|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 276
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 7:11 pm: | 
|
Glenn,
Webster's says: Stout (Fat, thickset, corpulent, or Noun: a fat person)
I sometimes forget English isn't your first language and I apologize for that. You usually know the ins and outs better than most native speakers.
So, she was fat... and there ARE constant attempts to glamorize MJK. Look around you, man. You can say I'm out of line, but I don't make things up.
And.. what else?... there was no bolster on the table. Take that, Mr. Excitement.
Cheers
(Message edited by baron on November 24, 2005)
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4276
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 7:31 pm: |
|
Mike,
"Webster's says: Stout (Fat, thickset, corpulent, or Noun: a fat person)"
Fair enough, but then again, 'stout' is not always used as referring to fat people. The same with buxom. According to you, everyone who may weigh - let's say - ten kilos more than normal estimated medium weight (and who might be described as ' stout'), is fat. That is just stupid.
I can just take myself as an example; I weigh approximately ten kilos more than my normal weight, calculated on my height and age, and some would probably describe me as stout or slightly corpulent, or maybe even slightly over-weight. But I am certainly not fat, nor anyone else with the same disposition as myself.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if there are people out there who wants to glamourise Mary Kelly, and believe me I've seen such attempts (Hollywood also springs to mind here, but also here on these Boards), but Jane definitely isn't one of them, nor anyone else on this thread, to my knowledge - so far. As usual you are hallucinating and interpreting things in a way that is very much your own.
And yes, it is a bolster (or a large pillow),
and the person in question who actually owns the first generation copy of the photo also confirms that it is!
You just need glasses.
This thread must be one of the most hilarious ones I have ever encountered on Casebook, and that says a lot. I am laughing so hard my stomach hurts. We really do have too much time on our hands.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 24, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1179
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 7:38 pm: |
|
Baron:
As with many things, the times determine a definition.
In our times, a guy like me [ 205-210, 6 ft. 1/2 inches, fighting weight ] would be considered a big sumbitch back in the LVP. Now,of course,thats not big at all by either standard.
Just because someone described MJK as "stout" may have meant she was zaftig [ i.e., she had a buxom bosom or was a big leg woman ]. This doesn't mean she was "fat". In fact,considering that she probably ate what Eddowes,Chapman,Nichols,and the other victims ate [ the prole diet of prostitutes ...and other poor, too fixated with getting a buzz on the beer or gin that replaced food ], Kelly's age may have been the only reason why despite this common diet with the others,that she still had some meat shakin' on the bone.
By the way,I make bolsters at my job. I've been doing that for nearly 30 years. I make them out of polyurethane foam and polyester foam. This bolster on the table,while not a polyurethane bolster,as plastic or polyfoam was not invented until the Second WW,is identical to the configuration of a modern bolster.
Would one beer drinker lie to another? |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 277
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 7:50 pm: |
|
Howard,
I don't know if it was bolster. I was just messing with Glenn about that. As far as stout goes, I'm going by Webster on it. And I also said, it doesn't matter really. What matters is a girl was killed and a bunch of her flesh (fat and all) as laid out on the little table.
Glenn,
I never said jane glamorized anything. I said that a lot of people do. And you said "According to you, everyone who may weigh - let's say - ten kilos more than normal estimated medium weight (and who might be described as ' stout'), is fat. That is just stupid."
I never said that. Find where I said it please and show it to me. I said fat just like Mr. Webster. If you have a problem, take it up with him. Wait... he's dead. Still, at least you couldn't bore him I suppose.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4278
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 7:54 pm: |
|
Mike,
"If you have a problem, take it up with him. Wait... he's dead. Still, at least you couldn't bore him I suppose."
No, and why should I? You are much more fun.
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: 665
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 7:59 pm: |
|
HI Howie,
I didn't know you make bolsters.........does that mean you can bolster my confidence? Yes you can groan at that one.......hee hee. 
You are right though.....if you look at the photo of poor Kate she was very thin and suffering from malnourishment. Polly and Annie were fat, but strangely enough suffering from malnutrition, Liz was quite an average build, and Mary was probably very busty, and well covered, but bearing in mind what we can see of her in the photo, she was just what we would call average today.
I don't drink beer but I like a man who does!
Love you heaps
Janie
xxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on November 24, 2005) |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 863
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 8:05 pm: |
|
Now my old memory isn't what it never was, so I could be really off-base here (or LBW for those across the pond) but I have a distinct recollection of once listening on a crystal set to WKRP in Cincinnati, which had a program on the Ripper. I think it was a fictional recreation featuring the detective duo of Tooddy and Muldoon.
Anyway, afterwards they took phone calls and a woman from Willimantic, Conn., (or it could have been Walla Walla, Wash.) reported hearing a story from her great-aunt Agnes Tetched, just before the poor woman was decleared incompetent.
It seems Agnes claimed, when young, to have seen Mary Jane Kelly one summer in a Brighton freak show. She was billed as "Mammoth Mary -- the Wale's Whale."
My memory may be faulty or it could be eating too much myself at Thanksgiving, but it just might shed some more light on Kelly's size.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 864
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 8:11 pm: |
|
And just to confuse everyone even more, I mention that Stephen Potter, author of Gamesmanship and the other books in the series, was often wont to use the phrase "bolster-thighed" in describing some women. Thus, it seems to me that if we simply agreed MJK was "bolster-thighed" both sides in the argument could be satisfied.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1180
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 8:12 pm: |
|
Babydoll:
Bolstering you is just one of the ideas I have when I think of you sweets...and I ain't gonna be doing the groaning. !!
I do a lot more than just making bolsters. Making them requires a basic disregard for your fingers and hands...I don't make them that often,usually for someone who comes in to the plant and requests one,...primarily for back trouble or.. ahem...for use in amorous situations. Swear to it.
Your daddy is easy.
***************************
Mike:
I hear you,homes. I am just "guessing" that MJK was a little closer to a modern woman and less like a typical emaciated [ from terrible dietary practice...and the effects of alcohol,particularly on women ] woman. Hey....what do I know?
Go to Baltimore. |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 278
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 8:12 pm: |
|
Don,
I have a poster from that side show. I imagine it could fetch a pretty penny on ebay. Still, it doesn't actually say Mary Kelly, just Mammoth Mary. I suppose it would be hard to prove.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 666
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 9:40 pm: |
|
This thread has officially just entered the Twilight zone, but it has been enlightening and an interesting discussion and it does prove one thing. No matter how much we think a subject has been investigated, we can always find out something new.
I knew I should have kept my mouth shut about the bolstering.
That will teach me.........
Howie, you're something else! hee hee
Don, you should know better.........
Mike, send me some chokkies and I won't set Germaine Greer on you.
Hugs
Janie
xxxxx
I just noticed the number of the post.....spooky!
(Message edited by jcoram on November 24, 2005) |
Erin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 63
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 11:26 pm: |
|
You'll have to excuse me because I don't have the book, but was this "professional photographer" McLaughlin mentions actually on the scene, or is his an educated opinion? If it's the latter, I'll still go with Dr. Bond. His report seems rather straightforward and unequivocal, particularly in light of my own knowledge of the proportions of the body and its tissues.
Incidentally, it's a bit difficult to judge Mary's actual size by her arms and legs, since a lot of that tissue is either missing or obscured in some way. I wouldn't go so far as to call her fat, being a rather "buxom" gal myself, but even a woman of rather average size is going to leave a lot of tissue behind (more than I think most of you recognize), and Mary was, to be fair, described by her peers as "stout." What this means in our terms is difficult to determine, but I think it's safe to say she wasn't thin as a rail. No value judgements one way or another here, just the facts of the situation.
By the way, while we're on that subject, thank you for acknowledging my contribution, Debra. I know it's tough to see those videos, revolting as they are, but I really think it does give you a good idea about the size and scope of the body mass we're dealing with here. I think it would be worthwhile for anyone with a dog in this fight to look at them, but I realize that not everyone is up for that sort of thing, particularly when it conflicts with their views on the matter.  |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 279
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 12:18 am: |
|
Wow! Although the dictionary says stout is the same as fat, I may be wrong. It's possible that Mary was stout meaning courageous, or that she's a dark, full-bodied ale. Gosh, and here I was being all literal. My mistake. Go on about your business.
(I'll never drink another Guinness without thinking of her, sniff)
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 12:48 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
Dr. Bond's report in no way mentions five pieces. Not even close. Let's go over this.
"'The skin & tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps.'
How can that be read any other way?"
I already explained this, but apparently not well enough. "Three large flaps" does not mean three separate pieces. "Flaps" can, and in fact almost always does, refer to things that hang off of other things -- envelope flaps, ear flaps, tent flaps, flapping wings on a bird, and so forth and so on. The primary usage of the word means something still connected. Even the dictionary definition you quoted earlier mentions that in the "hangs loose or projects freely" part, as something totally cut off no longer hangs or projects. It has to hang or project off of something. In this case, the three flaps being discussed are the abdomen, the top of the right thigh, and the top of the left thigh, which are all connected at the groin area and projecting off in three directions.
This is just a matter of what the word means.
"Mary only had one abdominal area covering the costal arch to the pubes.......if her killer cut off the flesh and the underlying tissue from that area in 3 large flaps.......then they could not be intact and still attached to the thighs in MJK2. That is a physically impossibility."
Oh, I finally figured out where on earth you were coming up with five pieces... You somehow got the idea that Bond said the abdomen by itself was in three separate pieces and then each thigh on top of that was five. No, that only works if you think flap means cut off, which it doesn't.
'The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock'
Here he talks about a seperate flap of skin from those cut from the abdomen. There is no way it could be open to any other interpretation.
Sorry, but, yes, there is another interpretation, and one that makes more sense because it doesn't add a "cut off completely" for no reason.
"If it have been attached the left thigh he would have said:
'The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation and the flesh of the left thigh & part of the right buttock'
Once again we have to go back to what the word "flap" means. The right thigh is a flap. The left thigh is a separate flap. They are connected to the same flesh but are hinged so that they flap ("hang loose or project freely") in separate directions. So he most certainly would not have been talking about the right thigh and the left thigh as being the same flap.
"The thighs were detached from each other and from the abdomen, it is completely impossible for them to reattach themselves flawlessly to form that pile on the left hand side of the table."
Nowhere does Bond say that they were detached from each other and the abdomen. That's not in his report. That's your interpretation of it, and in order to come up with that you need to use a different definition of the word "flap" than what it almost always means.
"If you can show me how that is possible then I will obviously accept that there is a very good possibility it is flesh, but until then I have to stick with what Bond says."
Sticking to what Dr. Bond says would be a good idea, but unfortunately that's not what you are doing. You are misreading his words to mean something other than what they say and then further inventing up a rather bizarre looking pillow out of thin air that was never mentioned in the report to try to explain something that he already described: "The whole of the surface of the abdomen & thighs was removed" and "The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table."
And that's what the photo is there to document.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 224
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 2:14 am: |
|
The picture I posted was to show the general shape of a bolster.Of course they came in all sizes,but the shape would have been cylindrical.
Those in use that I remember were filled with Flock,but feathers and horsehair were also used.
The shape they retained would depend on how densely they were packed,but most,as with the mattress would be shaken into shape daily.
It does appear to me,using a magnifying glass,that Mary's head is resting on a bolster,and the end of the bolster overlaps on to the table. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 227
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 4:09 am: |
|
Here is a 'ticking pillow'of the type Jane describes.A bolster would be of the same striping.This is genuine Victorian style. |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 196
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 4:10 am: |
|
Hi Jane and Erin
this has all gone a bit nuts now, the guys always seem to turn it into a fight to the death where there has to be a winner!
I have enjoyed reading both of your ideas on this object, but most importantly for me how you arrived at your conclusions.
We all agree we have to stick with what Dr. Bond says,and not go by what we think we see, it's just how we interpret that is the problem, The flaps thing is certainly confusing!
Thanks both of you 
Debra |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2031
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 6:16 am: |
|
Guys,
Can I ask if there is a point to this?
Respectfully....honest.
Monty
It begins.....
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2361
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 6:18 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
Oh God, why am I the only one who doesn't understand this?
Caz, The table appears bigger than it is compared to the body, yes, but this is all about the measuring unit!
A measuring unit on the head actually appears SMALLER than if it had been on the table because it is further into the picture...
Precisely so. But you started with your 2.6 cm for the head, converted it to actual size in real life and got 1 cm on the photo (where the head appears) = 8.2 cm in real life.
Your table measurement of 5.1 cm is artificially LARGE, because it is nearer the foreground than the head. Imagine Mary's feet were in the foreground and measured 2.6 + x cm on the photo, while her 2.6 cm head was further back.
Would you still be increasing the 8.2 to arrive at the actual size of her feet, when they are already artificially large, compared with her head?
I understood your explanation but it doesn't address my question: why are you increasing the length of something that is already artificially larger than it should be, when compared with your starting point - Mary's head?
If Mary's head = 1 in the photo, and the table = 1.324 in the photo, because of the perspective, shouldn't your table measurement be reduced to compensate?
BTW, we have quite an old table on which we keep a wine rack and a few odds and sods. It measures 42 cm x 58 cm. And I would describe it as tiny.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 25, 2005) |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 197
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 6:20 am: |
|
Hi again Jane
I have looking into this flaps business since you first mentioned it and from other autopsy descriptions I have been reading since, in particular from one of the torso murders, the word flaps was use in this particular case to describe two separate pieces of skin taken from the abdomen, and found quite separately from any other section of the body.
I was seeing the object as one continuous piece of flesh, still not seeing a bolster yet though.
Debra |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3247
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 6:34 am: |
|
Monty,
a point to the thread?
a point to life?
a point to a specific part of the thread?
who knows, there's as much point here as anywhere maybe?
But that said, i can quite see where you are coming from as this thread is also doing in my head!
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 667
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 11:10 am: |
|
HI Debra,
That was an interesting point....I never saw that before, thanks for bringing that out. It's amazing how much is tucked in that we miss until it is brought up in discussions like this.
I think really that we are not going to resolve this bolster/flesh issue now though, but it has been confirmed to me by two separate experts, that it is in fact a bolster and I have to accept that the object on the table is a bolster, so I am bailing out of the discussion, because it seems we have reached a stalemate, although I am certain I will give in, if something else comes up that I really feel would be useful to other researchers.
I might have to put one more up on Harry's pillow as I have just seen something interesting there. I am going to ration myself though!
I am quite happy with the decision I have come to on it and others will be just as happy, which is just the way it usually pans out anyway.
I have the information I have to do my research so I'm a very happy little bunny. I found out a lot of new stuff I didn't know and I am looking forward to seeing Helge's work on the perspectives in MJK2, so I think it's been a very worthwhile thread.
I think that Harry's pic of the pillow is useful too, because a lot of people on the boards might not have seen what a feather ticking pillow looks like, especially those from other countries, or younger members of the board. This would have been found on practically every bed in the East End at the time, in different shapes......
Hugs Janie
(Message edited by jcoram on November 25, 2005) |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 280
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
Monty,
There is no point to this. It is inane. It is much like life itself in that respect.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 668
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
HI Erin,
I can see exactly why many people have reached the conclusion that it is flesh, because it is one of those situations where, circumstances seem to have conspired to play tricks on the viewer.
It really does look like it could be a pile of flesh, but I bow to the judgement of those experts that have had the opportunity to study the original photograph first hand and can see it without the drawback of added degradation and scanning imperfections. So if they say unequivically that it is a bolster, who am I to disagree?
You put up some very good posts though, which have been very helpful, so thank you for that.
Oh by the way, I am the least squeemish person in the universe. How many people do you that can eat a plate of spahetti bolognese whilst looking at a drawing of someone that has been disembowelled and colouring up the entrails in glorious technicolour with the other hand! 
Huge hug,
Janie
xxxx
I haven't looked at that link of yours yet, but I will, sounds interesting. You are right about the amount though......quite terrifying! |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 669
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
I can see your reasoning on the flaps, and it does go to show that there are always more than one way to view information that we read in statements etc., so that has been really helpful. It shows how important it is to get expert opinion wherever possible, because they might stand more of a chance than we do! 
I have to do the diagrams of Mary Kelly's wounds, and I don't want to get it wrong, Kate's were bad enough! I will make sure I get them vetted by as many people as I can before they go in the book, so that I know I haven't messed up. I'll post them all up when they are done as they did turn up some interesting stuff.
I personally do feel that Dr Bond is stating that it was taken in separate flaps, especially in view of Debra's post, which more or less clinches it for me.....but I can see how it could be interpreted in different ways. I have a pathologist friend who is going to do a full report on the photo for me shortly and I will add that question to the list and maybe get her to sketch on a diagram where the cuts would likely have been.
As I said in an earlier post, if I am seeing it as a bolster then at least I'm not the only one, so I don't feel bad about it.
It's been a good discussion, but I really am bailing out now, (well trying to!) and you did bring up some really good points that I had overlooked, so thanks.
Love you millions 
Janie
xxx |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 670
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
Mike,
This may not have been a useful thread to you, but I have found out the following from it.
1. That Dr Bonds report, in fact any report, needs to be examined very carefully, because they may not always say what we think they say and it's worth getting other opinions on it.
2. That Mary's pubic hair had been removed, which I didn't know before.
3. Debras's point about the flaps of skin in the torso murder.
4. That the ticking on the pillow that Harry put up, matches the stripes on that portion of the object on the table exactly.
5. What flesh looks like when it is cut from the human body, courtesy of Erin.
6. How big the table was from Helge and lots more great stuff that was very useful and more to come I hope.
ad infinitum...........even if you aren't able to use this information in your research, there are lots of others who might be able to.
So maybe we are just sad individuals who need to get a life, but I have been saved about a months work just reading this thread, so I am very happy. It's also given me three new spreads for the book!
I still love you though, because you make me laugh. 
Janie
xxx |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 281
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 2:12 pm: |
|
Jane, so I amuse you? I'm funny, you find me funny how? Like a clown? Is that it? I'm funny like a f*ing clown?
You do have an impressive list of things you've learned, but how does all that matter as we increase our dependency on outside oil, waging war in order to control the world's supply, not caring that the ozone is depleted, the waters are polluted, the indigenous peoples either die off or are assimilated, and the earth spins wildly out of control in its irreversible voyage toward extiinction?
Did I mention possible meteor strikes and avian flu?
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 672
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 2:19 pm: |
|
I can't do anything personally about the things you mention Mike, but I can write a book about Jack and make some money, so I can donate loads of it to those worthy causes.
Get out of that one. 
And you're still funny.
xxxxxx
I do care about those things, very much so......if I had a magic wand things would be very different. |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 282
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
Saint Jane,
I think Howie has a magic wand. Maybe between the two of you...
(Go away evil images!)
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
So you found two people who agreed with what you already thought who supposedly have some sort of tenuous skill in something related to who knows what, and now they are "experts" "proving" you right?
This despite the facts that the stripes on the pillow above absolutely do not match with the alleged pattern pointed out on the object in the photo (which was even described earlier by a supporter as a checkerboard), that even Helge's estimates on the size of the table prove the claims you and he were making earlier about the size of the object were completely wrong, and that the only notes from the actual crime scene contradict what your supposed experts say?
Well, if nothing else, that's par for the course for these messageboards.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 673
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 4:33 pm: |
|
HI Dan,
I can't really go into who confirmed that it is a bolster, because it wouldn't be right for me to do so.....but I was satisfied that they did have the credentials to make the definitive decision on the matter. It wasn't a case of them agreeing with me....it was just an independent statement I saw elsewhere, completely aside of my thoughts on it. All I can say is that I respect their opinions enough to take whatever they say as read.
I'm not sure that the table size estimates by Helge are wrong. Mine was just a wild guess anyway, which I freely admit to, it just happened to be the same as Helge's. Which might or might not show that I am a good guesser. That's about all.
Ultimately it hasn't been proved one way or the other what that is on the table. I just said I was happy to accept that it was a bolster now without reservations because I had received information that satisfied me from several other sources. It doesn't mean I'm right, it just means that I am satisfied.
We all have our thoughts on things, that's mine......if it's wrong, it's wrong, but I do have to stick with what I believe to be correct, even if a lot of others don't agree with me. I do think you are still in the majority with your view, so I am just going to have to live with it!
But it has been a very profitable discussion for me and I respect your views on it......you fight a good fight Dan ......and I would rather have you on my side than otherwise......can we find something we agree on next time and I can hide behind you and let you take them on...... because once you get your teeth into something you're a formidable opponent. Remind me never to challenge you to a game of chess!
Love you heaps
Janie
xxx
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1189
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 11:10 pm: |
|
On another thread, Ms.Leanne Perry posted this. I think it more or less points out that the table in question was a kitchen table.
"The 'Illustrated Police News' 17 November 1888 said: 'it contained little besides a bed, a rickety table and a COUPLE of chairs."
Based on this information,I would tend to think that the murderer of MJK moved that table and that it was NOT there at the outset of her murder.
Thanks to L.P. for posting this on that thread.... |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 653
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 12:31 am: |
|
"I would tend to think that the murderer of MJK moved that table "
I doubt he moved it just to have a handy place to put the bolster.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Erin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 66
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 4:13 am: |
|
Perhaps it's the late hour but I'm really not clear on why it matters if it was a kitchen table or not. It's not as if Mary had a 7-piece Louis Philippe dining set in there. I can't imagine her kitchen table being all that large, certainly not large enough to hold a massive amount of flesh and a big bolster as well.
By the way, thanks very much for your kind words, Jane. Although we may disagree I'm glad we can appreciate each other's contributions to the ever-expanding body (no pun intended) of Ripper knowledge.
On another note, I was going to post some interesting tidbits I picked up about the condition of the skin after death, but it's currently 3 am here and I'm really supposed to be working on a paper, anyhow.  |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1191
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 9:08 am: |
|
Erin:
The reason I brought up Leanne's reference was that if it was the only table in the house,then undoubtedly it was the kitchen table...as well as being an all-purpose table. Its position next to the bed indicates something else worth considering...
...did the police move that table to accomodate the photographer in order to get "everything" into one photo?
Certainly being the only table in the house would mean it would be moved by MJK to accomodate her needs from time to time and thats understood.
But could it have been the police that moved it to allow Martin to get as much into one photo ? |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Erin,
Thanks for the anatomy tour - I'll have my dinner first, however!
In order to demonstrate the point that what we see at the front edge of the table are likely to be the abdominal flaps reported by Bond, please see below possibly the worst montage in history. I have juxtaposed some pork belly slices in roughly the same position (picture has been "before-and-aftered" for easier comparison).
Although I couldn't find an illustration with the right curvature, I think its clear that what we see in both Kelly photographs are portions of Kelly's abdomen and not thigh flesh, which would be much thicker and - as Erin points out - would hold their shape better: picture a thick gammon steak. Thigh meat would not "flop" to the extent that strips from the belly would.
I couldn't find an illustration of "Under-saddle of pork", least of all "Under-saddle with top right thigh off the bone", as neither of those are popular cuts of meat. However, if somebody knows a friendly charcutière out there willing to sacrifice a pig carcase to advance the cause of Ripperology, do drop us a line...
 |
S P Evans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
I say that it's a bolster, no doubt about it. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 8:39 pm: |
|
Jane,
"And Mary was not fat.....she was buxom.....her arms and legs and face show a well proportioned woman with an attractive shape, just slightly on the plumpish side."
This is where, perhaps, things will start to go pear-shaped ;o)
I was once greatly enamoured of an Irish girl who was, let's say, "willowy" only from the waist up. The rest of her - from the waist down - was splendidly, let's say, "buxom". |
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Hello Caz,
No, I don't think you have to go back to school. You are quite right: rather than multiplied the figure should have been divided by 1.32 which would make the table's depth 12 to 13 inches.
The mistake that has been made is that before taking the actual size of the head into account, the ratio between the table's depth and the head's length should have been calculated. So either the 2.6 cm of the head should have been multiplied by 1.32, or the 5.1 cm of the table divided by 1.32.
The ratio of the table and the head would of course be in both cases 3 to 2.
Kindest regards,
Martin |
tonyhallam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 10:59 pm: |
|
hi all
Could the stripes on the flesh/pillow be from the daylight shineing through a net/lace curtain,
on the window? as you can see from this sample
the lines follow the contours exactly.
also as for the size of the lump did i read somewhere that one of the breasts was placed under the lump of flesh,if im correct then buxom
would mean big breast and so would not fit under the small pile of innards, and bulk up the the big pile?
 |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1033
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 3:06 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
The problem here is that having someone tell you that he or she thinks it's a bolster is not "confirming" that it's a bolster... unless that person was there at the time and saw it.
I see Stewart posted a reply here (good to have you back, Stewart), so I suspect that it was he who you are referring to, especially as he is often a contact of choice for various people to ask questions of. So we know now what his opinion is, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is correct.
Hi Gareth,
If the flesh on the right side of the table is indeed cut off separate pieces of abdomen, the size of the pile is way too small to be all of the missing flesh that Bond reported was located there. In that case the flesh from the thighs and the groin/buttock area would still be unaccounted for, which would point even more strongly at that being what's on the left side of the table, as you would have confirmed part of Bond's report, making the rest of it a foregone conclusion.
Hi Tony,
Yes, light patterns is one possibility. Certainly whatever this alleged pattern is it's not just straight vertical lines across the surface of a pillow, as they don't flow that way at all, not even in the slightest. If we are indeed seeing a real pattern of some sort and not just an artifact of the photo development process and/or the JPEG compression, the pattern is at a strange enough angle and curvature that I think the source would have to be projected onto the surface from elsewhere, such as from patterns in the window (I doubt they'd have the curtains drawn, as they'd want as much light as possibly in order to take the photo -- unless it was a thin covering that let light in but cut down a little on what people outside could see perhaps), light through slats of table/through door frame, or so forth.
On the other hand, the newspaper report of a breast being on the table was incorrect, as Dr. Bond's report lists one by the foot and one under her head. The shape of the one piece that is somewhat rounded may have prompted that idea from someone who hadn't had a close look but who talked to the press later.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4280
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Dan,
No one thinks it's a bolster - it is! It is just silly when you compare people like me and Jane with those who see strange things like 'FM' on the wall.
It is not like this part of the picture needs any personal interpretation - what the item really depicts is quite clear. I can't explain why some people can't see it, but the fact that they for some strange reason don't, doesn't make you any more right.
There is nothing in Bond's reports that confirms that this particular item is human or that he is referring to this item specifically; there are other items of flesh that he could have referred to, but without any evidence of the sort you seem convinced of that Bond includes THIS piece on his list, and therefore refuses to see what your eyes tells you.
There is a blown up, very good and clear scanned cut-out section from Stewart's first generation copy of the photo, where the folds of the fabric - and the linear pattern following the folds and the angles of the wrinkles - and the seams on the fabric are very visible. It is perfectly clear that we are talking about a stuffed piece of fabric, like a large pillow or a bolster and nothing else.
As I will not offend the owner of the photo (you-know-who) by posting a copy of it here without asking him, I refer to the link on jtrforum.co.uk (the thread 'Flesh or pillow' - posted 24/11/2005 6:01 PM), which contains the image in question, kindly with courtesy of SPE.
Here is the link: http://www.jtrforums.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1510&posts=27#M16832
Anyone who 'interprets' or 'thinks' that object is coming from parts of a human body, certainly needs glasses.
I am sorry, but besides believing my own eyes, I prefer to rely on the opinions on someone who actually owns the first generation copy of the photograph and have a vast experience in reading and interpreting the documents of the case, among them the medical reports.
You are wrong as usual when it comes to your own graphic interpretations. The linear pattern on the fabric does definitely follow the folds and the wrinkles of the object, as well as the angles. It is also strange to note, that if it was a pattern created by light or digital dirt, then why is it only visible on this particluar object? In addition, besides having seen numerous crime scene photographs of dead bodies, I have never seen young human skin wrinkle like that.
But then I know that you would never admit that you are wrong about anything - I guess hell would freeze over before we should see that one.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 27, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 632
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Hi Martin,
I didn't use the head in my calculation and I came up with a 19" width. I don't see it being wider than 20" nor narrower than 18". The only thing that would throw this off is if the table legs are not 2X2. They certainly aren't 1X1 or 3X3 so unless they are some bastard size then they have to be 2X2. (Note: I used to work in a factory and bastard size is a common term meaning an odd size part or tool. It is in no way taken as a swear word in that setting.)
Stan |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1034
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 10:04 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
What you say is not an argument, it's just you declaring yourself right and not providing any sort of supporting evidence. That may be many people's standard operating procedure in this field, but it doesn't make you right. Stewart has an opinion, you have an opinion, Jane has an opinion, but other than declaring yourself right you've presented nothing that has any sort of solid evidence in your favor. Much to the contrary, many of the claims you, Jane and Helge have presented have been shown to be completely false regarding the size and especially this silly pattern of yours that you can;t even agree amongst yourselves what it looks like).
By the way, linking to Ivor Edwards' site isn't very helpful, as people have to be registered to see it. Ivor also has a long-standing habit of removing anyone he disagrees with, as you well know.
And you are once again ignoring the policy against making personal attacks so you can try to advance yourself by throwing insults instead of making a rational argument. Instead of beating your chest and presenting yourself as never wrong, please give some real argument why everyone should ignore Dr. Bond's extremely clear statement that the flesh in question was on the table and instead just decide that the onject, which just happens to have muscles poking through the surface and a vagina in exactly the right spot, can somehow be some imaginary pillow that no record exists of. You can complain about being compared to those who see a "FM" on the wall, but at least there they can claim that maybe the police (somehow amazingly) missed the writing and didn't notice it, whereas you would have us believe that a trained medical doctor who was actually there at the time couldn't tell the difference between a piece of fabric and the flesh removed from a dead woman.
I respect Stewart, but he hasn't given us anything here other than his claim that it's fabric, with no reason to believe it other than taking his word. I'm afraid I will have to take Dr. Bond's word in this instance as being more reliable than Stewart's.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 873
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 10:30 pm: |
|
Stewart Evans's image is available right here at the end of the first archival section for this thread. Stephen posted it with a thanks to Stewart.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 290
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 12:12 am: |
|
So... I'm watching "The Village" tonight and there's a scene where a couple of men are tossing perhaps a pig carcass onto an altar in the woods. As the carcass rolls, I can't help but noticing that it looks like the "Bolster" in the photo. Now I haven't made my mind up on this yet, but if I think of skin as nothing but smooth hide that holds all the flesh and stuff in it, like a sheath, then if it (the hide) were face down on the table, with all or most of the flesh still inside attached, and the table is only aboout 19 inches or so... well, it's a good argument. If it was the underside of the thigh, the hamstring, and the girl had some meat on her bones (Stout=fat, remember?), that could easily fill that little table. With the skin side up, it would look a lot like... I don't know, filled fabric?
Just some thoughts. (Who said you can't learn anything from a lousy film?)
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Antonio Sironi
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 4:33 am: |
|
Even if my own opinion is of very little use I have to agree with Jane, Glenn and Stewart. Glenn simply explains his own idea and I can’t see any insult against you Dan. You are totally free to think whatever you want, but to me it’s very hard to see something different from a pillow. The size of the object in itself, doesn’t match with a piece of Kelly’s body. It’s simply too big to be flesh coming from her. I also think that it’s not necessary at all to look in Dr. Bond’s report to find the answer to this “mystery” it’s enough to look at the picture. Unfortunately, Dr. Bond notes are inaccurate and there are some gaps in them. He doesn’t explain everything.
By looking carefully at the picture, you can see that the size of the object is incomparable to Mary’s body (and to everyone’s else body).
Antonio Sironi |
Jonathan Menges
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 4:04 am: |
|
Does anyone know how the organs on the table were removed from the room? Do we know which was made first, Bond's observations that he put in the report or the photograph? Could the "bolster" be pieces of the victim wrapped up in a sheet? I ask because it does not look lke either a bolster or a pile of flesh to me, but rather like something has been wrapped up.
J Menges |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4282
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 3:21 pm: |
|
I can't agree with you, Menges, since there actually are stitches and seams on the object in question, which are relatively visible on high resolution copies that I've seen so far of that section of the photo. It is definitely a bolster or a large pillow.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Helge Samuelsen
Chief Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 506
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
Dan,
I would like to see where you have proved that my calculations are "completely false regarding the size".
So far I have only seen an obvious failure to understand the principles involved on your part.
Those calculations have nothing to do with mine, Glenn's or Jane's opinions. I submitted them here, and also stated my opinion on how to interpret them. That you do not agree on that interpretation is fine, but stating things like you just did without basis in any science known to man whatsoever is ridiculous.
The table is large enought to make that pile of "flesh" so massive that it it will not fit on any woman. Calling it a small table will not change that. Besides, you need to believe in a supernatural Jack to think that he could have "lifted" that piece unscathed off the body. Ask any surgeon if it is at all possible.
Also, remember, if it is indeed flesh, what holds it all up? The bones are still on the bed, and the flesh on those bones are but a few centimetres thick even on above average people. The very fact that it LOOKS (to some) like it is the thighs plus pubic area is a sure way of knowing it IS NOT! It would never look like this! It would sink together to make a pitifully small heap of flesh.
And please, no one should take my word for it. Do some research.
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.
|
|
|
|
