| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 439
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 1:41 pm: | 
|
Hi Sarah,
Alan is correct, the picture was taken from the window,as you would have looked through the window, the bed would have been a few feet in front of you with kellys head to the right, and her feet to the left. the door was to the right . and then left of the window, so when entering the room , the corpse would be to your immediate right.
Richard. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 452
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 4:45 am: |
|
Guys
Sorry to be pedantic but the 1st photo wasnt taken from the window but from the doorway.
The 2nd was taken from the bottom left hand corner of the bed.
Monty
Monty
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 981
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 5:36 am: |
|
BOTH OF YOU?
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 203
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 6:11 am: |
|
Monty,
See that's what I thought. I always thought Mary's bed was in front of you as you entered the room. But if I was right then I don't understand how the light from the door was in the centre of the second photo. If Alan and Richard are right then it makes sense but the camera equipment must have been big and must have been standing inside the room so it couldn't have been taken from the window.
Sarah |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 453
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 6:56 am: |
|
Sarah,
The light is coming through the hinge side of the door.
Monty....who is getting a headache now !!
 |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 207
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 7:06 am: |
|
Monty,
That would only make sense if the table was moved to by her feet. Ok, I'm going to say it simpler because I think you are misunderstanding what I mean or I'm misunderstanding you.
You agreed that you thought Mary's bed was opposite the doorway right? If that was the case then the table would be opposite a wall not the door, therefore it must have been moved, ESPECIALLY if the photo was taken down at her feet in the direction of the table or there would be a wall behind the table, not any part of the door.
Ok, that's what I mean.
If, however, Alan and Richard are right then I suppose it would make more sense except that the camera seems to be standing in the doorway as it was too big and heavy to be taken through the window. Also if it was taken through the window, the glass would have been in the way.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 212
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 7:08 am: |
|
Monty, I really can't see how the first photo could possibly have been taken from the doorway. The angle is all wrong. If the diagram printed in the Telegraph (and also if I my memory serves me in Sugden's book) is correct then the door is just off the edge of the photo the other side of the table. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 455
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 7:28 am: |
|
Guys,
Apologies due to Alan, Sarah and Richard. I am wrong.
I now see where you are coming from.
Sorry Guys.
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 210
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 7:35 am: |
|
Monty,
No need to apologise. I always thought her bed was opposite the door.
Anyway I still don't see how it could have been taken through the window.
I think the reason I thought that her bed was opposite the door is because in "From Hell" and "Jack the Ripper" (with Michael Caine) that is how her room was laid out.
Sarah |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 272
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 2:37 pm: |
|
I think the source of confusion is that there were two windows in this corner room. On the wall against which the head of Mary's bed lay there was a door and next to the door a window (call it window 1). As you are standing outside facing this door, around the corner to your left is another window (call it window 2). The bed would have been opposite window 2, on the wall perpendicular to the wall with the door and window 1.
Photo 1 could possibly have been taken through window 1, but I think the camera was probably positioned just inside this window. Photo two appears to have been taken at the bottom left corner of the bed (as you are facing Mary, i.e. her bottom right) or possibly with the camera resting on the bed or on an object which is on the bed (like the "blanket roll").
As someone said, the light is coming from a crack between the door and frame, the door being slightly ajar.
Andy S.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1465
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 6:57 pm: |
|
Hi all
I had always thought that a person coming through the door, in normal circumstances, would have the bed on their right, and two windows on their left. A fireplace would be opposite. I can't believe that the bed would be crosswise against the fireplace (i.e. someone lying in bed with a fire right beside them), in normal circumstances.
However, for the first picture I wonder if the bed was moved so that the fire was to the right of it. My reason is that there appears to be a door in the "partition" - which would make it a funny partition. Couldn't this be the cupboard door?
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 273
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 11:34 pm: |
|
Robert,
You might be right. Sugden's sketch has it that way. I'm a little fuzzy on the locations of the windows. But I know there was at least one window on the wall perpendicular to the wall with the door.
Somewhere (can't remember where) I read that the partition was constructed in part from an old door. I don't remember whether this was first-hand knowledge (I think it was) or just a surmise based on the photograph.
Andy S.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1466
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 4:08 am: |
|
Hi Andy
There's a photo on the victims page showing the two windows facing north.
Re the partition : it's just that it would seem very ramshackle, if it consisted of a door plus something else. Also, you'd think a door would be too valuable to use in that way.
I'm confused about Prater. I'd imagined that there was only one door on the right of the passage, and that one was Kelly's. Every time I saw reference to a second door, I dismissed it as a mistake. But now I'm starting to believe that there was a second door, on the right of the passage, just before you came to Kelly's door.
Also, was there anyone living above Prater? The photo of Dorset St with the chair outside the arched passage shows at least three storeys.
Robert |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 218
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 5:40 am: |
|
The various plans show the two windows as being on the same wall as well.
I would say the partition had to be pretty ramshackle as Prater said she could see the light from Mary's room through it as she went up the stairs. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 224
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 5:45 am: |
|
This whole thing is confusing me.
I thought there were two windows right next to each other around the corner from the door, I didn't know there was one on the same wall as the door.
Is it possible to scan a sketch on here at all?
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 984
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 5:59 am: |
|
G'day,
To see the light from Mary's room as one is about to enter the door leading to the stairs would not be a problem, as the beam would fall out of the window onto the ground!...Did I explain that OK?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1471
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 6:07 am: |
|
Hi Leanne
The light would only have been from a candle, so even if the curtains were open it would have been very faint. And the windows were round the corner.
Robert |
Niki Lee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 4:42 pm: |
|
To All,
As I've been reading this mesage board,it appears to me that most everyone on this thread is stuck in their views. No one can really change anyone's mind, no matter what the details show or reports say. It is good to have opinions that you can hold strongly to, but on the other hand, everyone should try to work together to solve some portion of this horrific crime. I have been interested in JTR since I was a little girl. Why? I really have no idea, it's just something that I have always had in me. I appreciate all the efforts of everyone on this site, along with all of their views. But let's try to see on a more common ground. We just might be able to pull something out of all this mess.
Thanks.
I welcome any negative comments as whole-heartedly as the good ones |
Angelina Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Andrew,
I believe you to be correct in the positioning of the camera.
The best shot for a photographer to take would have been on the inside of the room up against the wall where the windows are. That way he could get a clear shot of the whole bed. I always knew that the picture was to perfect to have taken from outside through the broken glass. I believe that he(the photograher)set his camera up just to the left of the window on the right(when you are looking at the ouside shot of her room)
Does this make sense??
Angelina |
Jack Traisson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Perhaps this will help:
 |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 232
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 7:05 am: |
|
Thank you Jack. That was helpful. I was sure that the windows were only on one side as this diagram now shows. It appears that the bed wasn't moved for the first photo as it is shown up against the partition wall in this diagram. Maybe it had been partitioned off for someone who also could have access to 26 Dorset Street but when other's moved in the door in the partition wall was locked shut so no-one could get through it.
I can't tell what that thing is in the bottom right hand corner of her room is though. I can see the fire, but does anyone know what is next to it?
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 222
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 7:44 am: |
|
Sarah, it's a cupboard. If I remember rightly this is where Joe Barnett's clay pipe was found. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 238
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 8:56 am: |
|
Ok, thanks Alan. If that was the cupboard why all the speculation about the door behind Mary's bed being a cupboard? |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 275
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 9:29 am: |
|
I stand corrected on the location of the windows. It would appear that both were on the wall perpendicular to the door.
I would add that this whole sorry tenement was extremely ramshackle. It is clear that McCarthy spared every expense in providing for his renters. But then, that's all they could afford and they were much more fortunate than those who had to resort to the doss houses or sleep on the streets.
Andy S.
|
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Hi evreyone
The 3D model we are working from is as Philip Sugdens drawing. So i'm hoping this is correct. we have the table opersite Kelly's bed against the wall however.
Does anyone Know what the fireplace looked like as we have no information on this.
Any help appreciated.
Jeff Leahy |
Angelina Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Was it even common in the nineteenth century to have two rooms that were at one time joined together by a passage door. It seems unlikely in the poor circumstances, and wouldn't that be considered a luxury back then?? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1536
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff
There is a picture of the fireplace in Bruce Paley's book, though I don't know whether it's accurate.
I'm sorry I can't scan this in. Maybe someone else can.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1537
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 6:28 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff
If you click "Topics" then "Victims" and then "Mary Jane Kelly" and then "The Fisherman's Widow" then you'll see two drawings of the fireplace.
Robert |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 10:51 am: |
|
Many thanks for the info Robert which I handed straight to my model maker. Is the drawing in Bruce paley's book any more detailed than the pictures on site?
I have also added the bath under the bed to the list of objects. The drawing gives some other nice feels about the Room aswell.
Were hoping to put all the Murder sites created in 3D stiudio max online next year. It will be interesting to get some feed back then.
I'm also currious about the painting 'Fishermans Widow" does anyone have any idea what the painting was of and if it might have contained 'Flowers"?? Any discriptions most useful.
Yours Jeff
|
Erin Sigler
Police Constable
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 9
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 2:32 am: |
|
I know this is an old thread (and I really don't have anything useful to contribute) but I finally got around to reading the whole thing and unfortunately, I see exactly what Joan is talking about--and I think I'm going to be sick. I really, really hope that's a pillow. If not, though, I have to say that I'm very thankful she was already dead by the time he did that to her.
I'm looking forward to your 3-D representations, Jeff, as ghastly as this entire business is. |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 8:39 pm: |
|
Dear Erin: Thanks for the show of support, I didn't have too many converts back there.
I believe that all of us, not only the newer members of the investigation, have been rather glorifying the crimes of Jack the Ripper as if he were some kind of folk hero or something.
We want to know all the gory details concerning the murders, but we only want a sanitized, nice, neat version of the crimes.
The reason we must face the horrible, sickening facts and pictures of what Jack the Ripper really did, is to see what it would take for someone to actually go through with the whole act.
Is this the act of an ex-lover? Could anyone be so enraged with their newly- former lover to go to this length of depravity and mutilation?
I think not.
Could a totally insane man be careful and prudent enough to strike continually time and time again without leaving some clue, without getting covered in blood and gore with no way to cover up?
Would an insane person place organs in a certain order, so as not to have to reach across any mutilations already performed, ( throat first, after slashing about on the arms, the face was probably done next, and so on.)
This man was only "sexually insane", so that he could probably function normally until he became "aroused", at which time he lost his ability to control the thoughts and desires that he held in check, and while operating on a "normal level" until the opportunity was right to act, he must have felt like he was watching himself in the frenzy of blood lust. He may have even felt remorse after the crimes, but he must also have had a pure core of hatred inside for this type of woman, and so he preferred them as victims to feel less guilty of procuring their deaths in such horrible ways.
Maybe the very fact that these women were dirty and slutty, drunken and debauched, was in itself a turn on for him, but of course the sex part was more disgusting for him than wallowing in their organs.
Thanks for writing.
Joan |
Scott Suttar
Police Constable
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 6
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 8:49 am: |
|
There are two things I notice in the second photograph which don't seem to have attracted much comment. The first is that in D4 there appear to be scratches. Are these on the print? The second is that MJK's right leg in the bottom portion of the picture appears almost as though it has been painted onto the picture. Now i'm not suggesting that it has been but I do wonder if there is something there that is characteristic of the photography of the time. If not it appears very strange.
These two items are most apparent on the enlarged sepia toned photo posted by Stephen half way down the first page of this board.
Any Explanations?
Scotty.
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 516
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 10:59 am: |
|
I think the appearance of the right leg is just due to that portion of the photo being out of focus. The photographer appears to be focusing on the pelvic region.
Andy S.
|
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 30
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Couldn't agree more, Joan. Thanks again for helping me to see this photo in a new--and highly disturbing--way. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 774
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 11:01 am: |
|
Hi all
Have just responded to this IMHO on Gen Disc MJK Death Scene Photograph for what it's worth!
cheers
suzi
|
tonyhallam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 2:31 am: |
|
Hi all
I have been looking through this thread and getting more and more frustrated, mainly with the people who still think the flesh on the table is a pillow.
joan has been right all along.
this photo was taken to show that the lump of flesh on the table is the poor womans vagina.
people have circled wrong places so this is my attemt to put you right, here is the picture
cropped and just by looking its clear what it is, now fit the piece to the photo.
lets not hear anymore rubbish about a pillow
 |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1012
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Hi Tony,
Well, the thread is a rather old one... And there were some others since then on the topic of the supposed pillow as well. In some of the other, more recent ones, I think the tide has finally turned. The doctor's report says it's the flesh from the legs and groin, it's the right size to be flesh from the legs and groin, it looks like what flesh would look like without the bones for support, so I think (or at least would hope) that not many people buy into the pillow idea anymore.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1580
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Hi Guys,
Sorry I am not convinced to me it appears to be the bed bolster hanging over the table
I proberly am wrong [ whats new] however the carnage in that room if the ripper did that would literally be the work of the devil, and such a madman would have been incapable of not being detected within a short space of time, although i am not suggesting that the carnage you describe isnt accurate, but if it was, was carried out in a copycat manner with the intention of escaping the hangman, not a raving lunatic frothing at the mouth.
Richard. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 482
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Richard,
Just though I would say that I agree with you.
Give me a couple of days (I got too much to do right now) and I'll prove it. (allready have, but need to make a couple of illustrations to..well illustrate...my point)
If you do a depth analysis of the image, you will find that the part that is supposedly legs and groin is far too big to be that!
Dan,
The doctor's report stated that there were flesh on the table. That is true. But why would a doctor mention that there would also be a pillow\bed bolster\whatever?
There certainly is flesh. But not all of that is flesh. Not unless Kelly was the Fat Lady of the local Circus.
Unless Jack had supernatural surgical skills there is no way he could have cut off parts such that the vagina would be this intact and also miraculously free of any blood.
To be continued...
Helge (In some peoples opinion now probably; Madder than Mad Jack McMad, winner of last year's Mr Madman competition?)
"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)
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 641
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Just an update on this.....
Robert MacLaughlin......who I have to say probably does have as much knowledge of the photographs as any can do in view of his extensive study on the subject states in his book that it is a bolster without reservations.
I had a fairly in depth conversation with him at the conference, and he has no doubt that it is a bolster. What is being interpreted as pubic hair is in fact just the ticking coming through a tear in the material.....and the bulk is far too great to be flesh, I think Helge is right there. It would be nice though if Helge (or anyone else) could prove it incontrovertibly, just to put it to bed once and for all though.
So I bow to Robert's expertise and have to say that I believe it is a bolster.
Of course, everyone is entitled to interpret it any way they want.
Just thought everyone would like an update.
Janie
xxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on November 20, 2005) |
Erin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 54
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 6:38 pm: |
|
At this point I think it might be useful to quote, rather than paraphrase, Dr. Bond's report regarding the Kelly scene. In describing where the various parts of the viscera were located he says "The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table." Just to make it clear, we're not talking about tidy miscellaneous bundles of "flesh," we are talking specifically (or as specific as Victorian doctors got) about "the whole of the surface of the abdomen & thighs," the "skin & tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes," the skin and tissues of the right thigh clear down to the bone, "the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock," and finally, the "skin, fascia & muscles" of the left thigh "as far as the knee." This basically comprises all of the layers of skin, fat, muscle and other tissues on the surface of her body, including the entire pubic region, from just below her ribs to her thigh on the right side and her knee on the left and even around the side to her right buttock. This is an enormous amount of "flesh." Granted, the skin alone is only around 1-2 millimeters thick, but again, skin alone is not what was removed. Muscle is dense and thick. It should also be kept in mind that women have an extra layer of epidermal fat. Kelly needn't have been tubby (although she was described as "stout") for the amorphous blobs on the table to be entirely composed of her body tissue.
Whether her killer could have sliced off her vagina relatively intact is not out of the question; he did manage to secure Chapman's uterus without damaging the cervix, and he was working in the dark and in haste (although I'm inclined to believe he just got lucky). Bond's report makes it clear that the "external organs of generation" were removed in a piece along with the abdomen and this portion of her anatomy was placed on the table. He was at the scene. He had a much clearer view than the photograph affords us.
Moreover, why wouldn't a doctor's report mention there was a bolster on the table, along with the flesh? Dr. Phillips mentioned the muslin and comb at the Chapman scene, while Dr. Brown included the buttons found in Eddowes' blood in his report. And Dr. Bond himself makes note of the bloody bedclothes and cut sheet. All in all it doesn't appear that there was a specific protocol police surgeons followed in writing their reports. Neither did the police, for that matter.
I'm not trying to definitively state that Joan's view of what was found on the table is entirely accurate and everyone who thinks that a pillow was there is wrong. I simply wanted to point out that Joan's view certainly isn't as far-fetched as some would make it seem, nor is it at all inconsistent with the medical evidence. The photograph is subject to interpretation. Dr. Bond's unequivocal statements about the crime scene are not.
Now, whatever the piles of flesh might indicate about the mental state of the man who could kill and mutilate a woman in such a way I cannot say, but I'm inclined to agree with Macnaghten. It certainly isn't a well man who slices a woman to bits and leaves the remnants on display for all the world to see, no matter what his intentions. |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1013
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 6:50 pm: |
|
Helge, Jane --
Sorry folks, but if you think that the "pillow" on the table is too large to be flesh, you simply aren't interpreting what you see in that photo correctly. You are letting the fact that it's an extreme close up as compared to the long shot in the other image confuse you.
Just look at the photo. You've got one knee on one side roughly, and then maybe another knee in the pic on the other side or just outside of the frame. The entire length of the photo would be leg to leg. Pick that up and deposit it on the table behind (so it gets a little bit smaller in perspective) and that's exactly what we see there. How on earth can anyone claim that that is too big to be the flesh from both thighs and the entire groin area when thigh to thigh is the entire width of the photo and then some? That's a lot of flesh, so it's going to look pretty big, especially on that tiny table. We can also tell from the size of the table in the close up shot compared to the size of the table in the long shot. The only way for that "pillow" to be too big to be the flesh from the legs and groin is if the table was replaced by a completely different sized one between the shots (and good luck picking up the internal organs farther down on the table and placing them on this mythical other table in the same location for that second photo).
I haven't read Robert's book yet, but I will be extremely disappointed in that aspect of it if that claim is made in there.
Even if you want to try to dispute the sizing (although to do so you have to radically reinterpret what is seen in the second photo so that the leg and groin area isn't the same size as in the first shot), we have the doctor's report saying that the flesh removed from the thighs and groin/stomach area was on the table. Nothing else on the table even come close to size or -- especially -- appearance that that kind of flesh would have. I'm afraid I'm going to have to take the word of the doctor who was there as well as the size comparisons I have made (and which are really easy to do) over the word of unnamed "most photographic experts".
It's so incredibly not a pillow. Pillows don't have muscles under the skin, and they are generally one long expanse of filled fabric of generally the same dimensions, while this has two smaller sized flattish surfaces sticking out from a larger central area.
I guess this one hasn't been put to rest yet. Well, it should be. Too bad it isn't.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 178
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 7:15 pm: |
|
I still agree with Dan on this one, it does look like flesh, muscle etc. to me too.
Jane could be right on one thing, there may be no pubic hair to see, according to Dr. Hebberts description of the body of MJK
"The hair on the pubes had been removed in this case" I won't reference the book again because it's on a few other threads now.
If you look closely at the picture posted recently by tonyhallam further up the thread, it looks to me very much like a vagina...with no pubes.
Debra |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 644
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 7:36 pm: |
|
Well as I said, everyone will see it in different ways. I'm not sure if Robert uses this board, but I will email him to see if he would like to comment about what he has put in the book.....but it is stated clearly in the book that it is a bolster or stuffed object made of material. There is actually a very comprehensive section dissecting the said photograph, if you'll excuse the term.......this is quite a long quote, so I hope Robert doesn't mind, but it's really all needed to show it in context.
'On the table, to the left, is what appears to be a fortune cookie shaped pillow, or stuffed piece of fabric. There are many examples in Victorian times, and much later, of using all available material. Odd bits of fabric sewn together for clothing and practical decoration like cushions and bedding. There is definitely a tear in the middle of the far section, exposing some stuffing. In the middle of the table is a rectangular piece of fabric, or skin perhaps, something else. There is another similar item underneath the pile of flesh on the right side of the table. The pieces of flesh on the table are visible in the main photograph. The rectangular object with ninety degree corners, seen in MJK2 is not visible from this picture taken from the opposite side of the room.'
The whole of the section literally goes inch by inch over the photographs, detailing everything and I have to say that I feel it is accurate.
Actually the reproductions in the book are of such good quality that it is possible to see the seams of the bolster quite clearly, where it has puckered in stitching and even the texture of the material. I have never seen these before because I have never had such a fine quality print, but it does show how good the reproduction in the book is.
I will email him and ask if he would like to comment.....and post his reply if he is happy to do so. Obviously the picture is open to different interpretation. I would be very interested to see how he reached his conclusions.
Janie
xxxx |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 644
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 10:51 pm: |
|
"Unless Jack had supernatural surgical skills there is no way he could have cut off parts such that the vagina would be this intact and also miraculously free of any blood."
There's another problem -- where is the pubic hair ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 599
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 11:42 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I'd like to see a wider angle of that picture so I can be sure that there hasn't been some creative cropping done.
Also, in that Sugden floor plan illustration, why is the head of the bed at the door wall. In photo #2, the bed is parallel to that wall; at least that's the way it looks to me with the hinge of a cracked door opposite. That also looks like a better place to put the bed so you could keep warmer by the fireplace. Why would anyone put a bed as far away from the fireplace as you could get it and with the head against an outside wall?
Stan |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 179
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:02 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert
>>There's another problem -- where is the pubic hair ?<<
According to Dr. Hebbert 'The hair on the pubes had been removed...'
I hadn't thought much about that remark of his version of the autopsy until David O'Flaherty mentioned it on the eyes and ears thread.
Debra |
Christian Jaud
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 5:12 am: |
|
Hi,
isn't there a design of squares?
Kelly either had a remarkable pattern of varicose veins or this is a cushion.
Christian
 |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 484
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Sorry I am so pressed for time that I can only comment in a more brief and uncomplete form than I actually intended today.
I used to work as an army instructor in photography and dark-room techniques, including photo interpretation, so I'm not kidding you on this one.
People seem to miss the point that in the shot we are discussing, the camera is set on ultimate proximity because of the closeness of the motive, and the object in question are obviously farther away from the camera than the body, so the thing appears much smaller than it is in reality.
Said in other words, it is pretty big.
But let that be for now. Let us look at the numbers.
First of all, let me express this caveat. The measurements I did was not based on the low quality images I submit here. Obviously these are only illustrations to explain the basic idea.
If I had the opportunity to do it, I would run the images through software like Photomodeller Pro or something like that. Unfortunately such forensic software cost far too much for my purse (1500$ or more), and I do not have access to it. It would tell you the focal lenght used, and calculate any given size of any object in the picture, regardless of orientation.
In my opinion the lens used looks like one of 105 mm focal length. But that is dependent on the size of the actual negative, and I don't know that for sure. I would think it might have been 6x9 cm's. This would again imply a foreshortening approximately similar to that of the human eye. This has no bearing on my calculations here anyway, but I mention it en passant.
As an alternative to expensive software I will use a very simple, but pretty accurate way of establishing the actual foreshortening in the image, and also eventually calculate the approximate size of the table.
Let us start by establishing an approximate set of vanishing lines (Infinity) in what I will refer to as the frontal image. We notice that conveniently there are two paralell lines in the picture. These are the side of the table and the top of the headboard.
Close examination show that the table seems to be approximately paralell to the bed. A few degrees off will only give an insignificant error anyway, so we'll assume it is indeed paralell. This gives us the following horizon in the picture:
Next step is to establish the difference in foreshortening between separate areas of interest. I will use the center of the body and the far edge of the table (blue lines) plus the middle of the table for convenience. We get:
You will notice the yellow lines. These are of different lenght and now represent the difference in size between any object within their respective depth in the image.
I will give you the numbers I used to calculate this, but keep in mind these are numbers that do not correspond to any real size in the actual scene (we'll get to that later), they only represent the size on my printed copy of the image. The difference in percentage will be accurate, though. And that is all I'm asking to know right now.
Farthest yellow line (1) = 71 mm, middle yellow line (2) 84,5 mm, closest yellow line (3) 94 mm.
This will yield that any reference lenght on line 1 must be multiplied with 1.19 to give the same actual lenght on line 2 and 1.324 to give the same actual lenght on line 3.
In percent this means that anything on line 3 is 132.4% larger than anything on line 1, and anything on line 2 is 119% larger than anything on line 1.
Unfortunately this is all I got time to do right now.
To be continued...
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
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 180
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 9:20 am: |
|
Hi helge
I will have to study your post later on, with the aid of a calculator no doubt!
hi Jane
thanks for putting the info from Roberts book up, I am hoping to get a copy soon and get a good look of the clearer picture, still not convinced on the cushion thing yet though. I am also interested in Robert's idea about a square of material or skin in the centre of the table, to me this looks like a patch of light running across the table, maybe the book will sort this all out.
Debra |
