|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 3:17 am: |       |
Thanks for that sharper image. What appeared to be a patch of sunlight on the table (or at least what I thought people were referring to in the earlier discussion) looks more like a piece of fabric stuck to the table, with more of the same to the right, under the body material.
Chris Phillips
|
Marie Finlay
Police Constable
Username: Marie
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 5:55 am: | |
Upon further inspection, thanks to this larger hi resolution photo, I believe that Stephen is correct in his analysis of a longitudally split femur.
I don't believe the wounds are consistent with a hatchet, but more a large heavy bladed knife similar to a machette. The wounds here being, in my mind, delivered by the assailant kneeling between Mary's legs and hacking. A hatchet, being narrower of blade but still quite heavy would in my mind either shear through the bone (breaking it) or leave a large notch. A machette type blade is more likely to slice into the leg behind the knee, striking the bone and slicing downwards.
 |
David Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 10:59 pm: | |
This clear photo is a good addition to Ripperology. Some new wonderings and related questions come to mind:
1. He made a very extensive pelvic mutilation, didn't he? The whole pelvis has been stripped of flesh leaving the bone exposed.
2. He mutilated the innersides of both the left and right thighs, almost in the same manner. He mutilated the left inner thigh more.
3. Notice how he pulled the left thigh bone right out of its pelvic socket. How much strength and skill would be required to do that? How would one do that? It looks to me like there is large piece of bone missing--the ball part of the ball and socket joint plus its attachment to the inside of the thigh bone. Would he have pried the ball out of the socket with his knife, or would a leverage tool like a hatchet be required? He could have used whatever tools might have been in the room, I guess. There probably would have been a few kitchen and hearth tools available.
4. I don't see indication of a leverage instrument otherwise, as Dr. Warren does. It looks to me like the part of thigh that has been apparently chopped through is tendon, not bone. This could have been sliced with a knife. At this crime scene, the murderer graduated to skeletal mutilations from soft-tissue ones.
5. I think he had in mind to do both legs the same way, but stopped with the left. Otherwise he did a thorough pelvic / thigh mutilation.
6. What hideous mutilations! The buttocks have been entirely removed.
7. It seems quite obvious that the reason why the second photograph was taken was to show the extensive pelvic mutilations, with the left inner thigh more mutilated. That is why the photographer pulled the bed away from the wall to take the shot the way he did, and raised the left knee.
8. The murderer removed the heart the same basic way he removed the uterus, possibly indicating he thought of the two in a similar manner. In the case of the heart, he widely opened the diaphragm and reached up inside to pull it down and out, and in the case of the uterus, he widely opened the bottom of the pelvis and reached up inside to pull it down and out.
9. The fact that he mutilated the left inner thigh more than the right possibly indicates that he was right-handed, as he would have more strength on that side of the victim when kneeling between her legs to perform the mutilations. Perhaps he truncated right thigh mutilations because he felt he didn't have the strength he would need to perform them.
10. Please identify the upholstered object on the table. Is it a symmetrical object? In other words, would the structure that looks like a dragon's head pointing at the camera be duplicated on the other side pointing at the door?
11. I think this photo indicates a heterosexual murderer. He approaches these mutilations the way a typical male engaging in sexual activities would approach a woman.
David
|
Kevin Braun
Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 26
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 2:08 pm: | |
Hello Scott Medine,
Could you please give us your professional opinon on what you see in the recent enhancements. Is the line in F3, F4 high-res March 21, 2003 9:49pm, a garter, a cut or something else? Does B5, C5 March 20, 2003 12:01 am look like a longitudally split femur? Do you think there is any space between the bed and the far wall (A5, March 21, 2003 11:27 am)? Was the bed moved and body repositioned in the second photograph? Thanks.
Take care,
Kevin
|
Scott Medine
Police Constable
Username: Sem
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 4:16 pm: | |
Kevin,
First and foremost the picture would have to be prepared by a forensic photographic analyst then given to a forensic pathologist. The problem with that is that the actual negative or photograph would have to be examined and cleaned up. And that ain’t gonna happen. This is the same reason why a forensic document examiner will not be able to tell you with qualifying authority if any of the letters written by the supposed killer will ever match Sickert’s handwriting or Maybrick’s ( the documents are too old and the originals would have to be examined without being covered by plastic, glass or other materials).
Second we would be looking at a photograph that has been degraded by time. This also applies to documents.
Third, I have had a copy of the infamous Kelly (abdomen) photo enlarged and cleaned up as best as could be done forensically. I did this to try and determine if the eye was open. A forensic expert said in his opinion it was, however; he qualified it by saying that in his expert opinion he would not commit to anything. He stated the above reasons why. He also added that the more a photo has been copied the more the details are blurred and lost. Each copy of a photo is a generation. The original negative is considered the first generation. The photo produced from it is considered the second generation. So, without knowing the source of the photo of the one Stephen scanned in makes it all the more difficult. We could be looking at a scanned copy of a 100th generation copy.
The best I can say Kevin is that there is something there, what it is I do not know. If what I am looking at is the femur, then it appears, at least to me and at times, that the cut does not follow the contour of the bone at its point nearest the hip. I also have to question how does the bone get split like that? People have talked about hatchets and machetes but it would take a wound comparison test to determine the actual weapon used. I think it was Tom Westscott that made the point that it would not make sense for the killer to suddenly start wielding a hatchet. If it is a split femur and a hatchet or machete was used then I would say that the scene was staged. In order to conduct the wound comparison the right way the body would have to be exhumed. This, of course, is not practical as the British Government will never allow it to be done and secondly the body would be to degraded, however; an exhumed body could tell us if the femur was indeed split. A wound comparison could also be done on a type of mannequin used for crime scene reproductions. These mannequins are a sexual in nature, poseable and are made of a sturdy foam that closely resembles the resistance of human skin, muscle and bone. They are also pretty expensive.
Another thing to consider is that the body was moved. A while back i made the same observation that Stephen made, the knee is lower in one picture than the other. We know that rigor was setting in when Kelly was found. Rigor can be broken if the joints are forced. The way we tell if this happened is by examining the muscle and bone in the autopsy. Moving a joint that is in full rigor or in the stages of rigor will break the bone and tear muscles. If the leg and hip were in the stages of rigor and the police moved the body, for whatever stupid reason, the bone may have been broken or the muscle torn. The argument against this is that the line we are looking at is pretty much a straight line which could be more consistent with a cut or split.
My concern is twofold, 1) if it is a cut it is a big ass cut in length, depth and width. That would make for a big ass axe, hatchet or machete. 2) what about all the other dark lines and spaces in the area?
Peace,
Scott
PS I do not have my notes with me, i am at work at present, but somewhere in there is a notation I made in reference to the police thinking that the bed was moved prior to their arrival. This would also explain why the blood spatter that was found does not add up to the position of the body. |
Kevin Braun
Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 9:36 am: | |
Scott,
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Interesting that the forensic expert gave an opinion but would not commit to anything.
"What about all the other dark lines and spaces in the area?" Are you talking about the lines in C5, D5 Friday, March 21, 2003, 3:38 pm? A better view on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 7:46 pm. Thanks again.
Take care,
Kevin |
Scott Medine
Police Constable
Username: Sem
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 10:14 am: | |
Kevin,
No, problem. I wish I could have been of more help. The lines I'm talking about are all over the body!  Including the face.
Peace,
Scott
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2686
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 12:58 pm: | |
To respond to an earlier question about the sepia-toned photograph reproduced above, it is a scan of a first-generation copy of the original, taken by SPE.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Brenda Love
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 2:56 pm: | |
When the second Kelly photograph turned up, who verified that it was the real thing? Is there any chance this photo is not the real deal? |
Kevin Braun
Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 28
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 3:59 pm: | |
Scott,
"A first-generation copy of the original." Any thoughts?
As a last footnote, why did you "try and determine if the eye was open"?
Take care,
Kevin |
Scott Medine
Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 8:46 am: | |
Kevin,
My thoughts are that the body and the bed were moved post mortem. As I mentioned earlier, I noticed the same thing Stephen noticed that the left knee is lower in the abdomen photo as opposed to the bed photo. If this is true and not an illusion due to camera angle then the body was moved by the police. This would also mean that the body ( the left leg) would had to have been moved using force as rigor was present in the body.
As to whether this is a crack, cut, slice or split in the femur I do not know. I can’t see it plainly enough to tell. I can bring it to the attention of a friend of mine, who is a forensic pathologist, and ask her but on my own I do not know. I still maintain that if it is a split, slice etc. then it was a big blade.
I had the eye checked because I wanted to know the cause of death. An open eye at death tells an investigator a lot. It means death was instant. If death was instant then rigor sets in at a faster rate and the blood retains the ability to coagulate for 30-60 mins. post mortem. Instant death can also help pin down the time of death.
Peace,
Scott |
Jon P. Van Skiver
Police Constable
Username: Jonvs
Post Number: 1
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 4:10 pm: | |
David,
How did you determine that JTR removed the organ's as you stated in line 8 of your post? Jack hacked her up pretty good, why not just pull them out instead of reaching inside and pulling down?
Thanks,
Jon |
Robert Clack
Police Constable
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 5:55 pm: | |
Hi everyone
I don't know if this is of any use, but I remember reading an article in "Ripperana" some years back (No 18 October 1996) where Nick Warren was discussing Mary Kellys mutilations. The authors of the Jack the Ripper A-Z brought a newspaper article to his attention it was The Globe 16th February 1891 describing a visit to the convict's office (department) at Scotland Yard. Part of the article said "a hatchet by the door... used by the Whitechapel murderer to hack and disfigure the first (sic) poor girl who fell victim to his fiendish fury in Dorset Street"
It seems a hatchet may have been found in Millers Court. I don't know if the Convict's Office was an earlier name for the Black Museum. Perhaps the Black Museum kept an Inventory of items?
Rob
|
David Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 11:06 pm: | |
Jon,
I wrote: "8. The murderer removed the heart the same basic way he removed the uterus, possibly indicating he thought of the two in a similar manner. In the case of the heart, he widely opened the diaphragm and reached up inside to pull it down and out, and in the case of the uterus, he widely opened the bottom of the pelvis and reached up inside to pull it down and out."
It has been remarked in good books on the case that the heart at least was removed that way. The ribs were still in such a condition that he had to have pushed his hand up through the diaphragm to get the heart. Notice how huge both the openings are. In picture #2, there is so much clearance available, both in the pelvis and on the bed opposite, that it suggests he may have been reaching up there and pulling numerous pieces out. If he does or seems to do it a certain way in one instance, I look for a possibility that he may have done it in a similar way in another. Sort of subjectively-integtrated, Plato-style Ripperology on my part. But you are right to think that I have no objective proof--I wasn't there myself.
Thanks for the question!
David |
Sandra young
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 10:02 am: | |
Hi,
Are we looking at Kelly's left leg in this photo or are we just looking at a blood stained billowed out part of her chemise?
Someone mentioned that Kelly's left leg must have been moved,as it seems to be in a different position in the full length photo'.
But in the full length shot,the billowed out section of the chemise is clearly visible.
Also compare Kelly's right leg in the full length photo.There is a distinct contrast in color between the outer layer of skin and the "Red meat" inside.
There is no such contrast in Kelly's left"Leg" in the smaller picture.
Sandra |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 8:13 pm: | |
Dear David,
What about this. The killer flayed the thigh and disarticulated the femur from hip-socket and knee.
Using a bone-saw he made the cut then replaced it.
The alternative to the above scenario is that he had brought his own longitudinally-cut femur with him and simply swapped them!
Emm...wonder where he picked it up?
Rosey :-) |
Jeneli
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 4:31 pm: | |
I know this is a silly question, but what kinds of knives would be available to this killer? The types of knives on the market could narrow down what was used. Also, maybe if the type of knife was nailed down, perhaps we'll know what kind of life Jack lead. An expensive knife wouldn't be owned by a poor lunatic, and most likely a rich man's blade would be a bit flashier. I'm sure this has been brought up, but I'm new and curious |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 3:48 pm: | |
Dear Jeneli,
If you have a look on the weapon thread, I have put a link to an autopsy site that might help you with information about knives used in this procedure, it also has a section about knife wounds and other gory stuff. Enjoy and welcome to the investigation!
Joan |
Jericho
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 2:50 pm: | |
Why is her right hand positioned the way it is? That isn't a natural position for someone's right hand which leads me to believe this photo is taken from some hodge podge of the remains on a table. |
Angelina Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 3:52 pm: | |
Hi All,
Im a new user and have a few basic(and probably stupid questions). I have always been mystified and intrigued by the infamous JTR murders. I love all the versions you have of the second photograph. I didn't understand the format of the pic before, but you guts & gals dissected it in a way that made me understand a lot more.
My question is how far was the table in the 2nd Kelly photo moved when adjusting to take the pic, and wouldn't that be destroying evidence or the crime scene~~even in 1888?
Also, could the picture have been taken at a different angle maybe through the door (or what appears to be a door) on the other side of the bed? And here's another dumb one...was it ever verified that it was indeed a pillow on the nightstand next to the bed?
Thanks for reading
Angelina (another Aussie) |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 6:34 pm: | |
Angelina,
There is still a lot of debate on how much, if any, the bed was moved for the second shot. I'm not seeing any reason why it would have had to have been moved, for the camera could just be sitting on the edge of the bed by the wall, or on the bundle on the edge of the bed we see in the first photo. I don't think it's necessary to move the bed to get a photographer to stand behind it. Moving the table seems like a sure way to get that internal organ at the edge to fall off, and from the second photo all the angles seem to line up with the first without any indication that anything was moved.
As far as destroying evidence, well, they were less worried about those things then, and in this case they may have decided that moving things to take a photo (if that's what they did) was a necessary step to try to preserve evidence with the photo.
The part of the wall that looks like a door looks like it's in a different location from the place the camera was located for the shot, and I believe we aren't sure on the pillow either. |
Angelina Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 7:19 pm: | |
Dan,
Thanks for responding.
I do get your point about the organs falling off of the table. I often wondered that myself. It just seems, to me, that the bed was indeed moved in order for that 2nd shot. The placement of the camera seems to be on the middle of the bed. I thought it was hard for photographers back in the nineteenth century to take a picture like that without being back there themselves?
You could very well be right though. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 219
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 11:02 am: | |
There would be no need to stand behind the camera in order to operate the shutter. The purpose of standing behind the camera would be to aim through the viewfinder. So the question is whether it was more important to get an accurate viewfinder aim -- which would require moving the bed away from the wall -- or whether it was more important not to disturb the evidence. Think logically. A professional photographer is likely to posses the skill to aim a camera reasonably well without using the viewfinder. Furthermore, he could take numerous exposures from slightly different angles, just to make sure he got what he wanted. It seems that preserving the evidence in situ would outweigh the need to get behind the camera. There is also another aspect. If the camera were indeed held in hand or placed on a tripod, one would expect the angle to be higher. Instead the angle is not much higher than the bed. (A photopraher would have had to have been on his knees, or, would a tripod even go that low?) This suggests that the camera was placed on an object which was lying on the matress -- such as the "blanket roll" which can be seen out of focus in the foregroud of photo 2.
Another point -- and a very important one: What was the purpose of photo 2? Photo 1 seems to be a record of the positioning of the body. Is photo 2 intended to be a record of certain wounds? If so, why not take such photos at the morgue under controlled circustances. Logically, it makes more sense to assume that photo 2, like photo 1, is a record of the positioning of the body. In that case, we can assume that things were not moved.
Andy S.
|
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 11:14 am: | |
How sure are we that this photo wasn't taken in a morgue then? Look closely. It could be anywhere. We just presume it was taken in Millers Court but look again at the table in the background. It has either been moved and now somehow looks longer or it is in fact another table. Could be another morgue table. Just a thought. |
Angelins Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 7:37 pm: | |
Sarah,
I have the same doubts as you. I do believe that the table was moved closer to the end of the bed. It is closer to the middle half of her body in the 2nd shot as opposed to the 1st photo in which the table is closer to her head.
Angelina |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
