|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 646
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 10:34 am: | 
|
"According to Dr. Hebbert 'The hair on the pubes had been removed...' "
I also missed this...probably a point worth discussing if there is a way to avoid being too graphic. Certainly seems to me that the logical assumption would be to say Jack pulled them out, no ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 601
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 10:39 am: |
|
Aha, the vanishing point lines. I remember learning about those in my junior high drafting class. Perhaps we might be getting a little of the forced perspective effect here as well.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 181
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
>>I also missed this...probably a point worth discussing if there is a way to avoid being too graphic. Certainly seems to me that the logical assumption would be to say Jack pulled them out, no ?<<
Maybe, but as David pointed out on the other thread, it may be something MJK did to herself. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 645
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
Thanks for that Helge,
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm scared! 
Seriously though I can see where you are going......next part please when you have time.
Hi Christian,
Of course we are being subjective here......but yes I see it as stripes or a design of some sort as well.....it's clearer on the enhancement I have, and I think it is stripes. The seam lines are very visible in that section as well and puckering where the stitches have pulled taut.
I can actually see why quite a few people see it as a large piece of flesh, especially with the unfortunate area in the middle, which really does look like pubic hair, but as has been pointed out the pubic hair was removed, so it can't be that......if that object is flesh, which I personally doubt, then that area in the middle must be something else.
I think this is a classic case of the 'Is it a vase or is it a face.' puzzle.......it will look like one thing to some and another to someone else, but I have to stand by what I feel I am seeing and if I am proved wrong, then I am happy to admit it and take the flak.
This is the best enhancement I could get out of that section. I don't know if it helps.
Hugs
Janie
xxxx |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1015
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Helge,
The problem with using the headboard to try to create vanishing point lines is that the headboard is not level. In fact it looks to be extremely crooked. Your vanishing point is therefore way too high.
Now, I haven't seen where you are trying to go with this, but even if you come up with an accurate vanishing point I don't see how that's supposed to help you determine the size of the flesh on the table in the other photo without a perspective line going directly to the flesh, which I don't think you can come up with based upon what can be seen. You can talk about how a photo can distort apparent sizes so that the item is allegedly really huge, but the problem with that is that we see the table in both shots and we know that the table is NOT really huge. In order for the item on the table to be too huge to be the flesh from the legs and groin, it would have to be a completely different table. Hugely different. I don't understand how this isn;t obvious to everyone. Look at the table in the long shot. Compare the table to the size of the legs and groin. That's what we're looking for in the other photo and that's what we see.
Hi Jane,
Robert's book just came in the mail today (or rather Saturday I guess but I hadn't checked until now), so I will go over it. On the other hand I looked at the photo in question and it comes directly from the file Stewart Evans has, which is what I am working with. It's obviously more clear on screen than it is after being converted to printers dots and published in a book.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 485
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Stan, my man,
No forced perspective here, as we are talking about a photograph.
A forced perspective is when an artist try to make things appear (usually) larger (but sometimes smaller) than they actually are. It's also done all the time in movies for instance with model sets etc.
But this is not trick photography. The perspective we got is what was there as interpreted by the focal lenght of the lens. And that does not change within this image.
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)
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 603
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 12:31 pm: |
|
Sometimes a sort of incidental forced perspective occurs in photography. An example would be when a picture is taken of the face of someone from three yards away while their feet are propped up on a foot stool. Call it what you will, the feet will look three times the size of the head.
Stan |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 486
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Dan,
No, the headboard needs only to be straight in one dimension in space as long as it is reasonably paralell to the other line, and it is. What I have established is only the relative change of perspective in percent not a real measuring of true distances...
I tried to make that clear, but it is hard to explain.
You could lay down the headboard to the floor if you liked and the relative change in perspective is still the same, although the distances measured would be different!
Trust me. (I knew someone would point that out, it's not like I did not think about it)
You will see where I am going when I go there. Actually, if you are right, and the size of the "piece" fits being part of MJK's flesh, that is exactly where I end up going...
Well, of course I have allready spoiled the fun by saying it does not IMO. But let me finish the math, and we may discuss the interpretations later.
I'm doing a course this evening, so I can't promise anything until tomorrow. Just popped in to see if anyone had decapitated me yet.
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)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 487
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
Stan,
Yes, but that is done by the lens which does this in a predictable manner. But ok, I see what you mean, and in a sense you are right, but it has no bearing on this. The calculations automatically take the perspective into account no matter what it is. Actually that is the very effect I was measuring!
Now off I go!
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: 4249
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 12:50 pm: |
|
I think it is rather clear from the picture, that the item in question is a piece of textile material with a pattern on. Like Jane says, the pattern and even the seams are visible. To me it looks like a part of a heavy blanket or a large pillow.
To this date I haven't seen a human skin with stripes and seams on it.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Erin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 56
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
All the photographic analysis in the world is not going to change what Dr. Bond wrote in his report. There was flesh on the table. A lot of it. Bond wrote about blood on the wall, blood on the bedclothes, and a tear in the sheet. His report is incredibly detailed. If there had been a pillow heaped among the piles of flesh, it seems logical he would have said so. Like Dan, I prefer to take the word of someone who was actually there over anyone who is basing their conclusions on a 117-year-old photograph. It's nothing personal, it's simply a matter of (pun intended) perspective.
I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with Dr. Hebbert's report. If someone would be so kind as to point me to it, I would very much appreciate it.  |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 182
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Hi Erin, good points.
Dr. hebbert's report can be found here
../4921/17664.html"#DEDDCE"> |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4251
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Well, Erin,
I think it is pretty much clear from the picture that it is a piece of textile material. There are seams and a striped pattern there. The picture evidence is there.
For all we know Bond could have referred to the other pieces of flesh on the table, because there are other stuff there that without doubt is flesh.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Erin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 58
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Thanks Debra, I both the link and the kind words.
Glenn, I'm not disputing what you see. I just don't happen to see it myself. This doesn't mean it's not there, just that I, and obviously others, don't see the same thing. As we all know, 100 people can look at the same photograph and see 100 different things. That's why in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I prefer to take the word of a medical professional who was actually at the scene of the crime. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4254
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
I can't say I understand that, Erin.
Look at the photo enclosed in Jane's post and the eralier one posted by Christian Jaud. The seams are very clear, as are the wrinkles of the material and the stitches.
It is no question of personal interpretation - it is there, clear as day. Likewise is the striped pattern very clear.
I admit this is the first time I see it, because I haven't earlier seen such a good blow up f that part of the picture. But that is definitely and without doubt a piece of a bed cover or a pillow with stripes on it.
I am not saying that the good doctor elobrated, only that he referred to something else than the item we are talking about here.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 21, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Erin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 59
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
By the way, dead skin is not going to be universally smooth and unblemished. It contracts and dries out and gets a bit waxy when it's no longer being supplied with blood. Furthermore, I don't know if any of you have ever seen exposed muscle and tendons and ligaments, but they are most certainly not composed of smooth, unbroken lines, particularly if they have been removed from the body in a less than professional manner. I could post some pictures of cadavers as evidence, but I'm afraid they would turn some stomachs and quite possibly get me booted from the board! |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4255
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Yes, Erin, I've seen it, and you can also see it on the smaller so called 'second' picture of Mary Kelly and the remains of the skin flaps on the thigh. It does look very waxed, and I've seen it on other crime scene photos. Not pretty.
They don't have seams and stitches, though - unless we are talking of mortuary photos.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1586
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Hi,
I believe it is a bed bolster, the only question I have is why is it on the table, was it moved there by the killer if so why?.
Was it moved there by Mary kelly if so why?.
Was it moved there by the police if so why?.
if i dare hazard a quess I would say that Kelly moved it mayby she did not like sleeping on a piled surface, my theory is it may have been used [ since Barnett left] as a door draught excluder, and piled on the table when she awoke on the morning of the 9th around 8am before leaving the room and remained there from then onwards throughout future events which resulted in her death.
Pure speculation but thats nothing new from yours truely.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4257
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Richard,
I believe it might a bed bolster too (that was the word I was looking for...).
As for your theory, I actually find parts of it interesting and for once realistic. We are speaking of November here and I believe the door or the part where the door was connected to the wall wasn't very good isolated from the the wind. I have actually myself used a bed bolster for the same purpose in my old summer house.
The, of course, it could have been moved and put there by the killer as well...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 21, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 183
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 2:31 pm: |
|
>>I can't say I understand that, Erin.
Look at the photo enclosed in Jane's post and the eralier one posted by Christian Jaud. The seams are very clear, as are the wrinkles of the material and the stitches<<
Hi Glen
I have to say, like Erin I still don't see fabric either , I see stripes of sorts yes, but if the object was folded fabric surely the stripes would follow the folds? and from what I see they don't do that, also the back of MJK's hand,just visible on the blow up, appears to have a patterned surface too.
That's how I personally interpret the photograph, sorry, I haven't been convinced yet.
Debra |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1588
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 2:52 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
You have made my day at last we kind of agree on at least a possibility.
Seriously as you say that room was not the warmest place to sleep and any aid to keeping any warmth within would be used if available.
I too have in the past when heating was not that strong blocked up the front door with a draught excluder as I am sure many people on this site have in the past, especially in the good old days like when i just got married and only had service accomodation with my job when a Betting shop manager with just a electric heater for warmth.
Regards Richard. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
I dont know quite what that is, but if it was a pillow surely Bond would have noticed as he was right there?
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1589
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
Hi Jennifer,
Not a pillow but a Bolster which would have covered the pillow section of the entire bed.
All Dr Bond would have reported is the actual body parts that he observed was missing from the torso and there whereabouts,
He would not have done done a inventory of the entire room.
Richard. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4258
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 3:40 pm: |
|
Again, I have to agree with Richard (yes, Richard, embrace yourself!).
Regardless how detailed we feel Dr Bond's account is, it is not THAT detailed, not compared to modern standards.
This was 1888 and Dr Foster's sketches from Mitre Square and of Eddowes must be considered as very extraordinary for its time. Dr Bond's account is not as detailed as many people here seems to believe and he certainly didn't do a genuine account of the inventory of the room, as Richard quite correctly points out. It was not his place to do so.
Debra,
That is clearly a piece of fabric, and the stitches and wrinkles are as clear as pie, especially on the picture that Richard Jaud posted a day or two ago. There is no question about it.
This is no interpretation of a picture, it is all there. And listen to this, Debra - yes, the stripes do follows the folds! They actually do!
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1017
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Helge,
OK, so, if you are claiming that the angle of the headboard doesn't make any difference then you are using some sort of new math or something, because that's not how things work. Regardless of your calculations, we can see the size of the table in the first shot, so we know the dimensions, at least in a comparative sense, but then we know the height of the body so we can roughly calculate the actual table size. Whatever it is you think you are doing doesn't seem to be applicable to this situation, but then if you're going to post it later we will be able to examine it more closely.
Glenn,
The "patterns" people think they see on the flesh -- let's be frank here, Dr. Bond was very clear on this point, so let's stop calling it fabric -- are very likely to be some trick of the lighting or possibly in how the chemicals used to develop the photo spread unevenly, or something across the surface of the photo. I'm not sure what exactly it is, but thinking you see some sort of pattern does not make it fabric any more than thinking you see a demon dog chewing on a decapitated woman's head makes that that's real either.
Dr. Bond was there, and he is very explicit in his report. Someone please tell me what else on that table is supposed to be the whole of the top of two human thighs and groin/stomach area if it's not the object under discussion. Because there's nothing else there that even comes close. Unlike the "FM" people who think they see writing that the police somehow missed, the people arguing for a pillow are seeing things directly contradicted by what the official report says. That's pretty much an end of debate sort of thing there.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1590
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Have done just that Glenn, but my ribs now hurt, however keep the conversation going ,about to log off now and witness the hour special on channel 4 Of the life and times of the elusive Prince Eddie.
iF only Derek was present.
Regards Richard. |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 185
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
>>That is clearly a piece of fabric, and the stitches and wrinkles are as clear as pie, especially on the picture that Richard Jaud posted a day or two ago. There is no question about it.
This is no interpretation of a picture, it is all there. And listen to this, Debra - yes, the stripes do follows the folds! They actually do!<<
If it were clear as pie as you say Glen then we would all see it! I am not being difficult because I don't want to see it...I just don't!!
...the same as you don't see flesh!
Debra |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4261
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Dan,
If you can't see the stitches, the wrinkles, the seams (which all are clearly visible) and the striped pattern that follows the folds - then I just don't know what to tell you. It is fabric, and I am not thinking I see it. And I am not the only one.
I have no idea what piece Bond is referring to, but as far as I can see there are loads of other stuff on the table that consists of piles of flesh, something that is even more visible on the large full figure photo. Beats me why people seems hung up on that it must be THAT particular piece.
Debra,
I am sorry, but I have no explanation for you. On both versions that Jane and Christian has posted, the seams are very clear.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 21, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 186
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Glenn, I'll book in at specsavers tomorrow and see if that helps |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4263
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Debra,
I just clinsed my own glasses, just to make sure, and it is still there!
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 646
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
I think it seems clear folks that we are not going to agree on this, and it might be just as well that we agree to differ.
You are right though Dan that a reproduction from a book is not the best way to judge anything, although they are very fine prints and I have an excellent scanner, so I getting a first generation copy, which should be about the best anyone can have to work from.
I might be able to get an even better quality image from that and I will post it up in sections at 300 resolution so that it can be examined by both sides to see if there is anything else there that tips the balance one way or the other.
You know what I think it is, so you lot can have fun working it out for yourselves! 
Love Janie
xxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on November 21, 2005) |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 647
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:59 pm: |
|
And I still missed the word 'am' out, but I am not editing it again! 
I'll be seeing spots before my eyes next.
Janie
xxxx |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 488
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
First of all, let me say that I perfectly agree with those that see fabric not flesh. I have never seen flesh there, and never will. It does not look like flesh, it is too big to be flesh and it therefore certainly are not flesh.
For those that doubt that, take a closer look at the pile of flesh visible on the frontal image. It is clear that we have several layers (pieces) of flesh stacked on top of eachother. The thickness we observe here in each layer is what the killer carved off. And if we examine this closely, I'm sure we would find that the square area of those pieces together are more than enough to account for most of the stripped off flesh.
Dan,
I'm not inventing a new math here. It is kindergarten stuff almost when it comes to perspective. The vanishing lines do NOT need to be at the same height. Look at this.
These spatial cubes are seen from below and above the horizon line. That does not matter. The cubes on both images are still identical. What we have in the Kelly frontal image is two of these lines of such a hypothetical cube only. That is enough.
But one is higher than the other you say!
It does not matter. Rotate the cubes in these two images any way you want spatially, and the perspective, and hence the relations between sizes, remains the same.
To say otherwise would actually be to say that any tilt sideways of the camera would also change the perspective. Of course it does not!
That the point of infinity in the Kelly image is outside the actual picture has nothing to do with it, in case anyone wondered. We don't need that piece, because we work only with what is within the picture anyway.
If we consider that the floor is approximately level, that the bed is also approximately level (angle of the bedpost has actually nothing to do with that), we get two vanishing lines that tells us the relationship between sizes.
Relationship between sizes, not sizes themselves.
I see no problem here, and anyone completely sure that the piece of contested material is flesh should not either. Because as I said, if it is flesh, then the size will show if that is possible or not either way.
If the principle here are understood and accepted, I can go on. The next step would be to determine one known lenght (or several) on one of the determined indicator lines (the yellow ones). I have previously used an estimated average size of a human female head.
If possible, I'll use any number that we can agree on. Can we come up with an agreement on that folks?
(Bet we cant, but it might be worth a try)
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)
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 606
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 8:08 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
I'd suspect that the square end of that horizontal shaft at the top of the headboard is a 2" X 2" piece of lumber. The square near the top of the post is likely 3" X 3".That might be a little more accurate a measure than a human head or at least something to use as a double check. The legs of the table appear to be 2 X 2 as well.
Stan |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 489
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 1:53 am: |
|
Stanley,
Thank you very much for that input. I appreciate that.
Now, the reason I ask is that no matter what I use, some people would probably disagree. That is to be expected, I guess. Personally I think the average size of a female head might be more than adequate, because this thing is really far too big anyway. Even a calculation 10% off on the smaller side would show that.
The problem with your suggestion is that those parts are relatively small, and the error in measurement is therefore greater. In effect the blurriness of the image at greater magnification makes it difficult to measure accurately. Besides, even if you are probably correct, it is still a subjective interpretation.
However, it is not a bad idea, and it certainly can be used as a double check.
Thanks Stan.
I have also earlier used the estimated size of the upper body compared to average proportions.
I'm off to work now, and I'll see if I can get something done later in the day.
I would appreciate other input on this as well. I feel better if I use data that we at least somewhat agree on.
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)
|
ex-Trasher
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 2:56 pm: |
|
I was about to trash Erin's post but when I looked at her picture I fell in love, so forget it. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
Glenn,
as I can see there are loads of other stuff on the table that consists of piles of flesh
"Loads" of stuff? I don't agree. In both Kelly photographs I see on the table what might equate to some entrails and possibly one or two strips of flesh (in front of the "bolster" in question) that might possibly be two flaps from the abdomen.
Apart from the "bolster" I do not see "loads" of flesh there at all - certainly not enough to account for what Dr Bond reported. Where did the rest of the flesh reported by the doctor as being on the bedside table disappear to?
The police at the time didn't have the luxury of reel after reel of film - plates were relatively costly and certainly clunky to carry around, so every frame had to count. Why, therefore, was the second Kelly photograph so framed, if not to capture on film the rest of the fleshly evidence not apparent from the full-body photograph? |
SPE
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
The item on the left, from which Christian has shown a section above, is the bolster. The two 'piles' of flesh are on the right side of the table. There is evidence that some of the objects in the two photographs have been moved between the two shots being taken. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Debra Arif: according to Dr. Hebberts description of the body of MJK "The hair on the pubes had been removed in this case"
Quite true, however it's worth noting the fact that the "pubes" consist of more than just the regions around the genitals, but normally extend past the "bikini line". If Hebbert had said that the labial hair had been removed the picture (pardon the slightly saucy double or triple meaning!) would have been much less fuzzy.
Jane Coram:[it looks] like pubic hair, but as has been pointed out the pubic hair was removed, so it can't be that
In fact, Hebbert was referring specifically to a method of distinguishing between male and female abdomens because the strip of pubic hair that typically continues from the genitals up to the navel in men is absent in women. Ergo, it was not possible to tell, from the abdomen alone, that this was a male or a female corpse because the pubic hair at least in that region was missing. In other words, Mary's having a "Brazilian" is not inconsistent with Hebbert's observation at all. |
peg
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:00 am: |
|
Hi all,
Please can anyone offer an explanation as to where the supposed flesh is? If it is not on the table (as Bond's report suggests), why is no other mention made of what is clearly going to be a large portion of the body. The small pile of whatever it is on the right of the table in MK2, and again seen in MK1 does not constitute the description, "The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table."
The only other way to interperet this is if Bond was refering to the other table. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 648
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
Believe it or not I actually understood all of that! I use 3D programmes in reconstructions daily, so I get used to seeing things moving around from one place to the other in mid air and how perspective and foreshortening affects things,just in the way you describe.
Keep going, I think you will be able to come up with some interesting stuff. It all adds to our knowledge of the photographs and to the layout and dimensions of Mary's room at the end of the day.....which can't be bad.
Following a discussion in the chatroom last night on this subject, Brad suggested some things that could be tried to help clarify what we are seeing there.....
It might well be that it adds nothing to the discussion....but you never know.
Be back soon with the results.
Janie
xxxx |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 490
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 2:57 pm: |
|
Guys, sorry for the delay.
Anyway. Back to the math. I have established some reference points in the picture, theoretically we may establish as many as we wish, but I choose mine because I knew how I needed to proceed
We have the head of MJK conveniently close to reference line 1, and reference line 3 goes through the center of the table. (See my previous sketches, it is important to remember my reference lines..that was the yellow ones)
I made some new measurements.
The measurements are 2.6 cm for the head and 5.1 cm for the table on my paper copy. To make these numbers correspond to a real figure, we need to establish a reference lenght in one of them. Obviously I choose the head, as the purpose of this entire endeavour is to find the size of the table.
We know Mary Jane was approximately 1.70 meters high. A surprisingly accurate method of determining the size of the head is to divide this by 8.
(I know some art schools say 7, but this simply is not true)
170/8 = 21.3
Now, lets do some math. 2.6 is supposed to be 21.3 in real life. That means 1 cm on my copy equals 8.2 cm's in real life (21.3/2.6)
Since the reference line on the table was chosen to be dead center, this makes it possible to use the measurement from here directly (the change in perspective is a constant and it equals out any differences on either side of the reference line..yes I'm clever...)
5.1x8.2=41.8
Since we know the difference in perspective makes anything on line 3 (mid-table) 1.324 times bigger than on line 1 (face), we get:
41.8x1.324=55.3
Let us say 55 centimeters. This is close to 22 inches. I'm even willing to say it might be 20 inches if anyone insists.
Not a small table.
And for those that noticed..we now have a calculated size that we may use in the second image. (The size of the table end)
Since the piece of contested material is obviously much bigger than the table, it is longer than 22 inches. It is actually much longer than that.
And it is also pretty thick material. I may do some more calculations on this later if anyone is interested. To me it seems just presposterous to say that anything this big is a piece of flesh.
The "small" pile of flesh visible in the frontal image is actually also then quite large and may account for almost everything that was carved off.
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: 4268
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
SPE wrote:
"The item on the left, from which Christian has shown a section above, is the bolster. The two 'piles' of flesh are on the right side of the table. There is evidence that some of the objects in the two photographs have been moved between the two shots being taken."
I totally agree. On all of it.
Gareth,
OK, the words 'loads' was a bit of an exaggeration, but there are two piles of flesh on the table. I would say this is what Bond refers to. He certainly didn't refer to a bolster.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 649
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
HI Helge,
Can I just clarify this...because I got 5/100 most of the time for maths....
The 22 inches is the width of the table along that yellow line? Sorry if I'm thick, but I don't mind making a fool of myself. 22 inches is the shortest measurement?
The length we can't really determine, because we can't see the full length of it, but it would be considerably longer than that.....so it isn't that small a table.
So if that pile of whatever it is is dangling over the edge of the table..........by quite a large amount....it is considerably larger 22 inches.
Have I got that right? Told you my math sucks, but to tell you the truth I had already got that approximate measurement just by eye.....I had guessed that the table was about 22inches, by 36inches...(although the longest measurement was a real guesstimate).
I would like to see anything else you come up with.
I have done some tonal measurements on that pile, but I won't post the results yet, because people's brains will implode!
I would like to see how those measurements transfer to MJK2.
Thanks for all that hard work
Janie
xxx |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 857
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Considering all the discussion here about pillows I thought it an interesting coincidence the following report from the Newhouse News Service hit newspapers today
It's not just fluffy feathers or marshmallowy synthetics in that comfy pillow of yours. There are probably also more than 1 million spores of as many as 16 types of fungus.
That's what an allergy researcher found after dissecting 10 pillows that had been slept on regularly for between 18 months and 20 years.
"Open up an older pillow and it's a cesspool of mold, mildew, fungus, dust mites and mite feces," said bedding expert Dan Schecter.
I think I'll sleep on the floor tonight with a few boiled rocks under my head.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 491
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Jane,
Thanks for the kind words. That you estimated the size to exactly what I got is only testimony to your expertise and experience in this field. Myself I am pretty rusty, so my initial eyeball estimate was about 50 cm's, which is roughly 20 inches.
The 22 inches is the short end of the table, in other words the yellow line. I might have explained this thing better, but I did my best with the time available.
I'll transfer this measurement to MJK2 as soon as possible. My schedule is pretty tight these days with some evening courses on top of the usual threadmill, so I must once again ask for patience.
By the way, I would love to see what you did with the tonal measurements. I attempted some work on that myself, but the copy I was working on was so bad, I kind of gave it up.
Donald,
Imagine how those dirty pillows used to be in 1888! (I'm sure you allready have!)
Since we discuss yucky stuff allready, what about the millions of bed mite that lives in every bed and eat happily away at the tiny pieces of skin we constantly loose.
They go through their entire life cycle there. Eating, mating, crapping...
But it is even worse! We got them living on and under our skin! Ever heard about the itch mite?
"This mite is very seldom seen, lives actually in and on the skin, with the female burrowing tunnels in the upper horny layer, particularly on the front of the wrists, the sides and webs of the fingers, the buttocks, the genitals and the feet"
Oh yes. It's not even just our beds and pillows! We're a living zoo!
Helge
(Message edited by helge on November 22, 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)
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 650
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 6:28 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
Well I'm glad I didn't make a fool of myself at least! I'll give people time to put their posts up.......and get their breath back and then I'll post the tonal thing. It's actually very simple, just showing a bit more about the area that seems to be striped for people to see what they think....either way of course.
It will be interesting to see if other people have different estimations for the size of that table and how they reached their conclusions........
Huge, well deserved hug for all the hard work,
Janie
x
xx |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1019
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 9:28 pm: |
|
Helge,
I am going to take this in parts, because a n umber of people have made different claims, and it's clearer if I tackle then one by one.
First up, your little cube graphic in no way establishes that a crooked headboard can be used to define a vanishing point. All your little cubes are specifically set up so that the angles involved are all multiples of 90 degrees, so that they all do, in fact, go to the same vanishing point regardless of height. But that's not what's being discussed here. The headboard is not lined up perfectly with the bed. It's obviously at an angle, as the support post and top edge are all crooked. You can't use that to come up with a vanishing point, because it's not lined up the same way as the bed, floor and table.
For example:
Here are three boxes of different sizes and different heights. The one in left front is elevated up off of the floor with a book you can't see but that keeps it level. The one on the right is crooked, because one side has a roll of tape under it and the other does not, making it slanted. They all have vanishing points, but you can't determine that they have the same vanishing point unless you know that the edges line up along the same geometric plane.
So as far as it being "kindergarten stuff", well, it's not really at all, it's more of an advanced concept and one most students never really pick up, but then you missed my point anyway.
So that's response one.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1020
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 10:06 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
You're next. Regarding these supposed patterns you are so dead set on believing in, the more I look at the photo the more I believe this is a image interference pattern of some sort and not on the object at all.
To start with, the image we are all using in this thread is a JPEG image of quite poor quality. JPEG is a lossy compression format, one that tries to save memory by fudging things into various overlapping boxes to approximate the image instead of recording it exactly. At low levels on good photos with a high range of tones, the naked eye can;t really tell a difference, but a computer saves a lot of space. On poor quality images with poor tonal ranges and excessive compression, the blocks quite quickly cause the image to degrade visibly, making weird little patterns.
Because these JPEG boxes are lined up with the horizontal and vertical planes, anything in the image that lines up with those directions will look better than anything going diagonally.
Here we have a variety of lines, some straight, some curved, and some diagonal:
Here's what happens when the tonal range is reduced and it's been compressed:
[image got screwed up, see post below]
Note that the greatest distortion does happen at diagonal sections... and look at the pattern that develops there: It's a checkerboard of light and dark, just as in the diagonal section of the flesh on the table that you wish to see as fabric. Note also that the rest of the supposed pillow does not have the same pattern on it.
Look at how badly compressed this thing is:
The patterns you, Christian and others think you see are very slight, and as these JPEG squares show, the color variations here seem to be coming from these whole alternating boxes shifting color one way or another.
This particular photo is one of the worst case scenarios for interference patterns... It has poor contrast, poor tonal range, is extremely grainy, and the original is quite small (half the size of the full body shot, which we have multiple copies of for comparison) old and damaged. On top of the JPEG pattern distortion going on (which are undeniable), we could very well have distortions from differing levels of chemicals used to develop the image, multiple copies of the image being made over the years (the "original" is by no means a true original, just the only print we have surviving. And, as you should know, Glenn, from desktop publishing, there are a variety of other distortion patterns to watch out for, including moiré patterns, which also are more pronounced in certain areas than others.
Without seeing the original there's no telling where this pattern comes from: computer artifact, photo artifact, the way light was cast on the original object or what.
To jump to the conclusion that this particular pattern was something printed across the surface of that object would be quite premature. In fact, if it were there on the original we should expect to see it all over the area and actually conforming very specifically to the folds in the surface, which we most certainly do not see.
And that's response two.
(Message edited by dannorder on November 22, 2005)
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1021
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 10:14 pm: |
|
And here's a retry on those lines showing the undulating checkerboard pattern that comes from JPEG compression on diagonal areas:
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
