop, applied to the whole picture. I did not tinker with individual parts of the photo in any way.
Joan:
> What is your opinion of the large "object" on the table
> in the background of the first picture?
At first I didn’t know what to make of it at all. Then I read about your theory, the large slab of flesh, but I had a hard time trying to figure this out. It doesn’t look bloody enough, compared to other elements on photo 2, and it seems quite a large amount of flesh, if that’s what it is. I tend to see a pillow, or some kind of bolster, perhaps.
angel:
About the right leg: Perhaps it’s a circumferential cut. But this part of the close-up photo is out of focus, and it's difficult to say.
Thank you all for your answers. I’m happy to learn my English is good enough; it’s just that sometimes, I can sound a little bizarre, and I feared you wouldn’t take this newbie seriously if I didn’t point out that I’m trying real hard to make sense!
Kind regards,
Dan |
Eric J. Matatics
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
To me, "E" looks like the victim's left thigh. Her left knee would be about half an inch to the left (and slightly up) from the "E."
The left foot looks like a left foot to me--perhaps between the fuzziness of the photo and the fact that MJK may have had less than picture-perfect feet, it just looks like it's "backward."
I would have thought that the police would have photographed things without moving them, but again, perhaps for the sake of decency, bloody bed material was lifted to obscure what would be a nasty shot of this poor individual's private areas. The bed indeed looks like it must have been moved to take photo #2. Does anyone know the order in which these pictures were taken? Perhaps photo #2 was taken first. The bed could have been originally against the wall and somehow got moved in the scuffle, which prompted the photographer to step back there for his photo. Or maybe it was never fully against the wall. Thus, what was labeled as photo #1 could have been taken AFTER, with the bloody bed material pushed down so that it would not obstruct a view of the right leg damage. The bed could have also been moved against the wall for this shot for a more balanced, panoramic "landscape" view of the scene of the crime. Just some thoughts to consider...
Very grim. I've always considered myself to be pretty stoic, but I find myself unable to look at these tragic pictures for very long without turning away and shuddering. And yet, I hope to God that I never get to the point where I won't. |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 124
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 10:15 pm: | |
Dan with-no-last-name,
The main reason I think the part sticking up is cloth, besides the odd coloration that doesn't look like an opened up leg, is that when I compare objects in the two pictures (as in this diagram I created earlier), the thing some people see as a knee lines up right where you'd expect to see the cloth sticking up.
One thing I think is confusing people is the vast size and perspective difference between the two photos. The full length one is from a ways away and from standing position toward the whole body, while the closeup is almost sitting in the carnage pointing from bed level angled off toward the wall.
As far as comparing the bulge (cloth or knee) versus the hand, the hand in the second photo is mostly out of the photo so that you are only seeing a small sliver of it. Plus, as we've seen on another thread, some people initially think that the top of the pinky finger (seen in a fully curled position in the main shot) is actually the full pinky. Both of those make it easy to misjudge the size of the hand.
Joan,
I think you are right, though I don't know if the flesh matches up with exactly the way you think it does (you were saying buttocks? don't see that). I was originally confused by what I saw, probably in denial, until I decided to track down all the missing parts. I was specifically interested in the thigh flesh, as, if the killer were a cannibal you'd think that'd be a really choice section for him to run off with. But Bond's autopsy said it was on the table. Table? I said to myself, looking at the photo. Oh.
OHHHHHH.
The large-looking object on the table has to be as Bond says: "The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table." Size-wise nothing else in the photo could possibly be the flesh that Bond mentions. In the closeup photo, the full width of the shot is MJK's knee to knee region, roughly. (Whether the lump is the knee or the knee is outside of the frame doesn't make that much difference.) Just the slice of flesh missing from MJK's right leg would be far larger than anything else on the right side of the table in that shot (or anything visible on the table in the other shot). And since that leg is only about a third of the flesh Bond says is there, there has to be a hugely visible pile of flesh. That's got to be it.
I think the striping must be a trick of the light. But I really can't see how that'd be a pillow or other fabric covered object, especially with the lumps like musculature and something that looks disturbingly like an orifice. As far as the people asking why it doesn't look red and wet like wounds, I believe the wound side is on the back/underside of what we are seeing.
I think this is the whole slab of flesh from the front side of MJK from the lower belly area down somewhere to the knees of both legs. I believe it was probably posed by the killer to be open legged and obscenely sexual. I also believe that that is specifically what the second photo was aimed at: the leg and groin region of the corpse with the flesh that used to be there sitting in the background.
The image is several times more disturbing to me now than it was previously. Normally I hop in here with my thoughts on all sorts of things, but for this I was like, uhh, don't want to talk about it. But since you asked me, Joan, yeah, that's what I see.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 8:14 pm: | |
Hi Dan and other Dan too;
Thanks for the show of support. I know it is hard to deal with these images when the full horror of the crimes hits you, and can't certain suspects be ruled out simply by the fact that , no matter how peculiar or crazy the suspect may be, would they have been able to even imagine doing what Jack did?
The piece of "alleged" flesh, since that is only my opinion and not proven, is the reverse of the missing areas. The far right end of the slab has a circular sweeping cut that matches the cut on Mary's right thigh, and the longer part hanging over the table's edge matches the long cut going down to the calf.
On the flesh slab, there seems to be slashes in the flesh that would correspond with cuts at the top of the right thigh near the pubic area, made while the flesh was still attached. The flesh would be soft and pliable, so would be rather folded over, hiding the belly flesh and upper pubic area, but showing a bit of the lower pubic area, seen at the point where there is a curly strip of pubic hair. Remember that this flesh is upside down from the original orientation on the body. It was probably easier and cleaner for Jack to flip the flesh over on to the table rather than lift it over right side up. I think he had in mind to take that part home with him, but again, he was interrupted before he could do that. He bit off more than he could chew this time!
He was one sick puppy allright.
Take care and thanks for the replies.
Joan
|
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 46
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 11:56 pm: | |
Hi all,
Joan, I've read your theory regarding the flesh on the table before but never commented on it. I just wonder how you are viewing the photo? I have taken one from a book I have, scanned it at the highest resolution I could and then zoomed in on that area. I have to say I can't agree with your idea but I applaud the free thought that often throws up new facts. The main reason I can't agree is that there are no blood stains or discolouration anywhere on the item you describe. I find it hard to believe that such a large area of flesh could be removed and placed on the table without any bloody handprints being left on it. We can see these prints clearly on the right calf on the wide angle photo, on a piece of flesh that has not been removed from the body and therefore would probably have been handled less.
On another point I keep seeing references to a list of what was found in the room but cannot find this anywhere. Such a list could of course be invaluable in trying to identify the elements seen in the photos. Anyone know where it can be found?
Scotty. |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 126
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 12:23 am: | |
Hi Scotty,
I'm not sure the handprint on the lower leg is blood. It could be feces, if it were done after the intestines were handled.
If you are looking for the list of body parts and where they were located, it's in Dr. Bond's Post Mortem on Mary Kelly.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 47
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 12:40 am: | |
Hi Dan,
You could well be right about the faeces, the point I was making holds true for any bodily substance though.
Sorry I didn't explain myself very well. What i'm talking about is that it was common for the police to produce a list of items at the crime scene. This seems to be where we get the info for example on the Pipe that was found in the room. I'm looking for a list of the rooms contents, not the body parts.
Scotty. |
Dan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 5:35 am: | |
Dan,
I saw your diagram a while ago, but I don't understand it altogether. What I can't understand is the location of the (so-called) thighbone in the long-shot photo, how you know it's located there. In comparing the two photos, we're no longer dealing with a single 2D representation; the third dimension comes into play. I see that you placed the thighbone between the two converging lines that you drew, just like it was in the close-up photo; I just don't understand why. This third line, while still pointing at the corner of the table, could be anywhere on the third plane, and not necessarily appear between the converging lines in this different perspective, no ?
However I can see how the diagram makes my interpretation of photo 2 unlikely (unless the table had been moved, which is hard to tell).
Dan |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 127
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 7:48 am: | |
Hi Dan,
The object identified by some people as a bisected femur is on a line in the middle of the area isolated in both photos. As all three identifying points used as guides are isolated pretty exactly, more or less, in all three dimensions, it should line up pretty well. While the alleged femur is on a slanted line that varies in depth, the other dimensions (the x and y along the surface of the bed) should be pretty accurate.
I still for the life of me can't figure out where MJK's left leg is in the closeup photo though. Maybe something moved and the angles in my diagram are off. Maybe the leg is underneath some blood soaked sheets and doesn't look like a leg. I don't know. It's frustrating.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 49
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 4:50 am: | |
Hi Dan,
Sorry I meant to respond to your comment on colour some time ago but it slipped my mind. The color you have added to your photographs as posted is of course not an interpretation of your own. I was referring more to the sort of work done by Stephen on the beginning of this thread. As an example (not necessarily my opinion) a lot of people question the exact location and shape of Mary's left leg. Stephen in colouring in his photo has made some educated guesses regarding which of the whiter elements he thinks are flesh.
Scotty. |
angel_eyes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
Dan,
It's possible that if I'm right and it is indeed a cut, then it could be a circumfrential cut. Good call. Also, where are you from? Everyone is talking about how your English is so good. I agree, that it is very good.
Thank you,
Angel |
Daniel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
Hello everyone,
Dan:
I guess we won't be clear and won't agree on the interpretation of these photos unless more photographs emerge. Seems unlikely that they will, but I'm sure there are more. As a North American I'm always amazed at the quantity of rare findings waiting to be discovered in European attics, libraries, archives and so on...
Scotty:
I gotcha. Just wanted to make sure everyone understood this.
angel:
I believe the "circumferential cut" is an idea I got from other posters on this board in the archived discussions of the photographs.
I am originally from the Montreal region, born in a French-speaking family, and I now live in Montreal, Canada. I am too lame and too shy to speak English, but I hear it spoken daily, which helps a lot. I also learned to read and write English through the writings of JRR Tolkien, a style somewhat archaic and certainly very British (although the author would not agree) which I like very much.
I have always been very fond of (a certain idea of) Britain, don't know why. By the age of twelve I had read all the Agatha Christie novels in French. Lots of talk about India and the British Empire and so forth, of which I knew and undestood nothing about. I'm told she was a racist old hag, which I didn't notice, as I was mainly interested in the whodunnit aspect. Most of these novels must have been pretty bad, I guess.
A few years ago, I saw the photograph of Mary Kelly, linked from a promo for the movie 'From Hell'. It horrified me; of course I knew of "Jack l'éventreur" as we call him, but I didn't know there existed records of his evil deeds. Didn't feel inclined to research further back then; but at the end of last year I accidentally saw the said movie 'From Hell', and was intrigued. After a quick Google search I immediately stumbled upon this site, which I found excellent and quite fascinating; and shortly realized that the movie that had sparked my interest was far removed from reality: not a bad thing, for I had been turned off by the Royal Conspiracy and the (subtly?) hollywoodized ending.
I was amused to read that one of the suspects, namely perv doctor Francis Tumblety, had once carried his misdeeds in my hometown, which I thought could not have been more removed from "the JTR myth". The story of "The Lodger" I find particularly attractive in this regard.
While I was in Paris in 2001 I went for a short time to London by the Eurostar, but did not venture in Whitechapel. I loved it and plan to go back, and maybe this time I'll stop at the Ten Bells.
Regards,
Daniel (so as to avoid confusion but still not provide my family name!) |
James D. Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diomedes
Post Number: 20
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 1:22 am: | |
I am an advocate of the lodger theory also |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
