|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 357
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 3:05 pm: | 
|
Debra, Jane
Let's look at what Dr Bond said:
"The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed, the shoulders flat, but the axis of the body inclined to the left side of the bed. The head was turned on the left cheek. The left arm was close to the body with the forearm flexed at a right angle & lying across the abdomen. the right arm was slightly abducted from the body & rested on the mattress, the elbow bent & the forearm supine with the fingers clenched. The legs were wide apart, the left thigh at right angles to the trunk & the right forming an obtuse angle with the pubes."
To me this sounds like he is describing the body as it was found. There would be no point in describing this in this manner, if Kelly had allready been moved by the police or photographers. And Bond was there, and would have known.
Bond's description fits the photograph, and thus I think it is fair to say that Kelly's posture was the way her killer left her.
Also, in other cases, photographs of the wounds were taken in the mortuary, not in situ. So, I don't think the purpose of the crime scene photograph was to show off the wounds.
Debra, you are correct about your statement about the eiderdown (or what it is) in the first shot.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1485
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Hi,
Debra is right mayby we are getting away from the original thread, but just one more thought.
The item on the table looks to me to belong to the head of the bed namely a bolster.
My point therefore is as Barnett was no longer her sleeping partner could not Mary have used it as a draught stop for the door, and when she left the house that night or indeed morning just picked it up and put it on the table where it was found, for i cannot imagine the police placing it on the table complete with marys innerds.
What sinister implications arise from this scenerio i have yet to fathom but knowing me i will proberly suggest a few gems.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2981
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Richard!
Hi
We've had this discussion before I know re 'the bundle'...... Have been reading this thread with some interest!!
As we agreed (ish) ,I think that this said 'bundle' was made up of sheeting and 'rolled' out of the way,more than likely by the police but maybe not necessarily so, and may even have been used as a camera placement to get the famous 'table shots'.
For what its worth I have a few concepts here as to what may have happened.. dear God but.......
1.Mary went to bed quite happily with someone she was 'comfortable' with and quite naturally turned away towards the wall to sleep.And then......... for whatever reason(whatever that may have been) the inevitable happened............
2.Mary was asleep in her own bed facing the wall and 'Chummy' came in or let himself in..... and said ..'Ello dearie and she didnt bother,or just accepted him as a bed mate and just cuddled up with him or......
3.Enter 'Chummie' ...Mary asleep ,back to door...... he enters, by whatever means ,grabs her and cuts her throat etc for whatever reason and then exits
4.OR....Maybe... just maybe... Jack (or Joe even) maybe....Mc Carthy.... or whoever..had another KEY?????? and just entered the scene....either to do the deed or think 'Dear God !!!!'...and run away!!!!
Just a few thoughts
Suzi
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5052
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Suzi, so what it boils down to is that someone or other....came in somehow or other....and killed her somehow or other....for some reason or other. 
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2983
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
BLIMEY Robert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why......... HOW??????.. Can you say so much in so few words when I think I'm making what passes for a 'serious' comment on a 'serious' thread!!!!!!!!!!!
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5054
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
Silence, Hanney! Do not be impertinent to your Form master.
Quelch |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2984
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
Lawks Sir!!!!!
Pardon me......... Blimey ....where's the fun gone ....Oops just off to clean out the cricket bags ,and check on the tuck!!!!
Hanney Mnr
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4034
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 8:06 pm: |
|
Helge,
I absolutely agree with Jane, and this has already been debated on another thread.
What Bond describes is how her body looks like in situe on the large full body photograph (which logically would be the first picture taken on the site).
Comparing that photo with the second one, however - the small one taken from the other direction - it seems like her left leg (that is HER left leg, not the one closest to the wall) actually has been propped up, since the angle of the leg doesn't seem to correspond with the angle on the large photo, and showing the wounds would be a credible reason for why this was done.
Apparently no mortuary photos were taken in connection of the Ripper case, and we must remember that procedures like these were still pretty much in their infancy. I would say it was very unusual for mortuary photos to be taken in late 1800s in order to depict the wounds.
As for the mortuary pictures in the Ripper case, they were not taken in order to show the wounds - their purpose was to help the authorities to get the victims identified; I believe they belonged to a gallery called The Unknown Dead. So mortuary pictures at this time was primarly taken for the purpose of identification, seldom for recording of medical evidence.
It shall also be noted that it is common procedure also today to photograph every possible wound on the body at the actual murder site in situe and not just in the mortuary.
"a far too extensive mutilation to be a copycat or domestic first off kill."
Sorry to be a pain in the butt here, but this is a completely wrong and false statement, since we know of several domestic cases with just as severe mutilations as Mary Kelly's. It certainly happens and is not as unusual as people seem to think, although these types of crimes still have to be considered exceptional. A simple browse through crime history reveals that not only serial killers are capable of this - on the contrary, the severe mutilations are often in some cases a true sign of that there are strong personal emotions between victim and perpetrator. It would be great if people once and for all would stop to continue to spread this totally erronous misconception.
Barnett was interrogated but we don't know in what way or what was said or why. Considering the many mistakes the police did in connection with other witnesses, one can not take their decision to let him go as a confirmation of his innocense.
As for how she was killed, I don't believe for a minute that she was killed by an intruder. To me the crime scene suggests an interpersonal murder and that the attack occurred while she was awake and conscious (although done in a moment of surprise), although it can't be proven with certainty.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 24, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 90
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 1:26 am: |
|
Glenn,
You said there are several domestic cases with mutilations as severe as Mary Kelly's, but that they have to all be considered exceptional. This is true, of course. That makes them as or more unusual than people may think, however. Please cite me a case where a mutilation as severe as Mary Kelly's happened by another hand within less than a mile of a similar mutilation? Even if you can cite just one, it proves the unlikelihood of such a thing happening. It is not impossible, but rather very highly improbable, bordering on the impossible. It may be akin to someone getting holes-in-one on 15 out of 18 golf holes (bad analogy, only because I hate golf), or a wing scoring a try 99 out of 100 times he gets the ball (poor analogy, but I love rugby). That is why most people believe MK to be a Ripper victim and not a copycat, including almost every contemporary investigator.
Cheers,
Mike the Mauler
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 359
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:26 am: |
|
Glenn,
A good thing can never be debated enough.
I dispute that Bond is describing the photo! He was at the crime scene, why would he describe the photo!
Besides, it is reported that "before anything was disturbed, a photograph was taken".
The medical expertise were there before the door was breached, indeed, Kelly was declared "beyond medical help" in order for the police to wait with opening the door.
I respectfully totally and utterly dispute that what Dr Bond is describing is a posture of MJK made by the police or photographers!!!!!!
(And I'd use more exclamation marks had I though it would help)
The second photo is different, and things might have been changed in order to actually take the photo from that awkward angle, I don't dispute that.
There are several mortuary photos in the Ripper case, although none of MJK. I did not know that they were done only for identification purposes, though (thanks for that information!), and that kind of explains why there is none of MJK.
We have been over the thing with "extensive mutilations" before. I do take your point that it is not impossible, but as you yourself say, those situations are exeptional.
My view is that the mutilations here are beyond exeptional. They are done, not to kill, nor to dispose of the body, but for the sheer pleasure of mutilating. And they are done in the time period where another killer did exactly the same things!
So, not only must we ask that this exceptional thing happened to MJK, we must ask that it happened as another killer, doing the same stuff, was also at large in that very part of London!
Mike made some good points about that, and I'm not going to repeat it. I don't say a domestic is IMPOSSIBLE. But, on balance, I think it is IMPROBABLE.
And we just have to disagree! I'm still working on this however, and who knows what might change my mind. Presently, not all that much, I'm sorry to say.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4037
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:53 am: |
|
Helge,
Yes, I know they took morgue photos in the Ripper case - I just forgot to add that they didn't take any for the purpose of recording wounds!
And yes, in those days, morgue photos were often taken for identification of unknown victims, since identication of prostitutes or vagrant women could be quite difficult (which for example was illustrated during the Stride inquest). In the Ripper case, we know that they belonged to the Gallery of Unknown Dead.
"I dispute that Bond is describing the photo! He was at the crime scene, why would he describe the photo! [...]
I respectfully totally and utterly dispute that what Dr Bond is describing is a posture of MJK made by the police or photographers!!!!!!"
Er... I am not sure that was what I meant. Are we understanding each other correctly? I didn't mean that Bond BASED his statement on the photo! I meant that what he describes is what we see on the large photo, that is - how the body was found and how the medical expertise saw the body in situe before any other action was taken.But my point was, that the small photo taken from the other direction, was most likely done after the large one, and there they appear to have propped up the leg. The large photo seems to be an overall recording of the scene in situe, untouched, while the second might have been taken for recording of certain details of interest.
Again - I totally concur with Jane's conclusions.
"My view is that the mutilations here are beyond exceptional. They are done, not to kill, nor to dispose of the body, but for the sheer pleasure of mutilating."
I am sorry, Helge, but once again - not only serial killers are capable of this. You must get rid of this misconception once and for all.
Mike,
Such domestic murders are exceptional, yes, but that does not mean that they are uncommon. Fact is, that crime history is littered with such cases and many extreme sever mutilations performed indoors are in fact perpetrated by a spouse, boyfriend or husband close to the victim. I think both you and Helge are mis-interpreting the word 'exceptional' as uncommon. They are not among the most common crimes, but they are certainly common enough. They are exceptional in their level of mutilations, though, but that does not mean that they are odd or uncommon.
"Please cite me a case where a mutilation as severe as Mary Kelly's happened by another hand within less than a mile of a similar mutilation? Even if you can cite just one, it proves the unlikelihood of such a thing happening."
I have never argued that the MJK murder was performed independently of the Ripper's. I believe - as some others do - that she was killed and the murder was loosely influenced by the Ripper. Apart from that, I am not sure I see your point, you may have to elaborate.
Helge says: "And they are done in the time period where another killer did exactly the same things!"
Well, this could simply be explained with that MJK:s murderer had been influenced by the Ripper killings. Again, I have never said that they were happening totally independently from one another. We must remember the mythological status and news value the murders received at the time, and the press was to a very large degree responsible for flaming it up; it is a well-known fact that the coroner and one doctor at the time expressed great fear of that public knowledge of the details of the mutilations would 'influence weak minds' and that is also why they were with-held from people at the inquests. So even the authorities of the day recognised this risk. People were easily influenced and they had no TV, radio or cable channels. The news value of the murders - especially considering the word on the street - were probably larger than we can imagine today from where we sit.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 25, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 363
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 6:18 am: |
|
AH, Glenn, I see my mistake now.
You wrote:
"What Bond describes is how her body looks like in situe on the large full body photograph".
Ok, I just wonder if this is a case of me responding while you actually did some editing on your post. I could swear I read "What Bond describes is how her body looks like in the large full body photograph"
Maybe I simply misread it, but at least now I can take away those exclamation marks. Hahah...
However, I have no misconceptions about serial killers being the only people capable of such crimes. I have tried to get this point across several times over several months.
I do not dispute the POSSIBILITY. I dispute the PROBABILITY.
And that is based on my subjective opinion, just as your opinion is also subjective, all the time neither of us can prove our case.
You do have a point about copycats, and just in case you wondered, I am not suffering from delusions that copycats do not exist. They do.
But, on balance, I think it unlikely that we have a domestic turned copycat in the MJK case.
That is also a subjective opinion, and follows the same rules as the previously mentioned subjective interpretation of possibilities balanced against probabilities.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4039
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 6:41 am: |
|
Helge,
I know you don't dispute the possibility - that has come across, I promise.
"However, I have no misconceptions about serial killers being the only people capable of such crimes. I have tried to get this point across several times over several months."
But then again, in an earlier post above you wrote:
"...a far too extensive mutilation to be a copycat or domestic first off kill."
There you clearly express the disbelief in any first-off domestic crime turning out this way (which we know is wrong) and that only leaves serial killers. I am sorry, but I can't read it any other way. It is all there in black and white.
As for copycats, I would be careful about using this word (although I've used it too in the past); copycats are usually crimes deliberately planned to copy another murder. I am not so sure that is what happened in MJK:s case and other similar cases. I would rather speak of 'influence' and committing a crime in a spur of a moment with the inspiration from what he had read in the papers in the back of his head.
I totally accept you doubting the probability, though. As you say, it is all a matter of subjective interpretation here. And if it's any consolation, I am not 100% sure myself, but those are what the facts tell me from where I sit. As you've also said, I guess we have to accept our differences over that one.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 25, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 366
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
We are soon discussing semantics here Glenn,
And you know how I hate that
My previous statement is based on my subjective opinion in this particular case. I'm really talking about my opinion based on probability or likelihood. This is all we can do, as nothing in this case seems written in stone and most "facts" can be read many ways.
But, yes, had the mutilations been much less severe, I would have considered a copycat myself, maybe even a domestic. Most first time killers do not go "all the way", although a few do. All I'm saying is that the extensive mutilation further reduces the statistical likelihood of the killer being any other than Jack. Statistical flukes do happen, though, I'm aware of that.
And yes, I also know it is dangerous to use the word copycat here. But we both know what we mean, and I do realize your "domestic turned copycat" scenario is way different from simply "domestic" or "copycat".
And, if you have noticed, I have moved my position on this slightly myself. I actually see the possibility (probability is going way too far) that Jack actually knew Kelly, although probably only tangentially. Thus we have a Ripper murder with a touch of domestic in that particular scenario. Of course, the "copycat" goes out the window..
Anyway, just speculation in an attempt to adress some of the problems with the overall crime scene.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 118
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Helge
Yes I see now that Bond was describing the crime scene as was, it fits perfectly to the photograph.
Glenn
I would like to ask your thoughts on something if that's ok as you have knowledge of more crimes than most.
Have you ever come across an instance where a death has occured maybe by accident ( I have a specific cause in mind but don't want to say too much yet) and the perpetrator has covered his tracks by making it look like something else in his panic, could ( or has?) a person who had killed accidentally go on to inflict the type of severe mutilations that occured with MJK to make it look like murder, or would they have had to have murder in mind to do something this horific?
Debra
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 585
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 8:37 am: |
|
Hi All,
Just a quick one about the bedding issue.....it was not customary amongst the lower classes to roll bedding in that fashion.....for the simple reason that the rooms were usually so cold and damp that to roll them like that would result in almost instant mildew and mean they would have to be thrown away.
Bedding was usually draped over things when not on the bed, quite often being used for other purposes, i.e over the windows. I really don't think that Mary would have rolled her bedding like that; her killer might have, but that is a personal opinion based on experience. I still think it was rather convenient for the photographer that it had been rolled and placed just where he wanted it.
As to the eiderdown being out of shot in the second smaller photo, I should have clarified that sorry.....what I actually meant was that the area directly to the right of the pile of offal and flesh had been cleared for the second photo.
If we look closely at the first photograph in an enhanced copy of the photo - in the furthest right hand edge of the photo there is what appears to be either the very tip of the eiderdown or another piece of material....it could of course be body part, but I think looking at the second photo that the table in that section looks too clean for that to have been the case......
I did think originally that the piece of whatever it was might be part of the pillow behind, but in fact in is actually on the table and so I decided, (possibly wrongly) that the tiny piece visible at the edge of the large shot is the eiderdown corner and it was pushed back for the second shot, to give a clearer shot of the pile of flesh.
So you are right that portion of table is out of shot in the first photo, but I do think that the eiderdown was pushed away from the offall, for the reasons given above.
Oh and about the letters on the leg......sorry...no letters, just an optical illusion. The police for all their faults would hardly have failed to make a note of something as remarkable as that.
Jane
xxxxx |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4042
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 9:43 am: |
|
Helge,
I promise I won't go into semantics, but then you have to be clear with what you write. I can't read your mind, as you recall, and I can only respond to what you actually write. Recognise this discussion?
"But, yes, had the mutilations been much less severe, I would have considered a copycat myself, maybe even a domestic. Most first time killers do not go "all the way", although a few do."
Well, again, that is based on the false belief that a 'copy-cat' is most often milder in their attempts than the original murder. That is certainly not true, and they are not as few as one would think.
Personally, I think the copy-cat aspect here is uninteresting compared to the 'domestic' one. I know you already are aware of this, but focusing too much on the copy-cat aspect makes us forget how murders in a domestic situation might turn out. I think the horrific nature of the Ripper murders, as they were presented in the papers, were rooted in most people's heads and imagination at the time.
To tell you the truth, the worst examples I have ever seen of mutilation murders are domestic ones. You never realise it until you see it.
So the idea that they usually don't go 'all the way' is very wrong indeed.
We are not talking about small 'statistical flukes' here. They are certainly more common than that.
The problem is, that they are probably the crimes that are hardest to understand.
As long as you can see the possibility - fine by me. I do not ask more of you than that.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 25, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4044
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 10:03 am: |
|
Hi Debra,
Are those two questions or one? I am not 100% sure of what you mean.
But yes - I have seen crimes born out of both circumstances as the ones you describe. But please, rephrase the question if you can, and I will do my best to answer it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 25, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 91
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 10:33 am: |
|
Glenn,
I don't intend to be nitpicky, but saying something is not uncommon would mean that it's common. That is not true. The term 'extremely rare' would apply if we are talking about a ratio of Ripperesque murders to all other murders. Common is akin to habitual. I am fine with people believing that Kelly was a separate murder and going against all contemporary convention, but to call something common to support an argument just seems incorrect IMHO.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4046
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
Mike,
The point is, that these types of murders are not as 'uncommon' as people think. As I said, they do not belong to a majority of crimes, but they are certainly not as extraordinary as you and others seem to believe. Crime history is littered with these cases, regardless of what we see as 'common'.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 119
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
Hi Glenn
I have tried for the best part of an hour to rephrase my question, but without success. I need to ponder it a little more myself I think. Reading back over some of your old posts on the subject of domestic murders etc. has helped me out a great deal though, so thanks for that.
As someone who was forced to study ( and loathed, and was not very good at!) Bayes Theorem, all this talk of probability is bringing back bad memories, maybe that's why I can't think straight  |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 92
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 1:17 pm: |
|
Glenn,
I agree with you. I just don't like the word 'common' in this situation. If there have been say, 10 million recorded murders throughout history, not counting pogroms and wars and US CIA events, and 10,000 ripperesque mutilations. The word common cannot be used. Rare would be more useful.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4050
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Hi Debra,
Thanks anyway, and you're welcome.
Come back on the issue when you feel like doing so.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 369
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
Glenn,
For once, just for once. Please tell me about one "domestic turned copycat" murder that happened in the vicinity of an allready operating serial killer. One murder that emulated the serial killer in many respects, and even went further than him in an attempt to make it look like him.
Because that is the grist of your theory, isn't it?
Just one such example please. It's easy, "since crime history is littered with such examples."
Then I will tell you about serial killers that makes one murder after another, changes their mo to fit the occasion as they please, usually keep at least some of their MO, but not necessarily.
And you can tell me that your scenario is more likely than mine. We'll disagree, but we knew that would happen
Anyway, once again you fail to realize what I have stated many times. It's not really about the "mildness", or "severity". It's about the statistics. Several killers could exist in the East End at the same time. I'm not disputing that. It is even possible that two killers that could mutilate existed at the same time. But I find it unlikely that two killers existed side by side that was capable of that extended mutilation.
I'm NOT saying it is impossible. I'm NOT saying that these things do not happen. OK?
"Most first time killers do not go "all the way", although a few do.", might have clued you in on that.
We are simply rehashing old stuff by now, so unless someone brings up something new, I'm afraid I will be posting less frequently next week, as I have much to do "in the real world".
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4051
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Helge,
"Anyway, once again you fail to realize what I have stated many times. It's not really about the "mildness", or "severity". It's about the statistics."
Read your statement again:
"But, yes, had the mutilations been much less severe, I would have considered a copycat myself, maybe even a domestic."
Do you know what the word 'severe' means? By mentioning 'severe' you refer to the nature of the mutilatons, not statistics. And that was the statement I responded to.
Do you do these things on purpose? Or do you not read your own posts?
"Several killers could exist in the East End at the same time. I'm not disputing that. It is even possible that two killers that could mutilate existed at the same time. But I find it unlikely that two killers existed side by side that was capable of that extended mutilation. "
But hey, I tried to make this clear in my last post. That is not relevant for what I was trying to say. I specifically said that I believe they are connected in some way. Not that there are two mutilating murderers totally independent from one another - I am talking about them being linked together by MJK:s killer being aware of the Ripper's work! Therefore I can't understand the issue you're bringing up!
It is my belief, that if Jack the Ripper hadn't operated and gotten the press reviewed he received, then Mary Kelly might have been murdered anyway, but NOT NECESSARILY MUTILATED to such an extent. More people are capable of mutilate - unfortunately - than you can imagine. Sometimes they get these ideas in their heads because of media influence (and the circumstances in 1888 would certainly provide such impact on people), sometimes they are capable of it anyway. Ordinary husbands and boyfriends on the exterior, without a prior crime record, without being insane (although maybe abnormal). If you believe that Jack the Ripper would be the only one in the area capable of doing it, in the middle of the Ripper hysteria, fine - that's your call. But I'd say that's rubbish. Sorry.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 372
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Context, context. Please do read it all in context.
"Most first time killers do not go "all the way", although a few do.", might have clued you in on that."
That was a quote from my previous post, trying to adress that very point that seem to baffle you.
And I DO understand that your scenario implies someone linked to the Ripper through the copycat link. It though I had made that clear many times that I have got that. Do I need to repeat that in every post? It is NOT about what is possible. It is what is reasonable. And that is a subjective opinion where we quite obviously disagree. Is that so hard to get?
But you do realize we are now simply disputing what we really said and how to interpret that?
I think I know your position, and I will refrain from picking on things you said that might be unclear or might be used to "prove" something from my perspective.
I would not go as far as to call your position rubbish, but if you choose to use that word about mine, that is fine.
But it does not contribute much to this debate, in my opinion, Sorry.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on September 25, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 373
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Oh, by the way, Glenn,
I am still waiting for that example...
But I have plenty of time
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1487
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Hi,
Two points to make regarding Janes post.
1] The item on the table looks certain to be a bolster not a eiderdown.
2] we are still not certain if the bundle was bedclothes or clothing.
I understand the logic behind the photo theory however i can not imagine any photographer or policeman rearranging her blankets [ if any] covered in blood rolling them up to make a base for a camera shot.
I sternly believe that the pile that is visable in the photograph was there in position when the police entered her room, we have to determine what that pile consisted of.
The reason i believe that object to have been a bolster is simply the look of it, and the fact that such a item would not be needed on the bed for a lone person sleeping.
Regards Richard. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 586
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
Of course it could be a bolster, but I see it as an eiderdown slung across the table by a killer who found it got in the way, That's just my personal interpretation of it.
Basically, I think that the photograph is so open to different interpretations all of which could be right, that we can really only put forward options and let people make up their own mind about it.
As to whether that is a roll of bedding or clothes.....I really have to say that is bedding, the photograph I have is possibly clearer than yours and you can actually see the texture of the sheet and the blanket very clearly on it.......I have to say that there is very little doubt in my mind that it is bedding.
I also have to say, why on earth should it have had any blood on it at all....if the killer threw it onto the floor at the end of the bed? I don't really think that is any reason to discount the photographer theory......although of course there could be other reasons for dismissing it.
Of course the killer could have rolled it up and put it there for reasons best known to himself........I just put forward and alternative idea to play devil's advocate really.
But as I say.....your guess is as good as mine.....you pay your money and you take your chance......
Jane
xxxxx |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 906
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 10:36 pm: |
|
OK, so, the big question here is, when we were earlier making fun of people for ignoring the official record and thinking they saw words carved into Mary's leg and letters on the wall and etc. why does it make sense to ignore the official record and start imaging other things in the picture? It's exactly the same situation here, except we almost unanimously agree that the first is ludicrous yet a number of people are doing the second.
There is no writing on the leg. There is no FM on the wall. There is no eiderdown or pillow on the bed. The items on the table were not cleared between shots. The leg was not propped up in the photo from the second angle. None of these things have any sort of official recognition and, indeed, they run counter to the explicit notes that the officials did take.
The doctor's report is very, very clear that the flaps from the legs and groin are on the table. We see the whole table in the second shot. Thus we should expect to see them there. And we do, in fact, have a lumpy object that straddles the table and has clear muscle-like flesh indentations, as well as several other anatomically shaped features, in addition to matching the expected size for large lumps of flesh of that nature. The officials records say the removed flaps are on the table, we can see them there, and they fit the expected size and position. Why then are we inventing up some never-before mentioned fabric object to be there instead and assuming that the leg flaps must have been moved somewhere else? Why would we expect that to make any sense?
Ditto for the comparison between the two shots. The locations of various items match up exactly the way the doctor's report say they should. Why then does anyone think it makes sense to ignore the official records and assume that body parts were moved?
I understand that the pictures are of somewhat low quality. I sympathize with the desire to find new things in the photos and be able to say that you contributed to making some sense out of the overall mystery. And believe me that I fully appreciate that the bizarre alien landscape of internal body parts is a region posters here have never explored. But we need to stick with known facts, especially when they more than adequately explain what can be seen in the images.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 374
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 3:00 am: |
|
Dan,
I basically agree with you in most of the things you say.
The "mistake" about seeing letters was an honest one, IMO. Now, that I am aware it was supposed to say PIGGY, I see it too. However, knowing a bit about photographs, printing techniques, etc, I did not for a moment think it was "real".
But I think it is ok to discuss alternative interpretations concerning these things, also for example in the case of other aspects of the Kelly photographs.
And it is obviously also ok that you say what you have to say. And, your opinion carries a lot of weight with me.
But I do think the big "lump" on the bedside table is far too big to actually be just flaps of flesh. Even if it consists of several pieces, (which is hard to tell, even if it does not look as if it is), then the total volume as I can judge it, is larger than what one could assume there would be in total!
This is, so far, only an assumption, I`m aware of that.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1489
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 3:29 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
If you are correct in assuming that the Bolster/Eiderdown shape item on the table is kellys skin flaps from her legs i would be totally amazed, surely the size of the mass is incredible .
You may be right but i would be dumfunded if you are.
Regards Richard. |
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 121
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 4:03 am: |
|
Richard
The mass is not that big really when looked at in relation to the table. The table was a bedside table after all and not a large type kitchen or dining table! In fact you can see its far too small to be an eiderdown and there is a fleshy quality about it too.
Debra |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 377
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:08 am: |
|
Debra,
What I assume to be "possibly unknown" here is the thing in the uppermost left corner, on the table, in the second photo. Just to make that clear, I think we are all talking about the same thing here, but still...
The table really isn't that small. Compare it to the size of Kelly's body in the first image, we see only part of it there. Then see the same pile of flesh plus the "thingy" on the second photo.
The first pile should be more or less it, as I interpret it, the "thingy" is three or easily four times as big as that!
Also, there is a lack of blood on it. The way I interpret that is that I take what can be reasonably certain is the shade of grey that blood makes in this particular image, and look for that shade in the "thingy": There are none. I cannot rule out that it is skin-coloured, (although it does appear to be slighly darker in hue) but it most definitely do not show any signs of having the color of raw flesh or blood.
But yes, it is also far too small to be an eiderdown! Assuming most of it is not on the floor behind the table. Which is unlikely(?)
Helge
(Message edited by helge on September 26, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4054
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:45 am: |
|
Doctor's reports at the time were not as complete as modern ones and the procedures not as outlined as they were today.
I don't know about the stuff on the table, but by comparing the two photos, it is evident that the position of the leg don't match between the large in situe photo and the small one taken from the other direction.
What Bond describes is how the body lied in situe when he walked in and examined the corps... that is, the body as it were left untouched by the killer, which is quite logical. That in itself doesn't rule out that the staff
at the scene couldn't have changed things afterwards for the purpose of photographing details, and why on earth would Bond mention that in his report?
I would assume that the second (the small one) picture was taken after that. The leg is, in my view, clearly propped up and it is also, in contrast to Bond's statement, quite clear that large parts of skin flaps do remain on Kelly's leg (the frontal part of the thigh) and that not ALL of it is on the table.
As for the alleged letters on her leg or on the wall, it is absolute rubbish. People always have a tendency to see symbolic things and letting their eyes deceive them. Still today I, for example, have never been able to find those 'FM' letters on the wall that some reputedly have said they'd seen. Nor are there any letters on Kelly's leg. It is absolute nonsense.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 26, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 382
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 7:32 am: |
|
Glenn,
Total agreement for once!
Except I might add that it was reported that "a" photograph was taken before anything had been touched, and that this is probably the #1 photo.
If you look up the photo in the Diary, you will clearly see something vaguely looking like "FM". But of course, as you say, it is absolute rubbish!
The F looks more like some norse rune (I'm not saying that it is!), and need a bit of "interpretation" to be considered a letter at all, and the M is absolutely out of proportion and half of it is about 1\3rd bigger than the other half. No one writes like that!
The contrast in the image is also clearly wildly exaggerated!
And that is probably why the "letters" are invisible on most copies of the photo.
Coincidentally the "letters" appear just where Dr Bond states there are blood spray on the wall. There really is no enigma at all!
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4059
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 7:44 am: |
|
And I can only concur, Helge. Total agreement!
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 122
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 10:38 am: |
|
Helge
Yes the larger 'thingy' is what I meant too.
Skin and tissue from the costal arch ( which is up in the ribs right?) down to the pubes seems to me to be a large amount of flesh, and it was described as 3 large flaps, add to that skin from the thigh and muscle etc. The smaller pile just doesn't seem big enough for all that.
when I say it has a fleshy quality I imagine the skin to be on the outer surface of the pile and tissue underneath, any blood would just then seep onto the table underneath and not necessarily be visible until the 'thingy' was lifted up.
Debra |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2992
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Hi all
Right have found it!!!!! the earlier conv re the 'bundle'!!!!
Go to Victims...|MJK...... and then 'Looked at it for ever but whats that?' thread... Archive through Sept 14th
Suzi |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 385
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Debra,
You may be right about the smaller pile! But I think the bigger one is too big...
Suzi,
Great, I suggest we move our discussion about this "thingy" to the appropriate thread then!
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 908
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 10:09 pm: |
|
For those of you claiming that the item on the table is too big to be flaps of flesh, where exactly are you coming up with that idea? Look at what the photo shows you:
On the left you see her lower right leg not too far from her right knee.
On the right you either (depending upon who you ask) have her left knee or that fold of bedcloth with the left knee outside the edge of the pic.
That means the width of the photo is knee to knee, roughly. We know that MJK was sliced up with a flap taking off the top half of her upper right leg, that a large part of the groin was removed, and that it went at least somewhat (this point is a bit ambiguous in the report) down her left leg too. That's a large chunk of flesh. Pick that up and move it back to the table and it'll get a tad smaller because it's a little bit in the distance. That's exactly what we are seeing in the picture. And the part hanging off the edge of the table has a ripple pattern that is shaped like musculature taken off of a supporting bone. See the stringy lines there? And then, well, some people see pubic hair and/or an orifice in the lower middle section... but of course that makes the shot like porn or something, so I won't press that part...
And, regarding the idea that the leg was propped up, all I can do is say that there's no evidence of that. Depending upon the angle of the shot that's a knee in normal position from having the camera down low or the knee isn't even in the pic. In neither case is there a reason to think the leg had been propped up. The photo comparisons I've seen that were tried to use to show that the leg had to have been moved also get lots of other parts of the body in incorrect places so aren't convincing to me.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 390
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 4:14 am: |
|
Dan,
Even if the part has "ripple patterns" similar to musculature (which I do not agree that it has, but let us assume there is), why on earth should it have the color it has?
Even though this is a black and white photograph, it is possible to differentiate between what must have had similar reflection of light. Some colors are pretty much similar in that respect, and some photographic emulsions are better than others to differentiate. But that is not the point.
The point is that the "thingy" does not at all correspond in grey scale to exposed areas of muscle or tissue. That effectively rules out that possibility regardless of size.
Besides, pubic hair and an orifice? If that is not pareidolia and/or wishful thinking, then I don't know what is!
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 5:35 pm: |
|
Helge,
"Remember, there also seem to be blankets in disarray on the bedside table"
If you mean the 2nd Kelly photograph, what's on the bedside table sure don't look like blankets to me. What I see there are intestines and a large "saddle" of continuous flesh cut from Mary's left thigh right across to the other leg.
Debra,
"But there is the scanario that Helge described...that the killer rolled back the bedclothes"
Why wouldn't he just have thrown them well out of the way? Why is Kelly's left stocking draped so neatly on top of the roll of bedclothes?
On that latter point, by the way, I'm getting more and more convinced that Mary still had her right stocking on and that the oft-discussed "circular cut" is a garter, or at least some sort of a tied lace/bow, holding the stocking (or what remained of it) up.
If "one sock off and one sock on" is indeed the case, then it would appear that she was killed while getting undressed, as Richard suggests. Alternatively, her killer may have struck as she was just *getting* dressed again after serving a client. Perhaps that client was himself the killer, or perhaps someone else was outside, waiting for her last client to leave her lodgings.
If the latter scenario were true, I wonder who might - just perchance - have known that Mary was with a client and was watching her door, just waiting for the client to leave? Hmmmm...
|
Eddie Derrico
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Yes. This subject has to be put with the X Files and treated like Scully would, not Mulder.
Didn't they move the table to take the second shot ?
Yours Truly
Eddie
|
ohnjay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 7:08 am: |
|
good day all,
am i right in my reading of an earlier post that mjk's clothes were neatly folded on a chair,
If this is right then who was the drunk person who could hardly talk but was heard singing.
If she was that intoxicated how was she able to fold her clothes "neatly" |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 6:50 am: |
|
Helge,
I'm with you on this one - the balance of probability suggests that the killing and mutilation of Mary Kelly was in Jack's eyes his "masterpiece". All the common elements are there, from throat cutting to disembowellment and removal of trophies from the scene of the crime. In addition we have the purposeful placement of items around the body (breast under head and foot, liver between feet etc) that were seen in the Chapman (intestines, comb etc) and Eddowes (intestines, colon) murders.
Leading on from Eddowes we have the removal of the nose coupled with cuts to the face, although on a much grander scale this time. Everything to me suggests a progression, rather than a one-off, which is consistent with Dr Bond's opinion that it was not only the same killer, but that the same sort of weapon was used in the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes murders.
Circumstancial, of course, but what circumstances! In the light of all these elements, surely the odds against the Mary's death being by any other hand than that which killed Polly, Annie and Kate must be huge.
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Richard,
"The item on the table looks to me to belong to the head of the bed namely a bolster."
It isn't a bolster - it's almost certainly the flesh that the killer removed wholesale from Mary's nether quarters. To summarise Dr Bond's testimony:
The flesh from the upper part of the right leg and lower abdomen, including the external sexual organs and part of the buttock were removed (the implication is in one large piece) and placed on the bedside table. He also noted that flaps of abdominal flesh were also left on the table.
As you look at the second Kelly photograph, the great sheet of flesh comprising thigh, genitals and buttock can be seen close to the wall on the left. A smaller pile, comprising miscellaneous flaps of flesh (and what looks like some entrails) may be seen on the extreme right in the same shot.
Clearly the police wanted to take in both lumps of flesh as photographic evidence. Why would the police photographer have wasted almost half a frame if what was dominating the left field of his shot was merely a common-or-garden pillow?
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 393
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
Since no one wants to move on to the other thread, neither will I
Gareth,
Yes, I agree any other scenario is simply full of if's and but's and what if's.
I still think the "thingy" is far too big to be flesh, though.
I did a little measuring just now based on averages of size of face and lower arm (to get a reference measurement), adjusted somewhat for perspective, and found that the table's short side was close to 50 centimeters. As the table was made to british measurements, that would most likely make it 20 inches.
And that is the short side! It's a big table as bedside tables go!
(By the way, those measurements also fit with Mary's height being reported as 5' 7", if she had close to an "ideal figure". So I can't be far off)
The surface area we see might be one or two flaps, theorethically, but the flaps would be rather thin, unless Kelly was really, really huge. So IMO there needs to be another explanation for the bulk we see.
If the police wanted to photograph the lumps of flesh, clearly they could have done that better from the other side of the bed!
I think I used the wrong word when I said blankets, though. It's more possible it's a pillow or something. I really can't say. And I really don't see that it has any major impact in determining anything about the killer or the murder.
ohnjay,
The things women can do, sing, fold clothes even when drunk...
We can't know if she folded her clothes herself. I wrote a scenario earlier in which Jack killed her instantly when entering the room, then laid her on the bed, undressed her, and folded her clothes as some sort of fetish.
But that is pure speculation. Possible, but speculation.
It does not necessarily make any difference, though. Except that if that was what happened, things would look even more like the Rippers MO.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 127
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Richard
Going back to the garter topic for a moment , here is the description of a garter mark on the body of another murdered woman from a post mortem report of 1887.
>>There were circular, slightly depressed marks, about half an inch deep, just below the knees.<<
Half an inch deep! much deeper than I would have expected and certainly fits with what we see on Mary's leg if it isn't the garter itself, and where there are garters there must be stockings.
I too am beginning to think that the white thing draped on the bundle may be her stockings or one of her stockings, I wouldn't go as far as saying she is still wearing the other one though.
Debra |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 395
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Debra,
I'm not sure yet (and may never be), but I am not ruling out a garter. You may be right on that one. I'm pretty sure there is no stockings, though.
So, I take it that one would not normally wear a garter to bed?
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
