Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 04:04 pm |        |
David
Interesting thought. I've had another look but am more confinced now. However, I do accept that the more you look at these things the more you start seeing things. My imagination may be running a bit wild but now I am more convinced and even think that she has a borken femur on the shaft.
I will download 2 images now to explain
 |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 04:09 pm | |
Sorry about my spelling, I will upload one more picture and then I will explain.
 |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 04:19 pm | |
OK. Now the first picture is of a left femur head from Gray's anatomy. It is drawn from the angle that we see it. I think that where we see 5 we see a cut from a place just below where it is cut on the Gray's diagram to the level of the lesser trocanter (which is marked). The neck and the head of the femur are not in the photo as they are angled inwards and sit in the hip joint. (I would not expect to see them in such a photo even if I was looking at a skeleton only). When I compare the photo of the femur with the one from the skeleton that I own it is even more convincing. Furthermore I think I can see the shaft continuing from the top right hand corner of my box.
Now when I look at it further, I am convincing myself that I can see a break in the shaft. My version is that posted and I don't have a very clear image however if I am correct then my diagram of the photo above would be like this;
1 - left shoulder on pillow
2 - left elbow
3 - left wrist
4 - the box I drew
5 - the cut femur as I describe
6 - Left knee
7 - Left knee joint
8 - Fracture
Now can anyone else see this or am I dreaming things up? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 05:20 pm | |
Yes, I believe I see it. I originally agreed with David, but in studying the much clearer copy of Photo #2 reproduced in Evans & Gainey, there is a clear break in what appears to be a femur. I don't believe this could be cloth.
I do agree with David, however, that the position of the door in Photo #2 does not agree with the diagram of the room in Sugden.
RJP |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 06:09 pm | |
G'day 'Palliasse' hunters,
The word does not appear in the 'Large Print English Dictionary', that I bought for a bargain price. Nor does it appear in the 'Little Macquarie Dictionary'.
As the word 'Palliative', means 'something that eases pain', I immediately thought of 'cushion'. OK so it was a mattress!
I just thought it might help us determine what was under the table in the photograph!
Leanne! |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 06:16 pm | |
| Leanne 'The Little Macquarie Dictionary' does that mean you are a Sydney Sider? |
Author: Michael Lyden
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 06:23 pm | |
Hello,
I have to admit that after studying the MJK SOC photo, that it is easy to start seeing things that are not realy there.I too thought i spotted a fracture in the femur but closer examination revieled that it was more likely a thin piece of flesh clinging to the bone.With respect to the positioning of the head,I think that JTR turned MJKs head so that it was facing who ever was going to enter the room[for the maximum shock effect].Talking of MJKs head and face, how was Barnett possibly able to Identify the body by the eyes?----what eyes? kellys right eye seems to be extremly mangled and her left one is missing!Or are they both just obscured by torn flaps of skin?Surely Barnett, having viewed the body through the hole after the window frame had been removed, had a similar view point of the body as we have looking at the photograph today.Can anybody help me with this? Your comments would be most welcome. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 08:40 pm | |
David, there is still absolutely no cloth covering Mary Kelly's legs in photo #2. Why you keep claiming to see this is mind boggling. Considering that Dr. Bond thought that Kelly was lying naked on the bed, totally missing the fact Kelly was wearing a chemise, it is obvious that it was not covering the body and was in fact hard to tell that she had anything on. Bond carried out a detailed examination of the body and the room yet somehow missed this chemise which you seem to think was covering her.
As Tom's outline of the femur clearly shows, this feature is at the centre of the photograph, as I had earlier stated, and thus may have been the reason why this particular photograph was taken.
RJ, in discussions that I have had with forensic pathologists, the consensus is that it would take about an hour to an hour and a half for digestion of fish and chips to have reached the stage described by Dr. Bond. However I have received opinions that it could have been shorter or possibly as long as several hours. This is the frustrating thing with trying to get a consensus from several experts.
Michael, Mary Kelly's eyes were untouched by the Ripper.
Wolf. |
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 12:14 am | |
| Mr. Lyden, I have to agree with you. I'm looking at the Kelly photo, (from JtR, the first American etc, etc) and I can't discern eyes either. Her facial features have been so obscured by the mutilations, the only parts that are recognizable are her forehead, and right jaw line. Has anyone tried to sketch in the probable positions of the eyes, nose, and mouth? |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 05:56 am | |
Joseph,
I've been trying to get some sense from MJKs face for a few hours and everything I do makes the girl look acromegalic. I'll give it some more tries (possibly on 'enhanced' images, so be prepared for poor quality...
:)
Roger |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 06:45 am | |
This is the best I could do, from my graphical musings... I've outlined the hair and general face shape in red, the blur lines are, of course the usual ratio lines, which should cross the eyes, just below the nose, and the mouth.
The green shows my take on eye location, the nose mutilation and where the mouth appears to be.
If anyone can improve, please do so, since I'm limited to what I can achieve with the tools at hand :)
Roger |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 11:03 am | |
| If I can get my scanner working , I'll have a go at trying to draw Kelly's face as it might have looked without the mutilations. Hopefully I won't have the same problems as Leanne in trying to do this sort of thing ! |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 12:50 pm | |
Wolf,
Please look for the rolled-up chemise across the abdomen in photo # 1. See it? It has a crescent shape, and reaches across the abdomen, side to side. The Ripper rolled it up like that to gain access. Now look at photo # 2. There is no crescent over the abdomen. Where did it go? It went back down the legs, where it was before the mutilations began.
David |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 04:25 pm | |
David,
I am not sure I agree with your analysis of the two pictures. The artifact on Pic 1 would be out of frame on 2, unless I'm looking at the wrong thing. Could you post the bit of the picture that you reference, just for clarification, and I can incorporate it in my mapping image.Then I can repost a full mapping of the 2 pictures.
Roger |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 10:51 pm | |
Roger,
I am not able to scan pictures onto the internet yet.
What do you mean by the artifact? I don't recall using that term.
What I am talking about is the light shining through what I take to be the hinge side of the door. The hinge-side is too far to the right in photo # 2, if the furniture has not been rearranged and Sugden's diagram is correct.
David |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 02:51 pm | |
David,
Sorry, I was using a term I was taught when I started analysing images. What I wanted highlighting was the rolled up chemise in Pic 1.
The light is shining thru the hinge side of the door, I agree, but I cant see the chemise pulled down, or rolled up :)
Roger |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 04:58 pm | |
| Leanne, you may have solved the mystery of the "thing under the table" If the mattress was stuffed with hay as one of the above postings indicates then it may be a tuft of hay. It looks like a lot of irregular long spiky stuff. If Jack was jabbing away at MJK he may have hit the mattress now and then tearing it open. |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 05:03 pm | |
| I just went back in the archive and looked again. It could be hay but it has a tiny white trapezoidal thing in with it that I am at a loss to identify. |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 09:14 pm | |
Roger,
I don't know how to place highlights onto photos embedded here, so I will give you a verbal description. If Mary Jane were to move her left hand downward toward her pubic area, the rolled-up chemise would be the first thing her left pinky finger would touch on its way. The left pinky can't be more than one inch away from the chemise in the picture. Just follow the left pinky downward, and see the cresent- or hump-shaped rolled-up mass of the chemise lying across the abdomen from hip to hip.
I may be that people are missing what I say by not understanding what I mean by "rolled-up." What I mean is that the Ripper rolled-up the chemise from a normal position of it reaching down toward her ankles to a hiked-up position of it lying wrinkled-up on her abdomen. I don't mean that he rolled it up into a ball.
See what I mean?
David |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 03:08 am | |
DAVID: It still doesn't look crescent shaped to me, but I think I finally understand what you're talking about ... To me it appears that the back side of Mary's chemise is pinned under her left elbow, with one corner draped across the top of her left thigh. The other corner of the back side of the chemise is bunched up underneath Mary's right knee & thigh.
There is a small piece of material inside the crook of Mary's left elbow, by the cuts on her left arm. The piece looks sorta like a taco, perhaps a crescent if you turn the pic sideways. This wisp also appears to be pulled up from underneath Mary's backside, possibly when the Ripper "posed" her left arm.
I see one, maybe two whitish wisps or lines across Mary's chest, which may be the tattered remains of the upper portion of Mary's chemise ... Or possibly caused by light bouncing off Mary's ribs--Dr. Tom may have some input on that possibility.
Am I in the same area you're speaking of, David?
DIANA & LEANNE: The Thing Under the Bed looks too smooth edged to be hay, and I'm not so sure a 6 or 8 inch blade would penetrate through the bottom of the mattress.
If the whitish whatchmacallit is a cap ... Perhaps the Thing is a hot water bottle, or pardon my French--a douche bag. Some sort of professional accessory to prevent pregnacy would normally be kept near the bed, I'd think.
Janice |
