Author: Thomas Ind
Saturday, 10 June 2000 - 05:37 pm |        |
| 7 is left elbow |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Saturday, 10 June 2000 - 05:44 pm | |
Thomas,
Thankyou. At last picture 2 has some meaning. It still doesnt explain the odd aspect ratio, but it does clear up some of the point of image. I think that, with a good scan of the original, the whole (enahnced)picture would actually be valuable in the understanding of the MJK murder scene. I am not experienced in viewing pathology, and appreciate your expertise here. Could you, perhaps take pic 2 apart so that I can follow fully what I'm seeing.
Personal Musing:
The more I look at the MJK murder scene, in comparison to the the sketch of the CE SOC, the more I am coming to the conclusion that MJK was posed, almost to mirror the CE SOC.
I know the CE crime doesnt belong here rightly, but I think that the accident of expedience in the positioning of CE, plays a role in the MJK SOC.
Compare the CE SOC with the MJK 'erotic post card from hell'. CE is positioned in a very similar way.
R.J.,
you may well be right. It would explain some of the oddities of the gemometic cues, and still leave a gap on the far side (in pic #1 terms) of the bed. Could you put a second line where you think it needs to be, and post it?
Does the board think that this line of analysis is useful, or just a diversion?
Roger |
Author: Thomas Ind
Saturday, 10 June 2000 - 05:53 pm | |
RJP
Perhaps I'm seeing it wrong but I think I understand what you mean but disaggree. Do tou think it is this image?
 |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Saturday, 10 June 2000 - 05:55 pm | |
The joy of parallel posting :)
Thanks Thomas
R |
Author: Thomas Ind
Saturday, 10 June 2000 - 06:03 pm | |
Ugg
I've lost my files but that prbably isn't that bad.
RJP, I see too many horizontal lines on the back wall to agree with you. Also. I know the stairwell in the Sugden book diagram runs paralell with the bed but in my home (built 1813) I live in a bottom floor flat with a stairwell going up to the next flat. I have a similar structure with a slanted roof.
If my home was MJKs it would appear in the photo. According to the diagram, there would be no stariwell in her flat. Furthermore, I got the impression that the MJK flat/room was a simple cut-off from the main building. If so. I see no architectural reason to do something fancy with the sairwell. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Saturday, 10 June 2000 - 06:15 pm | |
Roger
MJK being posed.
Ofcourse she is posed. But not in detail.
Now I am frightened to say this as I don't want the whole board to jump on the 'JTR was a surgeon' bandwagon again. (BTW gynaecology didn't exist as a specialty in the 1880s).
Prior to performing an operation, I would empty a patients bladder so it doesn't get in the way. To prevent the anaesthically paralysed patient's arms falling off the bed we place them over the abdomen (as in the MJK photo) and then we lift them up over the chest so we have access to the abdomen but that requires traction.
I would then grasp both ankles and lift them up to reveal the vulva as in the MJK photo so I have access to the urethra to catheterise. The whole process take a few seconds. So yes, the position is posed but it is the easiest and most natural way to reveal that area. If the hands were not placed over the abdomen they would fall off the bed in a paralysed (or in MJKs case - dead) patient. To reveal the vulva just lift the ankles and the exposure that we have in the right hand photo would be produced. I don't know how JTR could have done the vulval injuries without that kind of exposure. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 10 June 2000 - 07:18 pm | |
G'day Everyone,
What is a 'palliasse'? I imagine it to be like a cushion. Maybe that's the thing under the table!
Leanne! |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 10 June 2000 - 07:42 pm | |
I think I can now safely say that I am utterly confused as to where the corner of the room is. The horizontal line that runs above the headboard of the bed "appears" to be a continuation of the far wall, which would put true corner of the room outside the the frame of the photograph, and would mean a small space also existed between the head of the bed and the wall behind it. But this must be wrong. I'm trying to reference the head of the bed with the length of the small table and the far wall in Photo #2 but cannot. The perspective seems all out of whack, possibly caused by the camera lens.
Dr. Ind--excuse me for the ignorance that the following question shows. But assuming that Mrs. Maxwell's sighting of MJK was correct, and that MJK was vomitting up beer at 8:30 a.m. (and was subsequently murdered shortly thereafter) would it still be likely that there were discernable bits of fish and potatos in her stomach? ie., one can vomit up liquid without completely emptying the stomach? Is there any educated guess you can make about when the meal was consumed from Dr. Bond's report?
(Your remarks on the 'posing' of MJK were of great interest)
Thanks. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Saturday, 10 June 2000 - 07:50 pm | |
| Roger, I quite agree with your observation that the positioning of MJK's body resembled that of CE. I refer to the only known in-situ close-up diagram of Eddowes' body, published in Rumbelow's 1975 book (p.71). If we can believe the words of Major Smith, who came to the square to examine CE's body, "She was lying on her back, with her left leg extended and her right leg bent" (Rumbelow p. 52-3). Even the face was turned to the left. The only major difference being that the left hand was not placed across the abdomen. But there would not have been any need to do this in CE's case as it already rested on the ground. MJK's left arm would have slumped off the edge of the bed during the course of the mutilations, and gotten in the way of the killer, who probably wanted to work up as close to the side of the body as possible. I think even JtR would have gotten a bit spooked at having a hanging (or twitching?) arm rubbing against him. |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 10 June 2000 - 07:52 pm | |
| Dr Ind , I don't know if you have the answer to this question , but do you know if the records for who was employed at the London Hospital for 1888 still exist ? Where would they be found and how would one gain access to them ? |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 03:26 am | |
LEANNE: According to Webster's dictionary ---
Palliasse: "A mattress filled with straw, sawdust, etc."
Janice |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 04:02 am | |
Scott,
On the CE victims web page there is a SOC sketch showing how the body lay. Comparison with MJK shows similar positioning. My personal opinion is that the positioning may be just expedient to allow Jack to do his work (as I believe Thomas suggests). However, I have not seen anything one these boards to indicate any serious examination of the relative posing of the bodies and part of Jack's needs/wants. Maybe I've not sufficiently trawled the archives :)
RJ,
I'll see if I can re-create some of my analysis to get a clearer picture of where the corner is to the bedhead. I can see your confusion here, but I think the artifacts on the walls are the source of it. I don't think they are really cues to anything, save that the horizontals point to the vanishing point. And then the VP is not really of use, since we don't know the elevation of the camera with respect to the horizon, although we could make a guess, knowing the Picture 1 was taken thru the opening where the window had been removed.
Roger |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 04:38 am | |
Roger--
In regards to the positioning of the body, note the following:
The body was supine, with the arms by the side. The clothes "were turned up as far as the center of the body, leaving the lower part of the body exposed; the legs were open, and altogether her position was such to suggest in my mind that recent intimacy had taken place" (PC Th. Barrett describing how he found Martha Tabram/Turner's body)
But sorry, I digress... |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 07:00 am | |
G'day All,
Thanks Ashling. I was looking at what Dr. Phillips said at MJKs inquest: 'The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet...'.
I thought it might help us determine the thing under the table, in the photo! It aint in my dictionary!
Leanne! |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 07:45 am | |
RJP
Yes I do believe that the positioning of MT is consistent with CE & MJK. With respect to 'intamacy' remember that Killeen who conducted the post mortem and saw the body unaltered from when Barrett found it did not think there was any evidence for sexual intercourse.
With respect to your question about the stomach contents. Yes, even if vomiting had occurred then there could still be contents in the stomach. I am no great expert on gastric emptying but prior to an operation we starve women for 6 hours to ensure that their stomach contents are empty. So the figure for gastric emptying is 6 hours for food to pass from the stomach to the duodenum.
SIMON, Yes there are some quite good records at the London. I'm not sure about nursing, portering and auxillary staff. However, I have seen a list of medical staff in the hospital prospectus. I photocopied it but can't lay my hands on it at the present. I might have accidentally thrown it away. However, John Evans (the archivist) was able to lay his hands on it quite quickly for me. The admission records also still exist. If you want to look at the prospectus, just give John a ring and go down. You want have any difficulty. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 10:11 am | |
It's in mine. The Oxford Paperback Dictionary 1979 (Am I so old to have dictionary published in 1979?)
palliasse (pal-yas) n. a straw mattress. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 10:46 am | |
OK now I've been reeding the messages and I have just realised that everyone doesn't understand this. I am also confused by what people mean in their posts by posed. Leaving ES aside and lets just consider MT, PollyN, AC, CE, & MJK
MT - as discussed above '..the legs were open..' etc. This suggests to be the positioning of the MJK photo.
PN - We know that Cross & Paul pulled the skirt down but John Neil's description only reaching to above the knees (again consistent with the MJK positioning). Neils description as reported in Sugden was that the 'legs were extended and a little apart'. This is not entirely consistent with the MJK photo and my diagram but needless to say, there were not the vulval injuries of MJK and JTR was probably disturbed as PN may well have been alive when discovered by Cross & Paul.
AC - Definitely - The legs were drawn up and, the feet resting on the ground and the knees turned outwards. So AC was also in the position I draw which is the MJK position of the knees.
CE - We have already discussed this and I agree that the CE drawings (which is currently hanging on the wall in an office of a hospital I work in (discovered rolled up in a drain pipe in 1975)).
MJK - Yes we can see the photo.
So all these victims were positioned (or partly positioned) as in my rather bad diagram.
I will pose the next question with the next post
 |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 11:01 am | |
1 is labelled at the ankles.
If you wish to get access to the vulval (in the case of a gynaecologist to catheterised or perform a vaginal examination or in the case of JTR to inflict vulval injuries) then this is the only positioning possible unless you have a specially designed table.
It is easy to achieve. Grasp the ankles and push them towards the patient's head. The thighs will naturally point outwards and the positioning will naturally occur as in my diagram. So in my opinion, JTR grasped the ankles of his victims and exposed them as such to perform vulval mutilations. I don't think the victims were placed in that pose for any kind of specific meaning to JTR or the people who may have discovered the body. Furthermore, I don't believe they were placed like that for intercourse. I believe they were placed like that so JTR could mutilate the vulval area. |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 11:37 am | |
Posing extends well beyond the area of interest. How were heads positioned. Were they arranged to be looking after the killer as he left, or toward who ever was likely to discover them? How are the hands positioned? Is there possibility that as the killings evolved position became an part of the 'fun'?
I personally don't believe so, but the discussion may lead to something :)
Roger |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 01:56 pm | |
I believe the white box area shown by Dr. Ind in his Saturday post above may not a chopped femur, but instead the blood-saturated folds of the chemise lying in a pattern which resembles a femur.
David |
