|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3727
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 5:32 pm: | 
|
Hi Dan,
Erh.. sorry, but no, that is not a result of knife work or wounds. It is actually a bending there, and it is pretty clear on the picture that it is not. It is a bended shape and it can only be interpreted as a knee bend. That there are cuts and mutilation attempts on the lower leg is another matter, but this is clearly not it.
I am afraid you pointed out the wrong part of the knee; not only does it make the shape of the leg totally impossible, it also makes the leg way too long and out of proportion -- even if we consider effects constructed by strange camera perspectives.
I have used my own techniques from my years in artist's training, and although my theoretical anatomy skills is not in the same scientific league as is required here, I honestly can't see that your suggestion works better.
As far as antomy is concerned. I'd rather trust someone who'd worked at British Museum; after all, they do not hire idiots.
Well, frustrated or not, it is your call to get involved in the discussions or not. After all, she have tried out some of the suggestions you have put forward. The bottom line is, that one should usually try to respect the other opponent by treating her the same way as she treats others. If she responds in a nice tone, then she should get the same thing back even if you disagree with her. It is always better not to respond if one feels that frustrated.
If Jane as well was responding in a categoric way and with a superior macho attitude (like both you and I have a tendency to do), I wouldn't mind your approach, but Jane is actually one of the nicer people here, who thinks of others before herself. I just think it's a strange way to treat someone who have put a lot of efforts and free time on artwork for your magazine.
End of story.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 18, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2205
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 6:01 pm: |
|
What on earth is going on here now?
I dont get this really----have you decided to canonise Jane then,Glenn?
Quite frankly its all a bit ridiculous-its like Jane has become the Mother Theresa of the Casebook----by decree of Glenn---
Lets get a healthier attitude here -people have spats
Jane can more than defend her work which you quite rightly state is first rate.No need for Sir Ghalahad!
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3728
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 6:15 pm: |
|
No, I don't think she would appreciate being canonized, Natalie. And yes, she can defend her own work -- but I'd hold the same speech for anyone, not just Jane. So that is not the issue. No Mother Theresa stuff here; I just don't think she deserved the unnecessary wrap.
I have revised my post, though; I was too angry when I wrote it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 18, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 696
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 7:44 pm: |
|
How did the dentist trip go, Jane? Does it still hurt? |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 504
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 7:59 pm: |
|
Hi everyone,
I initially just put a couple of ideas up which I thought might be interesting to someone....... but it seems that it provoked more of a reaction than I had anticipated.
I only have ideas.........which I think that others might find worth discussing the same as everyone else....it's just that mine are visual.
I followed Dan's suggestions because I hoped that they would help to clear up any grey areas that were unresolved, or at least see if other ideas worked better.......
The follow up visuals were Dan's and a few other suggestions put forward by other posters who were kind enough to make suggestions after the initial few illustrations I posted.
Dan obviously doesn't agree with the tentative conclusions I reached, although goodness knows the only conclusion I came to was that it was a leg I was looking at, which is hardly earth shattering.
I thought that people might be interested to see how forensics were used (although in that case very crudely of course) for reconstructive work and then only in response to other's suggestions.
Glenn is only defending me because he knows that I have no confidence at all in my work and never have done and absolutely dread putting anything up on the board ever, because I am always worried about it being wrong or I have made a mistake.
He knows how insecure I am about my work and I ask him all the time to see if I can do something, anything to make my work better as he is a first rate artist and I know that quite often I get things wrong.
I do think that in this instance that what I thought were just a few harmless visuals for a bit of interest turned into more than I found it comfortable to cope with, but I didn't want to let people down and leave them with unresolved conundrums hanging in the air.
I obviously misjudged the situation.
As for being canonized, Glenn knows my faults as well as anyone on the boards...... he certainly isn't likely to elevate me to Sainthood in the near future.......... he uses CAPS in his emails to me on quite a few occasions. They even get a size bigger sometimes. Thankfully they haven't been in red yet!
Love to everyone
Jane
xxxx |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 505
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 8:08 pm: |
|
I couldn't open it Diana!
Was it a picture of James Marsters with his top off?.....please say it was I will be your friend for life!
Can you post it again? I know it isn't really a picture of James Marsters!
The best format is a jpg. If you can't save it as a jpg then just take a screen shot of it and you can probably open it up in Paint and save it as a jpg there, which should upload. I am intrigued to see what it is now.
No the dentist trip did not go well, I look like a pudding with currants in....and an unbaked one at that.........urghhhhhh!
Hugs Jane
xxxxx |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3731
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 8:46 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
It was a picture of a tooth, although I wish my real teeth looked like that one.
It was a Word document, and if I am not entirely incorrect people with Mac sometimes can have troubles with that.
I don't use THAT much caps, do I...? 
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 506
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 9:15 pm: |
|
On your bike Andersson.
xxxxxxxxxx
Thanks Diana............my tooth definitely doesn't look like that at the moment! |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 697
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
I think your drawings are great and I hope you don't get discouraged and quit. Sorry your tooth still hurts. Are you running fever? |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 507
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 1:52 am: |
|
HI Diana,
My tooth is getting better thanks, at last. Just as well!
I am still going to be doing reconstructions of the case, but I have got a lot of outside work to do from various museums and collections which will keep me a bit busy. It has suddenly started up again in the last month or so. I shouldn't have told them I was getting better!
I am just starting though on a proper recreation of the inside of Mary's room in 3D using some architectural programmes which someone has kindly offered to help me with. Mine are not really good for some things, but combined with other resources we should be able to get something that is as accurate as it is possible to get. It will take quite a few weeks if not months though.
Of course I will let everyone see it when it is ready.
In the meantime I have plenty of things to keep me out of mischief!
Big hug,
Jane
xxxxx |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2214
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 2:55 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
Glad to hear your tooth is getting better.
I understand what each of you has been saying-you Dan and Glenn,but the truth is we all have our ideas challenged on the casebook-it can seem personal but in my experience it very rarely is and to me what Dan was saying seemed in order
from the point of view of determining exactly where various limbs and objects where--- which was I thought the object of this specific exercise.
I am not really interested in whether Dan was right or wrong over this only if his method of judging for accuracy was "fair testing". To me it seemed it was.I didnt feel that there was bullying here and certainly not anything personal-only a bit of the frustration that some have when they dont feel they are being listened to.Nothing more.
It is a great pity if you and Glenn have taken offence because I for one was thrilled to see what you were endeavouring and greatly appreciated it.
Take Care
Nats
xxxx
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 694
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 8:27 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Without trying to make too big a deal of it, I still have doubts about where you think the left knee is. Although I concede that there seems to be a bend in the leg there, there are several things that make me seriously doubt your notion.
Obviously the full body photo was taken from a point that was closer to the wall containing the fireplace than her left foot. If we were to draw the right foot in the photo, we would see that it was at about the same level as her left foot and would probably even stick a bit out of the photo. So, even though MJK seems to have been lying obliquely on her bed with her head closer to the side of the bed than her middle, I think it’s safe to say that her right foot was at least as close to the foot of the bed as her left foot.
So let’s just assume both feet were evenly close to the foot of the bed and then compare ‘your’ left knee position to the position of the right knee. The right knee certainly seems to be closer to the headboard than where you think the left knee is, while they obviously should be at about the same distance from the headboard.
Another thing would be the relation between her upper arm and shin. My shin is about 1.35 times larger than my upper arm. Transferring this to the full body photo and then measuring from ‘your’ left knee down her shin (even if the knee was closer to the camera than her foot), her shin would end very close to the end of her foot. Or, in other words, there would be too little room for either her foot or her shin, which doesn’t add up either.
Furthermore, in addition to Dr Bond’s remark that the left thigh was stripped of skin, fascia & muscles as far as the knee, he states that the left thigh was at right angles to the trunk and this doesn’t agree with your suggestion for the position of her left knee.
I fully agree with you that the dent or bend wasn’t caused by knife work as Dan suggests, because if he would have read Dr Bond’s report well, he would have seen that the doctor only mentions a long and deep gash in her left calf and that there’s nothing there about any flesh having been cut away.
I have no idea what did cause the dent – I only know that there are only 3 features in that photo that are rather clearly discernable: her hair & forehead, her left arm and her right lower leg & thigh bone. The rest is terribly smudgy. Perhaps the dent was caused by a piece of sheet lying on top of her calf – I don’t know.
Anyway, I’m not sure the knee is where you think it is and I think Jane’s very first visual on this thread gives the most likely position.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3765
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 8:50 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
How are you?
Well, I am sorry, but in my interpretation that bend on the leg is clearly indicating that there is knee bend there. There is simply no other way. No leg looks like that otherwise, regardless on any measurements or calculations you put up theoretically - you can't rely too much on such things considering we have camera perspective distortions and extensive mutilations to consider (and maybe even some body parts being twisted out of position with very little muscle materia holding the limps together). Too many factors that fools the eye.
I can tell you one thing -- it is NOT an effect of sheets or anything covering some parts. It is the physical formation of the leg, and a perfectly naturally formed leg as such, although the position of it contra the body might seem problematic to us.
As I see it, and based on my own artistic experience, I see no problems here.
"...and I think Jane’s very first visual on this thread gives the most likely position"
Yes, I agree on that and as you may notice her position of that knee is not way up on the far top of leg but actually a bit further down; what we see above that is a small part of the lower part of the thigh. So her first visual on this thread as far as the position of the knee is concerned doesn't actually differ in particular from what has been argued here by me, Jane herself and some others -- it actually confirms it.
Well, that is how I see it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 695
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Actually, I went home sick from work yesterday morning but fortunately I'm feeling better now. And yourself?
"...what we see above that is a small part of the lower part of the thigh."
I must have put 'your' position of the knee way too low then, because the position I thought you put it in would leave a much larger part of the thigh visible. By the way, the position I thought you had in mind for the knee was just to the right of where the darker piece of sheet (that roundish form) below her left leg 'touches' the leg.
Furthermore, I wouldn't want to call my upper arm and shin theory and it's pretty straightforward how I came to say that the right knee is closer to the headboard than where I thought you had the left knee. Not much theorizing there, I believe. Although I'm not as good as you or Jane, I have done a lot of drawing in my teens and twenties and I can still be reasonably good at it - if I want to.
Of course it's possible that some body parts were twisted out of position, but, as you know, nothing like that is mentioned in the rather extensive report by Dr Bond.
Well, in the end, I guess it's good to discover that we agreed about the knee position after all then, eh?
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3768
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
Sorry to hear you've been ill.
I know it doesn't say so in the medical report, but then again, 19th century medical and police reports are usually incomplete -- just look at Killeen's report regarding Tabram (as Ive mentioned earlier), with some crucial information missing by today's standard. We can't take those at face value, and I wouldn't call it extensive.
IF the leg on the second picture was propped up by the police for photographing, it may suggest that it might have been out of position and pretty much broken off anyway. With those kinds of extensive mutilations on the thighs close to the abdomen I find it doubtful that enough muscle tissue would keep the limbs in place, but as you imply, there is no proof of this -- only speculation. But I can't see any other reason for it if I am gong to trust my eyes.
A probable reason for that it all looks strange is that the left part of the white thigh (that is, left from where WE see it) seems to consist of the flap of skin standing up (as it also appears to do on the second photo -- take a look and compare), which makes the shape of the far upper part of the leg look deformed and squareish -- (this is hard to explain just in words, but anyway...).
In reality, without the mutilations, the thigh would in my mind be shaped differently, and that's why it all gets confusing and hard to reconstruct. My guess is, that where there is a gap, is in fact where the inner thigh should have been visible a bit more. Just a thought.
"I must have put 'your' position of the knee way too low then, because the position I thought you put it in would leave a much larger part of the thigh visible. By the way, the position I thought you had in mind for the knee was just to the right of where the darker piece of sheet (that roundish form) below her left leg 'touches' the leg."
Nah, you see, if the bend on the leg indicates an inner knee bend as I am convinced of, then the actual knee on the front -- considering the camera angle and perspective -- would be positioned slightly to the right, not exactly where the inner bend on the back of the leg is (I agree that would be too low, but also out of physical proportion).
My choice for the knee would be somewhere above that white half-round shape under her leg and up a bit (note that the knee bone is a rather long rectangular bone when the leg is stretched out a bit).
Also note that the area on the calf where it rests on the bed, is covered just slightly by bundles from the sheet, which makes it look a bit thin when in fact it isn't.
As for the shape of the back of the calf (since that part is fuller and a bit different in Jane's first picture), there seems to be a cut there or covered a bit by the sheet, which doesnt make it appear as roundsish as it should be, but there clearly without doubt is an inner knee bend there since the leg definitely is bended a bit in that area.
I admit it's confusing, regardless of which method you use.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 698
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 8:00 pm: |
|
Frank and Jane, I hope you both feel better. Jane I'm glad you're on the mend.
I think I may have solved one problem. The femur is held in its socket by three ligaments; the iliofemoral, the ischiofemoral and the pubofemoral.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~anatomy/hip/hip%20ligaments/ligaments4.html
These ligaments are made of tough cartilaginous tissue. It would be very difficult to saw through.
I don't think Jack's main interest was leg removal. He would have had to make a huge investment in time and energy to get through them and I don't think he would have been willing to do that. Think of trying to cut through really tough gristle on a piece of meat.
This would explain why the side slanting head of the femur would not be visible in the second picture. It would be hidden inside those ligaments.
Just to throw another wrench into the works: Rigor happens when post mortem chemical changes in the muscle tissue cause all the muscles in the body to contract strongly.
Normally we use muscles opposingly. If my knee is bent and I want to straighten it. I contract muscles on the front of my lower leg. If it is straight and I want to bend it I contract muscles on the back of my lower leg. If I contract both sets of muscles at the same time the leg cant do anything but lock up and get very rigid.
But Jack removed muscles on Mary's inner thigh and not her outer thigh. Guess what happened when rigor started.
However it does raise some other issues. If we want to argue that the leg was dislocated we have to explain how he found the time and strength to get through those ligaments. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3770
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 8:50 pm: |
|
Diana,
I must admit that much of that is too difficult for me to pick up in a second language, so I may have gotten you completely wrong since I only grasp half of it.
I for my part am not at all sure the leg is dislocated but that the mutilations makes it look like such, since several parts of tissue are gone.
Let me just ask... you say:
"But Jack [I would rather say 'the murderer' instead of Jack, just for safety] removed muscles on Mary's inner thigh and not her outer thigh. Guess what happened when rigor started."
Do you mean that the bend of the leg on the second picture (the close-up from the other direction) is a result of rigor mortis?
Because that doesn't add up; the thing is that the same leg is not at all in the same position as in the full figure picture. This is what the whole discussion is all about, and subsequently why the theory about the police propping up the leg for the second photo has been put forward here.
Surely rigor mortis wouldn't set in between the taking of the large and the little (second) photo?
The idea here is that the position of the leg doesn't match on both pictures. On the second photo the leg seems to be raised up in the air, while on the full figure it is not.
To tell you the truth, Diana, it doesn't look like there are any muscles left on the outer side of the thigh either (maybe apart from the femur area close to the abdomen) -- only skin tissue.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 699
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 9:00 pm: |
|
I seem to recall stories of dead people suddenly sitting up in their coffins. I dont mean spook stories, I mean something that happens physiologically.
But that last bit was just thrown in to pique interest. I wouldnt fight to the death on it -- only a possibility.
The part of the post that I really am committed to is the part about the ligaments. Did you look at the picture? |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3771
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 9:12 pm: |
|
Yes, I did and it was enlightening because this is hopeless for me in English. We call body parts by completely other names in Sweden.
I am not competent to comment on the ligaments, though, and I am not sure if the killer did cut those off or not. Or tried to do.
I know what you refer to, Diana, regarding muscle contractions and so call 'horror positions' with dead people stiffning in strange body positions due to rigor. And believe me; I have seen loads of crime scene pictures with that. It can look spooky.
It could of course explain the strange position of the legs on the large full body picture, since they seems so stretched away from each other almost to the limit of impossibility, so it's an intriguing thought.
But doesn't those contractions and positions go back after rigor mortis disappears? Or am I wrong here?
But I am mostly concerned about the leg raised in the air on the second picture, which can not be a result of rigor, since that is not what it looks like on the large picture. I still believe the police propped that up to show the wounds on the inner thigh.
But your idea about muscle contractions is interesting (especially in the light of her wide spreaded legs in the position as she was found). If Jane doesn't see this, I'll certainly ask her about it since advanced medical anatomy is not really my field.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 700
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 10:26 pm: |
|
Glenn, I have always felt you do great in English. I'm sure I couldn't begin to understand anything in Swedish. The wonderful thing is that the more you post the more you learn and you are getting better and better.
A lot of those anatomical words came from my textbook from last summer which I still have.
The point was though that those ligaments are stuck on the bone very firmly. They are very hard to cut through and it looks as though he didn't cut them because the legs are still attached.
Jane found an interesting formation in the second picture which might have been the bone of the upper leg. The problem we were having was that the real bone has a funny formation at the top. Instead of having a plain knob at the top it has a thing that sticks out like one arm of a letter Y and it has a knob on the end of it.
The object Jane found appeared to end in a simple knob. But if the arm and knob were hiding inside the ligaments then we wouldn't see them.
I suspect the ligaments were still intact. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 508
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 2:02 am: |
|
HI Diana,
Yes I did see this hee hee......and I think you may have actually solved the puzzle, at least given us a very good explanation as to why we can't see the head of the femur.
I did wonder myself if they were tendons or ligaments and the femur was actually buried in side out of sight. I am very happy with that explanation in the absence of anything better.
Thank you.
That was driving me up the wall.
Big hug
Jane
xxxxxx |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3774
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
Ah, Good Jane.
Thanks for clearing that up and confirming Diana's thoughts.
I must admit my own knowledge of ligaments and how hard they are to severe is very limited, but if that solves it, no one is happier than I (it is 'happier than I', not 'me', right...?).
Good work, Diana.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Mal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
hi Jane
where you've superimposed the skeleton onto the body, you've got way too much flesh above the knee cap, simply look at your own knee, only about 3mm deep; but you've shown about 3 inches...but the angle of the femur looks about correct..but do i see a broken femur? green line |
Mal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 7:37 pm: |
|
yes that Poser model looks much better now Jane, that looks like P4, I used to have P3, i would say that looks fairly accurate and just goes to show how much of her body is missing in the original photos...how revolting. |
S. Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:11 am: |
|
JANE CORAM
Firstly, great work. You, Maurice, Gareth have started a great push for clues and I have just hit the jackpot. In a post Maurice made, he said that knowone knows if Jack did leave a clue in that horrible mess. Many serial killer's do. So this inspired me to hit those photos with everything I have. I found something of immense interest, and a real clue for determining motive - actually a devistating clue for determing motive.
Looking at the unbelievable quality of your work above, I am guessing you have some great software for this purpose. I don't though unfortunately. So as I am putting my work together, I am wondering if could you help out a bit with my imagery, as it might not come out right. If you don't want to, I'll ask Dan or someone else. Thank you. |
Sergeant Charles Eyton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 2:56 am: |
|
anyone else getting turned on by all this? |
amanda
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Hi everyone,
I think that the curved object in photo 2 is in fact flesh as it looks to be connected to the body, and is also very prominent in the picture. They were taken for posterity of course, so we can see the damage done to Kelly and not her linen after all. After looking at the two photo's together in Dan's earlier link, I would be more inclined to believe that this flesh along with the table, to have been moved slightly to accomodate the picture. Thus the discrepancy in angles etc. The bend in the flesh may not be the 'knee', but simply a bend as it appears, to get it in the frame, perhaps? Perhaps not.
Anyway, Jane your work is as thought provoking as it is brilliant.
|
Stef Kukla
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 8:46 pm: |
|
Sorry to interupt your fascinating investigation, but, in light of the posture depicted by this intense analysis, I just feel the need to askWHAT THE HELL'S THE DEAL WITH HER HEAD??
I've TRIED SOOO HAAARD to see it turned so far to the left; but surely THAT makes her head absolutely massive!
Plus . . . even with those mutilations, her UNDERLYING facial structure would not have vanished. Where's her mouth? Where are the eye-sockets?
Some time ago, I made a sketch of the murder [don't ask me why!] and the impression that I got from the photograph -- which I attempted to interpret & clarify as best I could -- was that she was generally looking UP, with only a SMALL tilt to the left.
Here is a section of that drawing:
 |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Jane,
Can't quite understand your "nose and nubbin" or relate it to the photograph. Once your gingivitis has subsided perhaps you'd be a star and illuminate my fogged brain? Great reconstructions, by the way. I'll add my thanks to those of the others. |
Jonathan Menges
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
Looking at the "huge" photograph of Kelly, I see what I believe to be her foot with painted toenails. If what I see is really that, than the location of her knee becomes clear. Anyone else see those toes?
http://casebook.org/images/kelly_trad_HUGE.jpg
Very interesting discussion, by the way.
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 509
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 1:56 am: |
|
Well,
Hi everyone, nice to see all the posts. It just shows there is still an awful lot of undiscovered points of interest to be found in material that has been covered before.
I can only give my idea of what might be going on and others will see it differently, and that's half the problem. So this is just my two pennerth.
Hi Jonathon,
I think that you can see the toenails clearly outlined and darker.......on her left foot.....I have no doubt there that is what I am looking at....some prints are easier to see it on than others though. I have quite a good one and it does show up clearly on it. (I just thought I better add that it actually came from this site, the 'huge' one to be found here!)
Hi Gareth,
I don't know if they use the expression 'nubbin' wherever you are,but it is actually a tiny bump of skin........or object sticking up from a flat surface. If you look at the two photos, I think that I can see a tiny bump of fabric jutting up from the piece of sheet below Mary's arm.
It is clearer to see it with a magnifying glass if you have one, because unfortunately the photos aren't large enough to see it that easily with the naked eye. I will see if I can do a blow up of it later and post it up, so that it shows more clearly. Again that is only my impression of it.......others will have other interpretations,
Oh it was an abcess by the way and the dentist that did it has been thrown out of the surgery! Not my favourite person at the moment!
HI Stef,
All I can say about poor Mary's head is that the mutilations were so awful that the whole head has lost its normal shape and form to some extent. Her hair is pulled back from her forehead to make the head seem longer....but her face shape is actually quite square jawed from what I can see and her forehead not high. It is just an optical illusion caused by the damage I think.
Quite horrendous though.
Hi Amanda,
I think that most people see the photographs slightly differently, because as Stef said, looking at those mutilations it is almost impossible to see what is what anymore.......I tend to agree with your perceptions of it almost entirely, but I still have some doubts about the exactitudes of it as most people do.
I am going to do a very detailed 3D model of it as accurately as possible and get some other people in on it to make sure that it is right. it will take quite a time to do though I'mafraid, but hopefully it will answer some more questions.
But at least some interesting ideas are coming up out of it and some of them have to be right!
Hi S.Ryan,
(sorry don't know what the S is for)
Funnily enough the software I use is about the cheapest on the market........not advertising here or anything, but Bryce 5 is very low budget but excellent, Poser 5 is the same, very cheap for what it is, and the most expensive programme I use is Photoshop, which I use mainly.
I would recommend anyone to have a play if they can download a demo and see if they like them because they are incredibly useful and not hard to use.......really, I promise, they are not hard to use!
If you do have something you think of interest, the I am sure everyone would like to see what you've found........I know I would! So let's see it!
I am on the mend at least, and thanks for all the well wishes.
Love to all
Jane
xxxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on July 23, 2005) |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 510
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 2:03 am: |
|
Sorry Mal,
Didn't mean to ignore you.........you know me.....don't overdo it on the kitchen!
There have been some ideas put forward which may be correct that the mutilations on the leg lifted flaps of skin up......so I had to try and take into consideration other people's views on it. ....... that has obviously made it hard, because everyone has different ideas.
I had to just go for the middle ground and hope for the best. So if the skeletons knee did appear slightly off, then that is the reason....... ....I was only trying to show that it roughly fitted the shape, so hopefully it did the job anyway.
Thanks for all your offers of help by the way, you're smashing.
Jane
xxxxx |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 44
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
Hi Diana,
I have a question concerning the ligaments. Accordind to the postmortem report, "The left thigh was stripped of skin, sascia & muscles as far as the knee." Fascia is defined as: a usually thin sheet of fibrous connective tissue covering, supporting, or binding together a muscle, part, or organ. Since this is stated in the postmortem report, isn't it possible that the ligaments had in fact been either completely severed, or at least partially removed? This could explain the problems with the proportion of the left leg.
Also, I took a few physical science classes, and a couple of social science classes as well. I will look into the question of rigor mortis. The chemical responsible is (I believe) ATP. After death, the body stops producing this chemical. There is however a small store of it within the body, and once this chemical is used up, rigor begins.
Sandy |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 702
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 10:35 pm: |
|
Sandy, I am not at home at present to check my anatomy book. I think fascia and ligaments are different, though composed of the same kind of tissue. Fascia is if I remember correctly a paper thin layer of connective tissue surrounding a muscle or organ. Ligaments are thick, tough strips or ribbons which attach the end of the muscle to the bone. |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 11:07 pm: |
|
Diana,
The way you defined fascia is pretty much the same way I did. And yes you are right that ligaments attach the end of the muscle to the bone. The report states "The left thigh was stripped of skin, fascia, & muscles as far as the knee." If the left thigh was also stripped of muscles, isn't it possible then that the ligaments would have been severed? I am not trying to discount that the second photo shows Mary's left leg and knee, because I do believe that is what we are looking at. I am simply going over Dr. Bond's Post Mortem which can be difficult only because there are so many things that it doesn't say...yet there are some things that it does.
Sandy |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 703
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 7:28 am: |
|
It's possible that the ligaments were gone too. But in general muscle tissue is much easier to cut than ligaments. (I'm no surgeon, but I have eaten and prepared steaks, roasts, etc.) Given that there were other things that Jack wanted to do more, would he take the time to saw through those ligaments? Also Jane's blowups and enhancements of the second picture seem to show the legs as still being attached. The ligaments in this case did not attach muscle to bone but bone to bone (femur to os coxa).
(Message edited by diana on July 25, 2005) |
S. Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 7:58 am: |
|
JANE CORAM , and all,
Stay tuned. It is a corker of a clue I have now. I am going to see about copywriting my report before I post it now. I think we might have a new suspect number one. However, the timing is uncanny as I am off on vacation this week. So it might be a month before I can do it. Seeing as though you got sick Jane during your discovery, I am hoping that there is not a Jack the Ripper curse which will hit me. Fingers crossed.
Thanks - Stuart. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 511
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Hi Stuart,
Well I was beginning to wonder if I had been cursed or maybe was a despot in a previous life! But I am on the mend thanks.
I really look forward to seeing what you have, as I am sure everyone else is, but just do please copyright everything. I keep getting nagged all the time because I forget. But it is better safe than sorry.
Have a good vacation anyway.
Jane
xxxxx |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1790
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
G'day Stuart,
You don't have to pay anything to copyright your work. Copyright is automatic! This is where alot of people are confused! I studied copyright when I studied art! Artists etc place a copyright symbol underneath their work to act as a reminder only, i.e. "I will guard this with my copyright if you steal it."
To copyright text you don't have to do more than place your name underneath it, (and perhaps the date you constructed it), and you've already reminded everyone that you're claiming copyright to it! If you feel safer place a copyright symbol after it. I'm not sure how you do that on Casebook.
LEANNE |
S.Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 1:29 am: |
|
JANE
I may have internet access where I am going. If that is the case, I will try to stagger the report over a couple of weeks.According to Leanne, I dont need any formal copywriting. My only concern is that if someone decides they want to put it in a book, they can say - well I was just looking at the same picture I was, and just happened to see the same thing.
When I asked for assistance, I guess it isn't really much I need. I'll just need someone to ENLAGE my pictures, and maybe put them together. I never have been able to do this.
LEANNE
If someone decides they wish to plagiarise my postings, are you saying that will be prevented if I just sign off each posting S. Ryan ?
Is this all I need to do?
You might find this of interest if you have studied art Leanne.This is a good coincidence, as I needed to get help from a professional artist before going any further.So your annalysis could be extremely helpful.
Unfortunately for Maurice, that clue is definately human anatomy , not bones though. I think blood vessels. However, in a post he made, he said that Serial murderers can leave messages at crimescenes.Which history has shown, is true. With the enormous mess in Kelly's photo, I think it is automatically assumed that anything seen is radom imagery. CASE CLOSED. However, this automatic assumptuion with the Kelly photo has negated the possibility that amongst that enormous mess, a genuine clue was actually left there. Nobody can say for sure that he did not.
After reading every post carefully on every apparant image on Kelly, I know I did not want to sit down and argue with people of the validity of my claim. I knew when I recognised it, it was not random and done by a human. So I had it VERIFIED by a professional first.
It obviously is not a plain image, as it would have been seen in the last 17 years. It looks like nothing until viewed very closely - AND BANG, THERE IT IS.
Will try and start soon - thanks, Stuart.
|
Tel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 6:08 am: |
|
I got this one by doing it in a word doc ( alt + ctrl + c ) then copying & pasting here.
© © © |
Tel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 7:13 am: |
|
or you can just got (alt) 0169 (on the num. pad)
©
|
Stef Kukla
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Watching the progresses & processes of all of these reconstructions has been nothing short of facinating, and the cyber-smiths involved deserve hearty congratulations. However --- reluctant as I am to criticise these tireless undertakings --- I cannot deny that the results disappointed me.
It appears that, owing to a passage from Dr. Bond's notes [i.e. "The head was turned on the left cheek"], there has persisted a tendency to take the most extreme interpretation possible & snap her head an abrupt 90-degrees to the left. If this had been the case, I feel sure that Bond would have made SOME small comment about such an unusual angle. As it is, his actual wording is perfectly consistent with a more conservative perception --- that her head was INCLINED to the left. With her face so badly hacked-up, I'm sure that at least the majority of her left cheek was able to make contact with the pillow.
Another problem arises from the 90-degree argument, that NO-ONE [it seems] has even noticed before. When viewing the entire picture as a whole, Mary's head [IF it IS @ 90-deg] is proportionally far too big for the rest of her body [scalp-scrape notwithstanding]. It is utterly absurd to constantly fall back onto excuses such as her square jaw or stocky build.
Finally --- even if the outer-layers of the face were slashed & stabbed so passionately --- so long as the skull remains largely undamaged [& Mary's was still intact] --- the face would still retain SOME semblance of structure. In fact, the more flesh that is cut away, the more clearly the structure appears. It's not like a person's mouth or eye-sockets can just disappear if the flesh gets torn.
It is not my wish to offend but I couldn't help thinking that facial features were superimposed over completely unrelated regions of highlights & shadows. To me, it was no more persuasive than placing a mask over a pineapple; so long as there's a general, oval head-shape, the features WILL fit if I force them hard enough.
But, suppose her features ARE discernable, only from a slightly different viewpoint. Suppose further that this perspective is totally in keeping with what you might EXPECT to see of a partially denuded skull. I hope these two poor attempts of mine can illustrate my point. The first is a slightly washed-out detail from the famous photo [partially augmented in pencil]. I guess it's pretty obvious what the second one is for:
![Reconstruction [with pencil].jpg](../4921/19426.jpg) ![Recon [red lables].jpg](../4921/19427.jpg)
PLEASE ! . . . Tell me I'm not going mad! Can anyone else see what I see?
I hope, in the course of this humble missive, that I've not caused offence to anyone. That was not my intent. I just needed to express my observations as frankly as I could. If JUST ONE other person out there can see her as I do, I will [at the very least] feel SOME vindication.
Thank you for reading,
Stef |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 526
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
Hi Stef,
I can understand why you and practically everyone else can see it slightly differently.
In your view it is turned more to the right, but if you follow the hair line then it is more or less impossible for it to be as far round and you thnk .
I think the reason that it appears that her head is turned too far to the left is that usually the neck muscles prevent the head from turning that far, but because the neck was cut through so severely there was little to keep it restrained. Her head was almost severed.
Her vertebrae would have possibly kept it from even more extreme movement.
If you have a look again at the photograph....... you will see that you can actually see the nasal cavity very clearly indeed, even though her nose was cut away, ......the eye sockets could not be so high in her forehead and so far to the right. Your can see the hairline very clearly as well.
I can really see why you have gone in the direction you have, because it is incredibly hard to place features over the top and to an untrained eye is might appear that there is nothing left to work on, In fact to someone who is used to looking at such mutilations in different forms there are still clues on which to build up the features. Most fine artists have a good anatomical knowledge in order to be able to get muscle form and bone structure correct. I know David said that he had training in fine art .
Never a bad thing though to see how others view the photograph.
Best wishes Jane
xxxxx
xxxx |
Carl Maxted
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 1:34 pm: |
|
Hello all,
I've arrived very late to this thread, and on top of that I'm a complete newbie to the boards, so if I'm repeating something that somebody has already mentioned, then please forgive me (or alternatively someone could tell me to stop wasting everyone's time).
Anyhow, my point is this:
With regards to the MJK photos, and the discussions about the differences between the first and second pictures, it strikes me that (as hinted at earlier by Dan and Sandy) in order for the second photo to be taken, then the bed must have been moved. The first picture (and the written descriptions of the room taken at the time) shows that the bed was flush against the partition. If this was the case, and if it was NOT moved, then how did the cameraman manage to achieve the angle seen on the second photo? He would not have had space to fit alongside the bed,nor - I would imagine - would there have been room to set up the bulky camera equipment. Therefore, as I see it (and everyone out there is very welcome to tell me I'm wrong) the bed must have been shifted between the first and second photos being taken, to allow the camera/cameraman the space between it and the partition to get the angle seen in the disputed "leg-or-not-a-leg" shot. And if this is the case, the body's pose could very easily have changed from one picture to another - not to mention its positioning relative to the table.
Well, that's my point... I think. Sorry if I've explained myself badly. I've almost confused myself in the process.
I think I'll go and have a little lie-down......
Carl |
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 657
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 8:31 pm: |
|
Carl - your explanation is spot-on. I have been saying this for a long time. It is OBVIOUS when you think about it, but a lot of people... erm... don't.
There has been a train of thought that the view from behind the bed was taken first, but that is of course nonsense. No one would take the lesser of the shots first, and furthest INTO the crime scene.
I have seen a copy of Lacassagne and when Robert MacLaughlin's book comes out we will all finally get a chance to see the infamous photo CLEARLY. For starters, in the clear image you can see the bottom right half of her face is largely untouched, leaving part of her mouth, cheek and chin relatively unscathed.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 835
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Hi Carl, Philip...
The problem here is that what may be "obvious" to someone trying to look back through history without a lot of details isn't necessarily accurate.
One thing to consider is that the photograph from the second angle (the close up) is not the same format as the photo from the first angle (the whole body). The photo itself is physically smaller. I've heard from a couple of people who studied cameras from the time period who said that the closeup photo could have been from a camera with a lot less bulk. These kind of cameras often were aimed by looking down from the top (and even if it wasn't, considering that the body wasn't moving, aiming itself becomes rather simple) so there would be no need to get someone behind the camera.
We can also tell that the closeup photo was taken from a spot and angle that shows it was not at the same height as the other photo, implying it was not on the tripod at the same height. OK, so you say, if there's no tripod, how was it held up? Looking at the position of the shot and what we can see in the other angle photo, it looks to me that it was resting on the bed right where the rolled up bedcloth/clothes can be seen... perhaps held in that position by resting against the wall on the edge of the bed there.
Considering what we can see in both photos, the angles involved, and the trouble it would be to move all of them (bed, table, organs) for a photo and still manage to keep them lined up in the same positions in comparison to each other, I find it highly unlikely that the bed was moved between shots.
Having seen the cameras in question, I know I could take the photo without moving the bed, and the evidence from a comparison between the photos shows everything is lined up correctly so that nothing was movied out of place between the two shots, so I find no compelling reason at all to think they would have or did move the bed between photos.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 9:21 am: |
|
Hello all.
On the question as to whether the bed was moved in order to produce a better photograph,I think there is a posibility it may have been.
However,I think it may have been shifted along the partition and down towards the fireplace.The reason being that more light would have been available from the larger window.
Admittedly this is pure speculation on my part based on my experience of seeing beds in-situ!But without exception,headboards are situated against walls.
In the full lengh photograph of Kelly there is clearly quite a space between the headboard and the "Door wall".The partion,inthe form of vetical planks,extends well beyond the headboard and towards the right hand side.
Jane, you wrote:
"You will see that you can actually see the nasal cavity very clearly indeed"
One or two others have said the same thing but I beg to differ.
The nose or what was left of it,is totally obscured by a large flap of flesh which includes the upper lip.
I have made a diagram to clarify matters.
The dark area inside the yellow border is often mistaken for the nasil cavity.This is clearly wrong in relation to the actual position of the eyelids.
The area inside the green border is the flap of flesh which includes the top lip.It has been cut away and peeled diagonally upwards towards Kelly's right eye.The curvature running just below this eye is I believe,the inside of Kelly's top lip.
Kane
 |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 530
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 12:31 pm: |
|
Hi Kane,
I think you idea about the bed in relation to the partition is extremely helpful and worth some serious investigation.
Someone kindly offered to do the front and side elevations for me in auto cad (extremely good job he made too!) and I am going to reconstruct the room using the light sources, measurements and every other scrap of information I can find to get a really accurate rendering of Mary's room.
I will put an accurate dummy figure of Mary in situ so that the two photographs can be compared and hopefully it will solve the question once and for all. I will keep in mind what you suggest about the bed and see how it works in. Interesting thought.
About Mary's nose........well if the area you have outlined in yellow is where you suggest the nose is then I totally agree with you, because that is what I meant by the nasal cavity.
The only difference I might put forward is that the left eye as you have shown it is a little too low, but only slightly.
I do agree that the flesh over the top lip could have been pulled back from the mouth, very disturbingly over the top of the nasal cavity, so I would hazard a guess that poor Mary's nose was removed first to allow for this.
The alternative to this is that the portion of flesh shown there is from the left hand side of the forehead which does appear to be missing and what you are viewing there is the inside of the forehead flesh as it flapped down.
Truly horrific.
Best wishes
Jane
xxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on August 19, 2005) |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Hello Jane.
I think you have misunderstood me.
I was suggesting that the dark area within the yellow border is not "The nasal cavity" or the nasal apertures in the scull as is often suggested.
Without wishing to sound arrogant,I am pretty sure I have correctly located the position of Kelly's eyes.The right upper eyelid can be seen quite plainly although the left one is partially obscured by that lump of flesh.
I think that horrible mass of mutilated flesh at the bottom of her face tends to give the false impression that the head is inclined more over to the right than it actually is.It's almost as if the chin is pointing that way.But in actual fact with the image turned this way up,Mary is"looking"almost directly at the camera with the eyeline being virtually parallel to the bottom edge of of the image.
Regards,
Kane |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page