|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through June 16, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Markings on Mary Jane Kelly.:
Archive through June 16, 2000
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 04:14 am |        | Hi, Wolf et al.:
Wolf, thank you for your sage words about the nonpublic nature of Dr. Bond's reports and about the insidiousness of the all-encompassing conspiracy theory. As you say, if messages had been left in the room or on the body one would suspect that Bond would have mentioned them, particularly if such lettering was as "obvious" as has been said. I regret that Wolf, Nick, Jon, David, Alex, and I must be naysayers, but we must admit that the mind plays tricks and that it wishes to make connections even if such apparent connections bear no relationship to reality. Again, as indicated in my last post, the ragged "Five" to my mind is a trick of the shadows in the old photograph; if we had other photographs of the face taken from other angles it is probable that the "Five" would not be seen.
Chris George |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 05:13 am | | Hi all. I find myself in illustrious company ... At least I hope y'all saved me a chair at the Naysayers Table--or was I supposed to call ahead for a reservation?
One good thing developed from these conversations ... After seeing the huge blow-up of the pic on the other Kelly board, I've now gone from 75% sure to 90% sure that the square which contains the so-called "Hart" is the lower part of the original interior door, rather than part of a wall panel or wallpaper design.
Further architectural research may prove me wrong, but it seems more logical that the interior staircase (part of the original house structure before the back parlour was partitioned off to form Mary's room) shown on the Sugden diagram would start just to the left of this interior door. (Left of Mary's knees, around the area of her feet.) I don't know why an interior staircase would go all the way to the outside wall of a house. Especially if the side door which Mary's upstairs neighbor used to access that staircase was added on later, after the house was divided into apartments.
It's possible the interior door was more towards the foot of Mary's bed, but that would mean the sealed up parlor door would have to be cut into the wall enclosing the staircase, or the stairs were the open stairwell type. Am I wrong in thinking the latter would be unusual in a house with several rooms?
Any input is appreciated.
Janice |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 06:06 am | | All, especially the Naysayers.
I have not left the planet and will not do so, on account of this finding; I still have my full capacity of reasoning. I have myself said that insofar nothing has been proved of been purposefully written there, only that many people see something in it. And as you all nicely point out, our brain as the habit to organise unrelated things and find a meaning for them. I also have mentioned what it clearly has no impact to. But as to explain this away as merely shadows playing tricks, in this case?
All can be assured that the same method and way of thinking, like on the topic the 'FM on the wall' and 'Kelly Crime Scene Photographs' was applied here. Every time someone mentions lettering, or if I see some myself, I turn my long-term experience on lightning, shadows and material, and darkness from colour to black and white, perspective.
This experience I have accumulated since I have been painting and drawing since my 3 years. I admit that most of it is gathered intuitively, not theoreticaly. Besides aquiring how material looks from afar by making hundreds of drawings on still subjects, I have studied Industrial Design, where I had 5 years of theory lessons on wood, metals and plastic moldings. I have done a theoretically research in high school for chemics on the perception of colours, of what they exist, and what pigments are in particular. How do I know what darkness shade a colour gets when converted to blakc&white pictures? Many paintings I have made were based on copy's of pictures I found in books.
Those copies were of course black-white wich I in my paintings again interpreted in colours. Also I must add, that most of my work is created totally out of the mind. My work is figural, but I use no models, only my anatomical knowledge and the image inside my head that I want to creat on 2D-surface. Enough of presenting my Curriculum Vitae on this subject. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 06:10 am | | WHAT RULES DO I FOLLOW TO DETERMINE THE SOURCE OF THE LETTERING?
- Handwriting:
Logic says that a word, should exist of the same writing style, and this must be consistent over the whole word.
- Relief:
Are there any 3-dimensional surfaces playing tricks in any of the letters: are reliefs that stand out, make up a lettering.
- Colour:
The shade of darkness must stay consistent. There can be a difference in it depending of how it catches light, because for example it crosses relief.
- How is it brought on:
is it scratched in, is it painted on, is it written on
- Patches:
patches (normally darker) can create the perceivement of lettering in two ways, either because the patch itself looks like one, OR because the patch surrounds an area in a particular way so that the (lighter) area is seen as lettering.
- Perspective:
if lettering is applied somewhere in spacial environment, and taken in a picture, it follows that it must follow the laws of perspectives, and follow the relief of the surface.
- Scale:
the lettering applied must be consistent in scale with the method of how it was brought on, and the area aplied to.
- Consistency:
In all the lettering combined there must be overall consistency, also it must be consistent on several different pictures. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 06:18 am | | Ok, here are the rules applied to determine the source of the perceived lettering 'FIVE' on Kelly's face:
HANDWRITING AND HOW IT IS BROUGHT ON:
Is what we see written on, with a pencil or something? No it should be thinner in lining, they still did not have thick markers in those days.
Is what we see painted on, with either blood or paint? No, what we see gives us the perception of relief, which lettering in itself in this case would not have.
Is what we see carved? We have the perception of relief -> it is indicating to carvings.
Were there carvings found on those area's by the doctors? "The face was cut in all directions; Numerous cuts across all features" from the post-mortem report. Also in Sugden I found that some of the cuts crossed the lips and the chin. Part of the lips, cheeks, nose and ears was cut away.
All this data I have incorporated in the wound drawing of Kelly, but then solely based on the post-mortem, not on the picture (I'm not always in the mood to look at the awful sight of it), and I promise to better the wound drawing consistent with the picture.
So there are definitely cuts. Are what we perceive as cuts forming the word 'FIVE' in any of the area's mutilated? Yes. On pic1 I have drawn the perspective middle line of the head and face. A line every portretist either draws on the start of a portret on the paper itself or in his head. Why there? It is based on the middle of the chin, the perspective of the jaw line and the position of the ears (pic2). We can see a full jaw line from the right side of Kelly's face, meaning the portret is not a total frontal one, or we could not see it. We can also see the right ear. We can not see the left ear and almost nothing of the left jaw line.
All this adds to the center line of the head a bit off, not totally frontal. The center line I have drawn also crosses the middle of the chin up to the middle of the hair line. What does this line cross also? Yes, the middle of the word 'FIVE'. What facial features would such an imaginative line normally cross? Yes, the chin, mouth and nose.
Thus first conclusion: the lettering 'FIVE', which seems to originate from carvings, is running right through an area of which the post mortem says there are carvings.
Added for you illustration I have drawn a square surrounding the chin, a line for the mouth, and triangle for the nose. How do I know where the nose is? By the ear. Imagine a horizontal line, if you look at someone's face from the front, at the bottom of the ear, crossing the whole face. You will see that this line also will be at the inset of the nose. Thus bottom of the ear, and inset of nose are appr. at the same height. I've indicated this with a blue line. The top of the ear is at the same height of the center of the pupils of a person's eyes, where the nose bridge ends in a dip.
Where is the 'F' on the chin? With the two flag lines in consistency of the post-mortem report.
Where are the cross lines of the 'I'? Through the lips, again consistent with the cuts described in the report.
The 'V' is between the upper lip and inset of the nose.
The 'E' is where the nose should have been.
The lettering we perceive is surely made by described cuts in the face of Mary. The lines are NOT SHADOWS, the lines are CUTS.
 |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 06:23 am | | RELIEF
Is there many relief? Actually little. Because of the lips and the nose that are partly cut away, and the fact that the cuts are accross the center line of the face, we are left with a fairly flat surface. Is there any relief, besides the cuts that could create the perceivement of the letters? Only in two cases.
You could see the division line between the lips as part of the 'I'. But on closer inspection, you'll find that the upstanding leg of the 'I' is not the mouth line, but starts at the upside of the leg underneath the mouth line, then crosses it and ends just above the mouth line. The leg of the 'I' is also cut.
The other relief would be the 'E'. The cut up of a nose there, would result in two c's attached to each other. Two c's could well make up an 'E'. But again on closer look, the upper 'c' is to straight, indicating that it is not the result of upper material cut away, but rahter cut in.
Thus you could argue that the 'I' and the 'E' are CREATED BY relief, but since there are extra cuts in the flesh I'm very willing to argue that the existing relief is USED as base. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 06:24 am | | COLOUR
What colour should cuts have? That depends on the surface it is applied to. A wooden wall (which has a rather dark texture), with a lettering cut in, would result in a lighter surface. Flesh itself has a lightened efect. Cuts in it would be darker coloured than the flesh. Not only because flesh has such a light texture, but also because cuts would result in blood, which in a black&white (or sepia if you will) picture will look almost black, dark grey or deep brown.
Although red is a bright colour, it is a dark one too. What do we see? Dark lines, bloodied cuts in dark flesh. Is this overall consistent? Yes, it is. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 06:25 am | | PATCHES
Are there any patches on the surface of the picture in that area? Nope
Are there any patches on the surface of Mary's face? Yes, there are dark smears of blood on the right cheeck, and dark smears of blood across the chin.
Do they create the perceivement of lettering? No, they do not.
Are there any light patches of Mary's face? Yes, a very light surface on the left cheeckbone area, just above a very dark one.
Does it create the perceivement of lettering ('V' and 'E')? No they do not.
Conclusion: there are no patchings involved in the perceivement of this lettering. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 06:27 am | | PERSPECTIVE
Is the perspective consistent? Yes it follows the surface of the area where it is perceived very well. Remember that the area has not many relief left. It is consistent with the perspective of the face, cfr. center line of the face (pic1)
SCALE
Is the scale consistent with that of carvings applied to a face? Yes certainly. I think noone will argue that it is to big, or to small.
CONSISTENCY
The overall lettering is consistent on each seperately, on every account. Is it overall viewable on different pictures? Yes, it is fastly distinguished on every picture, also the sepia one. It is not applied to one version of the picture, because the form, darkness and distinguishability is consistent on every picture I could get my hands on. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 06:29 am | | FINAL CONCLUSION:
The cuts are real, they are not made by patches or shadows or lightening of relief. The cuts are in the face, in an area of which the post-mortem report has mentioned several cuts.
Do they deliberately intend to be a word? I do not know yet, the mind tends to group anything into something meaningfull.
Do people see it? Yes, they do. After my father I have shown the same thing to friends seperately with the same method as I did with my father. I have shown it to 5 people yesterday including my father. 2/5 did not see a thing. But on these occasions I also must tell you, that they only took a quick look and not really wanted to be confronted with the picture. 2/5 have seen the word 'FIVE' independently. 1/5 saw lettering, but was not sure he could read it in total.
Am I personally someone who accepts these findings easily? No, I have explained the cross on the wall and many lettering seen on the wall last week, all negatively of wordings being there applied on the wall. But you could try to argue I was gullible this time. I believe I have with my long post and analyses of the make-up of the lettering 'FIVE', have shown it is not so much based on belief.
Am I totally inexperienced on analysing these characteristics on pictures, on how the mind works, on how 3-dimensional surfaces work on 2-dimensional surfaces? No, although I say it myself.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Diana
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 07:41 am | | | Very good analysis, Jill. We also need comments from someone knowlegeable in the area of anatomy. How do the bones, muscles, fatty tissue, cartilage, etc. line themselves up in the lower half of the face? Could a few random cuts have combined with the underlying anatomy to create this image? |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 09:35 am | | Diana,
Although I'm no dr. I'll go look in my anatomy book this weekend and find out with what I can come up to answer yur questions as faithfully as I am possible to do.
I have some experience with skull: and can make a picture easily of what it conists. To explain it now: a skull is 3D, with many 2D area's put together in different angles to make up the face. You have the base skull itself, and the lower jaw connected to it, so it can move freely. The connection point is about an inch just before your ears. The skull protrudes there at different places, the jaw fits in right at the dip points.
To answer a bit about your last question. The chin is a horizontally flat, vertically protruding surface. On the picture you can see blood smears surrounding this rounding very well. The 'F' cut is located right at the upperside of this rounding, falling into the pit between the chin and the start of the underlip. This normally creates a hazy shadow area, but never a lineage, and never in such an angle as seen in the picture. Lips are pure muscles, underneath are only the teeth to be found.
The bone structure of the base skull holding the upperteeth also vertically protrudes a bit to the front, going into a dip again at the base of the nose. Above it is loose muscle and skin. It is attached to the flat muscles, those are attached on the skull, very near to the base of the nose, there where the little dip (upside down 'U') above the upperlip starts.
The nose exists of flat muscle and soft bone (don't know the english word for 'kraakbeen'.) There is no real hard bone to be found there. The base of the nose of the skull has a little upward bone point right in the middle, where the soft bone is attached and seperates the two holes. You can feel the holes in the skull, if you touch the upperside of the wings of your nose. Then press the wings a bit together, and you'll feel the start of those holes in the skull.
Facial muscles are mostly flat ones, crossing and following the bone structure. They can not pumped up like balloons such as with biceps or triceps. There are many small arteries found, that will bleed a lot when only scratched a little. The area is loaded with them, but they are not bigger than a small point of a needle.
When the area of the frontal lower face is cut, it will bleed a lot, resulting in loose skin and muscle, since around the mouth area little is attached (you can easily stick your finger into the whole without feel ig much restrain, and wiggle with it). Anything cut above a bone area, with the purpose to cut (strongly and quick) will hit the bone too, scratching it.
I hope this explains a bit about the antomy of the facial features. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 10:43 am | | Gentlemen and ladies -
I have nothing but the highest respect for Jill's
expertise and level-headedness, and yet. . .while
certainly leaning towards the naysayer position, I
feel that this supposed "clue" is a development
which needs to be handled very carefully and
seriously if it is to prove worthwhile. Simply
going off half-cocked with prattling about how
important and significant this clue is will not do
the field of Ripper research any good and will
give more ammunition to thise who regard us as a
lot of obsessive fools.
IF sufficient numbers of people "see" the word
"five," and IF such also appears on the original
MJK photograph to the disbelieving eye, then
perhaps the photo should be turned over to experts
who can (similar to research on the Shroud of
Turin) examine / enhance the photograph to
determine if we are seeing an actual word carved
into Kelly's blood-seething face, a trick of light
and shadow, a word written on the photograph
through a piece of paper years later, a wonderous
happenstance of accidental mutilations or a defect
inherent in the age and technique of the
photograph itself. This will, of course, require
funds and would need to be overseen by researchers
of unquestioned integrity.
And though I always enjoy Simon's enthusiasm, I do
think his post goes a bit too far to the
"conspiracy" direction. I cannot agree with the
"because its so obvious and was never mentioned
officially, that proives there was a cover-up"
position. Just because WE see something is not
prima facie proof that something was even there to
begin with. Absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence, as I tire of repeating.
We also do not "know" that the Ripper left
messages. All we have is a possible "five" in
MJKs face as well as supposed "FMs" and words
scratched through the grimy walls of 13 Miller's
Court. We THINK we know. We BELIEVE we know. We
do NOT "know."
Dragging Macnaghten in to support this finding is
irrelevant. It was Macnaghten's opinion that
there were five victims, just as it was
Abberline's opinion there were six. As well, a
great deal of what Macnaghten wrote regarding
suspects in his memorandum has been shown to be
quite muddle-headed. We cannot use him to prove
the reality of this new word.
But it should be interesting to see how and if
this discovery develops.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 11:12 am | | Hello Guys and Gals,
My untrained eye is suggesting to me that the alignment of the letters (I see P I V E) appears too perfect, but I have no idea how difficult it might be to carve with any accuracy onto the contoured surface of a human face, in questionable light. And how was it possible for the killer to inadvertently achieve this so well for the two-dimensional world of the photograph, yet not manage to get his artistry noticed in the three-dimensional one?
(Bet he was miffed if he really did it and no bugger owned up to even seeing it! Perhaps that's what made him give up in disgust. J)
I did wonder at one time last year whether anyone had ever thought the markings on Eddowes’s face could have included a roman numeral, either a V or a IV, to denote the number in the series. This was after I learned that Carrie Brown, in the US, had a shallow X carved on her back. I got no further with such musings though, realising that they belong more in the world of serial killer movies like Seven.
But I never like to say never, so I think I’ll sit for now on the garden fence with my legs dangling towards the Nay-sayers abode. On a clear day you can sometimes see F O R E V E R from this position. J
Have a good weekend all.
Probably see ya Monday.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 12:21 pm | | Caz-- Hello. This 'True Crime' stuff is yucky... I much prefer reading discussions about anagrams and about forgers and forgery...[despite the fact that your Maybrick friends are an unruly rabble.] But I'm trying very hard to turn a deaf ear to the objections of Radka, Ashling, Vanderlinden, etc. since the latest discovery fits in well with my own extremely complex and erudite theory involving M.J. Druitt, numerology, and Ostrog's stealing of the Eton "Fives" cup...
Cheers,
RJP
PS. In the spirit of y'all showing-off with the Latin lately, I'm wondering if you know the old limerick about the 'The Young Barrister Named Rex'? I forget the how the whole thing goes, but I believe the last three lines are:
When arraigned for 'exposure'
He said with composure
'De minimis non curat Lex'. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 02:20 pm | | You Naysayers !
Yeah , it could be a coincidence , a trick of light and shadow...but what are the odds on it eh ? Mary Kelly , the canonical fifth victim - and coincidently the light throws shadows onto her face and creates a ' FIVE '. Hmmm. Thats a big coincidence to my mind.
I believe the letters were put there by the killer. As to a police cover-up , there is evidence that suggests it in this case : bringing the case before Macdonald not Baxter , who might have asked awkward questions ; closing the inquest so early ; not getting a statement from the Ringers ; neither the Ringers nor Maurice Lewis nor Mrs Kennedy appearing at the inquest. And where is Bagster Phillip's post-mortem report ? It could have been lost , but conviniently it isn't with the file. I can't prove a conspiracy here , but a lot of things make me feel very suspicious about it. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 02:26 pm | | One of the early theories about JtR was that the crimes were committed by a large ape , a la Edgar Allen Poe and ' The Murders in the Rue Morgue '.
Here is a challenge then : if it was an ape ( not seriously ! ) then it might have left a clue. So can anybody find the word ' GORILLA ' on Kelly's wall ? If so , it would show how easy it is to find words that aren't there and to make stuff up.
If not , then we should consider the writing a bit more seriously. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 03:18 pm | | I hate to dispel the euphoria, but sadly those who see letters and words are reading something into nothing. Those who have read my dissertation on the Kelly crime scene photographs will know that two original prints exist. Also I have first generation copies of both of these photographs, the second one I made the negative myself from the original.
The original prints are very small, and all the reproductions you see are blown-ups made from these copy negatives. The sharpness of detail in these 112 year-old photographs is not up to modern standards, and the more you enlarge them the greater the loss of definition and clarity.
I am able to see how 'FIVE' or something similar may be read into the photo, especially once the suggestion has been made. A high magnification of my first-generation copies merely reveals random cuts, wounds and blood. The 'letters' as descibed above I would translate thus -
'F' - appears to be a jagged cut on the chin with a line of blood forming the downstroke.
'I' - appears to be the line of the exposed teeth (the lips having been cut away).
'V' - appears to be another jagged cut between the upper teeth and the base of the nose, and
'E' - appears the be the open wound (triangular in shape) where the nose has been cut off, the upright of the 'E' being the base cut, the three horizontal bars being the nostril holes and a glob of blood at the base (as viewed in the original photo') of the wound.
The two photographs vary in quality, but I have scanned the face from the first photograph thus: -
I guess some will disagree, but I will state now that I will not enter into any discussion or argument on this, the above being my considered opinion. |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 03:43 pm | | Strong meat from that Evans.
BTW, I'm considering offering my review here of Mr. Evans latest book, kindly loaned me by Mr. Nelson. Pretty tasty bits 'o meat there as well.
David |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 16 June 2000 - 03:58 pm | | | Thank you David. |
|
|
|
|
