|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2666
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 10:13 pm: |       |
One of the questions I get most about Mary Kelly is: "What in the @*#$ am I looking at in that second photograph??" I thought it might prove worthwhile to take a closer look at it.
The "second photograph" is the one anonymously returned to Scotland Yard in 1988. It is a close-up of Kelly's abdominal region, taken from the opposite direction of the "standard" photograph - facing the door and window. The utter destruction of Kelly's body makes the photograph difficult to interpret - are we looking at thighs, abdomen, arms, organs... or what?
Nick Warren wrote in 1996 that he believed this photograph was taken to document the splitting of Kelly's left femur.
quote:Some Medical Observations on the Ripper Case - Part 1
Nick Warren. From Ripperana, No. 18, Oct. 1996.
"Examination of the details shown in this photograph indicates that Kelly's left femur (thigh-bone) has been split logitudinally from the hip downwards, exposing the marrow cavity. The outer part of the bone (cortex) stands out in clear relief. It was presumably to record this detail that the photograph was taken, as the camera-angle has been selected to place this specific injury virtually in the centre of the exposure."
After some thirty minutes of staring I was able to finally discern the apparent outline of a bisected femur. To aid this discussion I laid a grid on top of this photograph (see above). The femur, as I see it, begins (starting from the hip) in the right half of B5, and angles about 30 degrees upward to continue into C5. What we're seeing here, according to Nick, is literally a cross-section of the femur, split lengthwise. He goes on to argue that no such injury could have been performed with a knife, and that something in the order of a hatchet must have been used to have performed this splitting of the bone. A close-up look of this section of the photograph is below.
I also include an anatomical image of the "frontal longitudinal midsection of left femur" below. I've changed the orientation of the image to put it in roughly the same position as Kelly's.
Not being a medical practicioner, I have to say that I believe Nick may be right in his conclusion - the bone structures look very similar. But if this is what we're seeing, why didn't Bond mention this extremely important detail in his post-mortem? His only comments on this portion of the anatomy: "The left thigh was stripped of skin fascia, and muscles as far as the knee.
My question (the first of many I have on this photograph): Are we really seeing a longitudinally-split femur bone? Or, could this be some other structure - either anatomy or fabric, folds of skin or a trick of light and shadow?
If the femur is indeed split, then I have to agree with Nick that no knife could have done such a thing. Take a look at the image at the very bottom of this post to get an idea of the thickness of this particular bone. Could a hatchet have done such a strangely-symmetrical cross-section? What else could have done it? Also, why did Bond not mention it in his post-mortem, and why was it not mentioned in any of the surviving inquest testimony and police records?
I have other questions about this photograph, but I will break them up into separate threads to ease the flow of conversation.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Tom_Wescott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 11:03 pm: | |
Stephen and all,
It seems unlikely with me that the Ripper had a hatchet with him for the Kelly murder. He was clearly in a frenzy, and had he had a hatchet, I imagine we'd see more than one wound inflicted by it. They'd have been picking chunks of bone up all of the room. The photo does not clearly depict a split femur, only suggests, as you noted, that that's one possibility among many. Personally, I think Nick Warren's wrong on this particular detail.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Maura
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 3:53 pm: | |
Concerning the two photos of Mary Kelly's aftermath, I've read that in a typical person, the femoral head is angled about 20-25 degrees forward of a horizontal line between the acetabula (hipsockets]. Thus, in order to slice a femur--in situ--along the axis depicted, one would need a heavy and hellishly sharp axe or cleaver, wielded from an extremely awkward position.
If it could be accomplished when the crime target was standing, could the blow have been delivered from someone standing in front of and to the side of the victim? This of course precludes that the fact that ribs, abdomen and pelvic bones would be in the trajectory.
Though I've read much on the abominable scene at Mary Kelly's, I don't remember much about the lividity which also intrigues me. Also I'd be interested to hear any unusual personal theories postulated about the Ripper's mode of initial attack on Kelly in rending her powerless. |
unknown
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 8:07 am: | |
It is impossible for having such an amazing dissection in only a short period of time. As far as I had performed human dissection in anatomy experimental lessons, it spent me 1 hrs or more in order to dissect throughout the legs.And the most difficult part is, dissecting the femur.... |
Antagora C.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 5:44 pm: | |
I have to say that anyone can do the mess the we all see in that picture..i mean, it doesn´t matter if you have experienced with human dissection, just take a knife, take off her clothes and start to cut her. you will see the result.
Maybe i´m wrong....but, maybe i´m correct too.} |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 1:51 pm: | |
Maybe Kelly's longitudinally divided femur means the same thing as Eddowes' longitudinally divided kidney to the murderer. Maybe he's just out to show what he can do, surgeon-wise. So maybe he thinks that longitudinal division is a way to show he knows his onions, so to speak. Anyone can just hack away at a corpse, but it takes a real professional to divide complex and diverse tissues longitudinally, especially under difficult circumstances. Is there any possible way a femur could be longitudinally divided using a regular knife, instead of a leverage tool like a hatchet?
Saddam
|
Steven Atkins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 1:08 pm: | |
Hi David,
Firstly I am not at all convinced that the what we are seeing in the second photograph is a divided femur at all.
In fact,what appears to be Kelly's left leg in this photo is ,I believe just "Bunched up",blood stained bed sheet!
This can clearly be seen in the full length photograph which shows that the left knee is actually lying virtually flat on the matress.
Also evident in the first photograph is a very marked tonal contrast between the outer flesh and the "Red meat" when we look at Kelly's right leg.There is no such contrast if we study Kelly's "Femur" section in the smaller photograph.
We also have the fact that there is no mention of any such bone splitting in Bonds detailed report.
However,in his report,Bond tells us the 5th and 6 vertebrae were deeply notched indicating that the Ripper had unsuccesfully tried to decapitate Kelly twice and thus demonstrated that he had no idea that softer cartlidge lay sandwhiched between each vertebrae.
In conclusion, I think it highly unlikely that the Ripper performed any major spliting of bones.
The longitudinally divided femur is both an optical illusion and a red herring.
Best regards,
Steven |
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 59
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 2:41 pm: | |
Hi Steven,
what appears to be Kelly's left leg in this photo is ,I believe just "Bunched up",blood stained bed sheet!
This can clearly be seen in the full length photograph which shows that the left knee is actually lying virtually flat on the matress.
Kelly's bed and body (at least the right and left leg) were moved for some unknown reason in the second photograph. The body must have been repositioned after Bond was called in.
" The right arm was slightly abducted from the body and rested on the mattress. The elbow was bent, the forearm supine with the fingers clenched. The legs were wide apart, the left thigh at right angles to the trunk and the right forming an obtuse angle with the pubes".
The (divided?) femur does seem to be "virtually in the centre of the exposure". Why?
Take care,
Kevin |
Steven Atkins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 5:57 pm: | |
Hi Kevin,
I remain unconvinced,so let me deal with some of your points.
Firstly I think when Bond refers to "The left leg" he means literally the leg on the left and not Kellys left leg.
Also,in the smaller picture,for those who think they are looking at the split thigh bone,Both legs would appear to be in roughly the same position.
I accept that Kelly's right knee may have fallen towards the wall when the bed was moved for the photograph, but disagree the Kelly's left leg has been moved for the photograph.
The idea that something a significant as the splitting of the largest bone in the body should be left out of the post mortem report makes no sense at all.
Also,if as you suppose the femur has been split in half,why cant we see the very dark,blood rich flesh that surrounds the femur?
This can bee seen plainly on the other leg in the full length photograph.A vivid tonal contrast between the outer skin and tissue surrounding the bone.
Best regards,
Steven |
Maryanne
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 6:26 pm: | |
Is it true that he had had almost decapitated her though? I read that her head was only attached by some skin and so was one of her arms? |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 172
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 1:14 pm: | |
It is very difficult to decipher exactly what is shown in the second photo. I think the large "arch" or "mound" (C-4/D-4 in the photo above) is actually a bunched up portion of Mary's gown. This can clearly be seen in the first photo in a location corresponding to the "arch" in the second photo. However, I am at a loss to explain where Mary's left thigh is in the photo. I can only conclude that what remains of it is not visible in the shadows. The autopsy report indicates that the thigh was stripped of skin and muscles, so whatever remained would not have been readily visible if in shadow. In fact, the only reason we see the right thigh in the first photo is because the femor bone is clearly visible in the light. The remaining flesh on that thigh is indistinguisable from the bloody sheet below it.
If in fact the "arch" is a part of Mary's left leg, it cannot be her knee that we are seeing (top of the arch). The geometry is all wrong. From the angle the picture is taken, the knee would have to be much farther from the pubic region, well out of the picture or hidden by her gown if positioned at a right angle to the trunk as stated in the autopsy and shown in the first photo. I'm not saying the knee was under the gown, but that from the angle of the second photo, the arch formed by the bunched up gown would obstruct the camera's view of the knee. This assumes that the body was not moved in between photos. I had at first thought the "arch" was Mary's left hip (distorted). Granted, when I look at the photo closer, this doesn't seem quite right, either. But I don't see how it could be her knee.
Andy
|
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 2:14 pm: | |
Hi Steven,
You wrote,
Firstly I think when Bond refers to "The left leg" he means literally the leg on the left and not Kellys left leg.
Look again at the first photograph.
" The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed, the shoulders flat but the axis of the body inclined to the left side of the bed. The head was turned on the left cheek. The left arm was close to the body with the forearm flexed at a right angle and lying across the abdomen...
The right arm was slightly abducted from the body and rested on the mattress...
The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood...
The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone"
I think Bond is describing Kelly's right and left. In the first photograph Kelly's left kneecap appears to be pointed directly at the camera, below the table. Left leg resting flat on the bed. In the second photograph, the left leg seems to be angled at 80-90 degrees, not flat on the bed, kneecap up and slightly above the table. IMHO the body was manipulated, positioned or moved in the second photograph.
I agree with you (among others). I do not think a longitudinally-split femur could have been "left out of the post mortem report". However I am still bothered by "this specific injury virtually in the centre of the exposure".
Take care,
Kevin
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 173
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 2:22 pm: | |
Stardard autosy reporting procedure is to refer to "left" and "right" body parts from the perspective of the deceased, not the observer. You are quite right, Kevin.
Andy
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 175
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 2:13 pm: | |
Just to illustrate what I have described above about the second photo:
At D6 in this picture you will see a protion of Mary's stained gown "ruffled up."
At C4/D4 in this picture, I believe that the "arch" we see is that same portion of ruffled-up gown and not Mary's left leg or knee.
Andy
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 729
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 7:41 pm: | |
G'day,
Last week I went with friends to a 'Trivia Night', and one question was 'What is the strongest bone in the human body?' ANSWER: 'The Femur!'
I haven't been following this discussion, and you probably already knew that, but I thought I'd mention it anyway!
 LEANNE!
|
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 9:33 am: | |
Hi Andy,
Yes, but look at the center of C/4 second photo. There seems to be a distinctive cut in the area between light and dark. The ruffled chemise in the first photograph is not cut, in fact it stands rather erect. I know it may have wilted. Notice that the cuts on Kelly's left leg D7 first photo nearly match the darkened vertical patches C/4, D/4 second photo. The arch in the second photo seems much longer than the stained gown "ruffled up", in the first photo.
Lastly, look at the shape of the top ruffled-up gown, first photo. The top is fluffy, more mass. In the second picture, right edge of D/4, the lighter area (chemise or left leg) tapers evenly towards the foot.
You could be right though, it is very difficult to make out what’s what in the second photo.
Take care,
Kevin
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 176
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 11:34 am: | |
Hi Kevin,
You know, the more I have looked at these photos and compared them to the autopsy report the more I am confused.
There is no doubt that by "right" and "left" Bond is speaking from the perspective of the victim. He says that Mary's head was turned on "the left cheek." Photo 1 clearly shows that Mary's head is turned on her left cheek. [In fact, it is this image of her featurless face staring into the camera that makes the photo so haunting to me].
Now comes the hard part. Bond describes the left thigh as being "at right angles to the trunk." Photo 1 does not seem to show this. Mary's left thigh appears in D6/D7 with her left knee in C7. [At first I thought D6/D7 showed her knee, but this would make her left shin impossibly long and bent.] But the left thigh in the photo is not at right angles with the trunk. Rather, it forms an acute angle. So was the body moved prior to the photo? Well, Bond also describes the left thigh as "stripped of skin, fascia & muscles as far as the knee." That's not what photo 1 shows. It shows skin on the left thigh. So we are not just dealing with a re-positioned body. There is a discrepency between the written autopsy report and what we appear to see in the photo. I have to believe Bond's report as he had the best view of the body. Therefore, I must conlcude that we are not seeing what we appear to be seeing in the photopragph.
Kevin, I don't see any cuts at D7 in photo 1, and I'm not sure I see any in photo 2. But even if we are looking at the left thigh in photo 2, photos 1 and 2 show different sides of that leg, so how could we be seeing the same cuts in both?
As to the shape and height of the "ruffle," you can't tell from photo 1 since you are looking directly at the top of it. You can't tell the shape or height of an object when looking straight down on it. I is difficult to tell, but I believe the arch we are seeing in photo 2 is the "underside" of that ruffle, hidden from the view of the camera in photo 1.
I think there are some tricks of camera angles to be reckoned with.
Andy
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 10:22 pm: | |
I think Steven is correct when he says the area identified as a femur is not.
What I did is try to find common elements in both photos and then line them up. My rough results are shown here:
http://www.ripperology.com/MJK-photo-angles.html
I picked the bottom of the wrist, circled it in both photos, and then did the same to the line on the leg (the sock or garter or cut or whatever it was). Then I picked the corner of the table and drew green lines, one from each identified point on the body to the table corner. This gives a frame of reference in both photos.
Then I made a larger green line in the halfway point between those two lines. The area thought by some to be a femur hit that halfway point almost exactly. I drew red lines to indicate the shape in the one photo, and then tried to sketch where it would appear in the other. You'll notice that it's at a very drastic angle... too drastic, I believe, to be her leg.
I then tried drawing a dark blue line from the wrist to the knee in the photo were both could be seen, and then what I thought was a similarly angled line in the other photo. If this is an accurate indication of where the leg should be, it appears that is under or in the dark area. The lighter area leading up to the knee should be just off the edge of the photo, if this is right.
From the looks of it, the lump area identified as a knee in the closeup shot would actually be that lump of bedcloth or whatever it is that's visible at an angle in the other shot.
Now, of course the problem with this is not knowing how much the body was moved between shots.
In order for that lump to be a knee, and the area in dispute to be an actual femur, it seems to me that the body would have had to have been shoved up on to the bed closer to the wall. And her head is pretty close to the wall already in the other shot, so it can only go so far back.
The other thing to be concerned with is if the body or bed was rotated between photos. I believe it would have to be a significant rotation in order to get the knee that far up toward the table. It doesn't appear to me that that's what we are seeing.
With some extra work more lining up of items in the photographs should be possible, which would help to try to pinpoint if the body was moved substantially between shots. From what I have seen so far I would find it hard to believe that could be a femur, split or no. It looks reminiscent of one, but I think the angles are all wrong. |
Steven Atkins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 7:48 pm: | |
Hi Andrew,Kevin.
Kevin,yes you are right.
When Dr.Bond mentions a right limb he means HER right limb.I should have checked the report more closely.
When I read another P/M report(Which I shall have to dig out),the docter,in his description,had seemed to reverse the position of each body part as it appeared in the picture.I then assumed this to be standard practise.
Andrew,I agree the the general perspective is wrong and that we are looking at viscera spattered cloth and not Kelly's knee.
For those convinced that the are looking at a split femur,study the image again.
The shaft of the "Bone" seems to curve impossibly, backwards towards the table.
Maybe the intended focal point of the image was the pubic area itself,where arguably the most extensive mutilation occured.
Best regards
Steven |
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 66
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 5:23 pm: | |
Hey Guys,
Dan's Photoshop work is top shelf. A must see. It will take me a while to digest (sorry) the angles. Great thread!
Take care,
Kevin |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 126
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 9:18 pm: | |
Does anyone know if her left arm was positioned as it is in the photograph? Reason for asking is that if this where its natural position at the time of death the fingers and/or wrist should have been either severed or bore the marks of the instrument that cut her. If it was moved to this position, it is possible other limbs were moved as well.
Shannon |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 181
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 12:58 pm: | |
Dan,
Wow, this is a fantastic photo enhancement! Would it be possible to post the enhancements without the drawn lines?
At this point I have got to say that I am more confused than ever. I am tending to think that the area you drew in red -- and that others identified as the femur -- is indeed in the thigh area after all. Yet, it doesn't quite make sense. Some observations and assumptions:
1. I think it very unlikely that the body was moved in between photos. Even if modern crime seen forensic photography rules were not followed, common sense would dictate photographing the whole scene before moving anything.
2. You are right in describing the thigh angle (if the red area is the thigh) as nearly impossibly extreme. Yet the post mortem describes Mary's left thigh as being at right angles to her trunk. That seems to fit the red area in the long photo exactly. If this is true, Mary's skinned thigh is hidden in the long photo by what is either a portion of her gown or a bedsheet or pillow.
3. HOWEVER, look at the visible portion of her left leg in the long photo. If the above is correct, then it must be true that the visible portion of Mary's left leg in this photo would be restricted pretty much to the knee down. Look at a full print of this photo (rather than only the portion you have here). The visible portion of Mary's left leg appears far too long and too bent to be merely a shin. From this I think her knee has to be at C7 -- in which case we have to be seeing her thigh above the knee, which can't be the case if her thigh is at a 90 degree angle to her trunk and in the position of your red mark on the photo. I think this might be a trck of the camera angle. But Mary must have been significantly bow-legged or have broken her left tibia at one time, as it is very bent.
4. In the closeup view (your top photo), a careful look at the arched area appears to reveal that it is not a part of Mary's body but an inorganic artifact. Visually, I see it as the arched back of a chair -- but spacially this is impossible. Look at the right end of the arch, where its downward slope ends. I see a faint trace of a semicircular ending such as you would see on a piece of furniture that has been rounded. There also apear to be "spokes" or at least a pattern of light and dark below the arch -- such as you might see on a chair back. But this artifact -- if it is not on the bed -- would have to be located between the bed and the table. The long view photo clearly shows this to be impossible as there is no space in between.
Further reflection leads me to believe that the weight of evidence shows the red area in your photo to be Mary's thigh after all. Whether the arch in the close up is her knee, I think is problematic.
Very puzzling. Could you post your photo enhancements with no drawings superimposed?
Andy
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 2:29 am: | |
Andy,
They aren't really photo enhancements. I took the photos Stephen already linked to in these photo threads. You may have to navigate up in the board to find them. The closeup one is the same size as Stephen's original, and the cropped long one is actually half the size of the full size version posted here, so rather the opposite of enhancing. The only modifications I made was adjusting the tonal range and then scribbling on top.
You make a good point about the autopsy report saying that her thigh was at a right angle, but I just can't see how that would be so, based upon the long photo. In the grid version of it above, I originally thought (and drew the blue line to indicate) that the knee was in D6/D7, but after reading your post above and looking again, figure that the knee has to be the middle of C7. But if that's so, and it were at a right angle, it seems to me that the leg would have to be twice as long as the other.
Here's another way to try to gain perspective on it. Stand up, and let your hand dangle at your side. Note where it lands on your leg. Now try imagining how MJK's hand and arm would move, and see where that lines up on the leg.
The only way I can see that leg being at a right angle is if the leg we see stretched out on the bed were actually someone else's leg thrown on to the bed and hers is bent up and doubled back on itself! (And before anyone jumps on it, that's obviously not so.)
I can only think of three possibilities. First, that the body was severely repositioned for one or more photos... and they explicity said that the long photo was taken before anything was touched at all, and that's the one that appears to show little or no angle in that leg, contrary to the report. Second, that he exaggerated significantly when he said it was at a right angle. Third, that he screwed up the report and accidentally got his left and right mixed up with her left and right when it came to the positioning of the legs.
I'm leaning toward option three at this point. The opposite leg does look quite a bit like what would be a right angle, morseo than the other. It also has the stripped flesh.
It's also entirely possible that there is some visual tricks happening in the photo. I spent about two hours one night just going back and forth between the two, thinking that something just didn't look right (other than the obvious), but I couldn't put my finger on what, if anything, it was.
At some point I'll try some more comparisons and post them. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 191
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 1:25 pm: | |
Dan --
I must admit that I never considered the possibility of Bond screwing up his "left" and his "right." At first, this was an attractive suggestion. However, I don't think it holds. He describes her "right" thigh as "forming an obtuse angle with the pubes." That seems to indicate an even more severe angle (i.e., greater than 90 degrees) and is consistent with the position of the right thigh in the long photo. He also says that the "right" thigh was "denuded in front to the bone," again consistent with the long photo. I think Bond had his "left" and his "right" right!
If indeed the left thigh was stripped of skin to the knee then (whether or not it was at right angles to the trunk) we are not seeing the left thigh in D6/D7. This must be the knee after all. The weird appearance of the shin must be the trick of a camera angle.
Andy
|
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 1:53 pm: | |
Dan,
Your tonal range adjustments on #2 are impressive. The photograph is clearer. I am probably wrong about the arch being a bent left knee. It appears to be the ruffled chemise or the bedding. I second Andy's request, "Could you post your photo enhancements with no drawings superimposed?"
The bed had to have been moved in the second photograph. Pushing the bed a foot or two from the wall may have caused the body and ruffled chemise to collapse, bend, cave in/out or crumple. The comparison (#1) of the green lines (circular cut right leg or garter and left hand) leading to the edge of the table and the black lines from left hand to somewhere below the left knee may be misleading, if the bed was moved or the body positioned for #2.
You wrote...
"I can only think of three possibilities. First, that the body was severely repositioned for one or more photos... and they explicitly said that the long photo was taken before anything was touched at all, and that's the one that appears to show little or no angle in that leg, contrary to the report. Second, that he exaggerated significantly when he said it was at a right angle. Third, that he screwed up the report and accidentally got his left and right mixed up with her left and right when it came to the positioning of the legs." ...
Perhaps a combination of first and second. If the third is true then the distinguished police surgeon Dr.Thomas Bond’s entire report must be taken with a grain of salt.
Take care,
Kevin
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
