|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Maurice Dechamps
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 2:50 am: | 
|
Hello,
I initially mentioned this on the thread for R.D. Stephenson. It is an occult symbol left on Mary Kelly which can only be seen on the close up on the second MK Photo. I had no trouble in noticing it as I had seen it before but I am still searching for the reference which I had seen it. It was something to do with Satanic Occultism. I have made a few hard copies and handed a few out but only got one response. Someone I knew who worked in a record store had also seen it in relation to Satanic Occultism.
Needless to say, If anyone out there has seen it can they save me some time and give me the reference. I would be greatful. I dont know exactly why it is there or why it has not previously been mentioned. It seems to be on fabric on MK which is why it is remarkable that it is viewable.Fabric is not straight by nature. I did run the line of symmetry so that both sides can be viewed and matched up.
If I can match the clue up, It might be possible to look at possible suspects.
Thank you Maurice. ![attachment [c]](../4921/18878.jpg) |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 762
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Hi Maurice,
I know of a lot of Satanic and other occult symbols, and I have no idea what you could be thinking of.
Also, looking at the photo with more of the surroundings in place, it's important to realize that the section you have boxed above in real life is probably only four inches across, if that. The thing you see as a symbol might be only an inch or two wide. It would be pretty remarkable if her killer could have found a way to draw something with such thin lines at that size.
Here's an enhanced version, with some nearby features for context:
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 30
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 10:01 pm: |
|
Maurice,
I obviously could be wrong here, but I think what you are looking at are two of her ribs. Comparing this photo with the first, I have to admit that they seem to be a bit low, but they also seem to have been pulled (broken) away. Like I mentioned, however, I could be wrong about this.
Sandy |
S.Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 2:45 am: |
|
Hi Sandy,
I am not sure where you get ribs from.The thing(whatever it is) looks like it's only about one inch from the top of her mutilated vagina. I agree with Maurice that is simply something etched on that fabric - not bones. I also agree with Dan that it is no Satanic Cult symbol. If it makes any difference I had noticed it a while ago( about 6 mths ago).I thought it looked skull like but didn't bother to mention it to anyone. |
Graham W.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 10:46 pm: |
|
Maurice,
Without wishing to sound sarcastic this is the same problem associated with the numbers on the leg thread. It needs to be viewed as a three-dimensional artefact. Viewed in two dimensions (in Dan's enlargement) I see a bear facing forward and just to the right is a dog in profile facing left - this is all seeing faces in clouds (or the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast). As an 'occult'/'satanic' symbol I'm with Dan. This just doesn't work.
Graham W. |
Maurice Dechamps
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 8:56 pm: |
|
Thanks for enlarging the picture Dan.
The post I wanted to make didnt work out the way I hoped.It might not be Satanic related as you say, but that is the light bulb that went off inside my head.
It is interesting to note though Dan, that if you follow the contour of the yellow part of the image against the black, it does look manufactuered or artificial.It looks like a sort of skull type formation.The two eyes are clearly visible at equal distance apart.There are two front teeth, and iether a tongue, or a long chin.If you run a line of symmetry obliquely through the picture, which cuts square between the eyes to the tongue, then both of the sides appear to be analogous.
If the image is not artificial, then it is perculiar that it is located on that blackish fabric alone - with no other markings visible around it.The point I am making is that it seems to be a coherent image centered on that piece of fabric.If it was a random image, there is nothing else in it's vicinity to contrast it with?
If you dont think that it is artificial, than what exactly is it?
Thank you Maurice |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
OK, a bit more greyscaling, de-speckling etc has taken me about as far as my limited photo-enhancing skills will take me. I'm now convinced that these are actually letters and no mere photographic artefact (e.g. like the "28:4" discussed previously might have been) or random bloodstain (like the alleged "calling cards" that some believe Maybrick may have daubed around).
Quite how the letters got there I won't begin to speculate upon, but the "tatoo" explanation looks very unlikely now. If you look closely it appears that the medium forming the letters seems to have been smeared on in a fairly slipshod manner - with a finger, perhaps? There also appear to be blobs of thicker writing medium, connected by more attenuated strokes - as if the writer used up a quantity of "ink" after a few strokes, then replenished it before moving onto the next. Again, certain other blobs look like the writing fluid has "pooled" in some areas - such as where the horizontal of the "H" cuts across its verticals - as one would expect if the writing medium were viscous, but not exactly "runny".
Anyhow, take a look. Make of it what you will - I have in no way touched the image itself, merely changed colour, contrast and noise.
 |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Dan,
I can't see any Satanic symbol, certainly not a straight one - although there appears to be a "curly" artefact shaped like a bull's head, either on or under the blanket just under Mary's left wrist. Perhaps Jack was an Ancient Minoan?
On another tack, however, your enhanced section has drawn my attention to something I've never seen before. I've checked on an "unenhanced" version and it's there also.
If you look at your section above, tracking horizontally from the highest point of Mary's wrist, you'll see what appears to be letters on part of Mary's flesh on the bedside table. In the full version of the picture, this lump of flesh may correspond to the flap removed from Mary's right leg above the knee.
The "letters" seem to be on the same plane as Mary's flesh, since a fold of her bedclothes obscures the middle "letter". Might it be a rather crappy tattoo?
God help me for suggesting this, but the "writing" seems to spell something like "JEWEL". Has this been spotted before? |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Re my previous posting, I've tried image enhancement and - for what it's worth - the letters are starting to look more like "GEHEN" or "SEHEN" than "jewel". German scholars, Biblical scholars, and speculators take note ;o) Not quite finished the tweaking, but what I've already got might help. |
K. Graham
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
Mr D. Norder.
I agree with you that this symbol is not Satanic.I also am well knowledged of occult symbols, and it is not related to Satanic occultism.The key thing here to look at, is not the two eyes, but the tongue protruding from the mouth. This is more of a tribal distinction. Any references I could match up might be Polonesian or African.I guess there is also the possibility the mark was left by detectives or the Doctor.
Thanks - Kyle. |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 31
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 6:26 pm: |
|
Maurice,
It had looked to me that the area you had squared in your initial post was between Mary's wrist and the blanket. Now, the second photo is a difficult one for me to discern, however, comparing the placement of her wrist in the first photo, it looks like the area you marked is slightly below her wrist, which looks like the area would be above her navel. By looking at it this way, I have to admit that the section honestly looked like two of ribs having been lifted up, and then pulled down(broken), and they were sticking out at an odd angle. I did, of course, mention in my original post that I could be wrong about this. I am curious about the explanations about seeing symbols, or some type of design. Is there any way that someone could highlight the design as they see it? I am curious. As I mentioned before, the second photo is a bit disorienting for me. I would appreciate and welcome any feedback.
Thanks!
Sandy |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 32
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 8:44 pm: |
|
Sorry, I mentioned "blanket" instead of sheet.
Sandy |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 33
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 12:16 am: |
|
Hello again! I looked back over the thread "Second Photograph", and under "archives", March 20, 2003, there is a graph superimposed over the second photograph. The section in question is B4 (or 4B, depending on how you look at it), and there is a post after this where it is mentioned that sections 4C and 4D (immediately after) could be the exposed pelvic bone. If that is the case, then 4B would be before her pelvic bone. This is the way I am seeing it. Also, we would need to consider that her body may not be laying completely straight. Her pelvis could be turned a bit to the left, which would make the space between her lower rib(s) and her pelvis appear shorter (less)due to the angle. I am open to other considerations of course, but right now this is how I am seeing it.
Sandy |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 457
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Hi All,
I have just noticed something very interesting about these photos and I am going to put together a couple of illustrations to see if what I think is going on pans out, It will hopefully fix the position of those funny marks fairly conclusively and I have a feeling that it is going to show up something else which is even more interesting.
I'll post shortly.
Love Jane
xxx |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2756
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 6:23 pm: |
|
Is it me??????????????????????????????
At the end of the day there's nothing written here Im sure !
Apart from a fairly unspeakable mess there's nothing untoward to be seen I feel..........surely that's enough......why look for FMs ,39s,Satanic/Masonic signs,or Afro- Polynesian symbols in a carnage like this?
In such a room ..........I feel that it's possible to see almost anything....like seeing pictures in a fire or the clouds....although they may be a more pleasing pastime!
Maybe just stick to the adage that if 'I CAN SEE IT then IT'S THERE'...........hmmmmmm bit like 'I can't see you so you can't see me though!!!!'
With 'some' cynicism..(but a very vaguely open mind ,as ever)
Suzi |
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 595
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
The only thing I've noticed in the photo is this, which I don't know if it has been mentioned before.
A Knife?
Rob |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 34
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Rob,
I have to admit that what you circled does look like it could be a knife, however, if there was a knife on the table (or anywhere else in the room), wouldn't that be in at least one of the descriptions of the crime scene? I just cannot imagine that it would have been left out. If anyone has the capabilities to enhance that section, it may (or may not) be able to show us what exactly it is we are looking at.
Suzi,
Good point. It seems that if we stare at something too long, we are bound to see something that just isn't there. There are more questions than answers surrounding this case, and with all the frustration that can go along with trying to find the answers, sometimes we are determined to find the "needle in the haystack", because is must be there.
Sandy |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 458
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 7:54 pm: |
|
HI all,
The illustrations have turned out to be more interesting than I thought, so I am going to start a new thread in a couple of days. I will post the relevant bit here though when they are done as it might help a bit to sort out where that is actually located.
Hugs
Jane
xxx |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1764
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 4:20 am: |
|
Rob,
As Sandy mentions. It would have been recorded along with the Ginger beer bottles and pipe.
Then again, I dont remember the mentioning of the washtub under the bed either !
However, a knife...would that have been missed?
Monty
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 596
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:07 am: |
|
Hi Monty, Sandy
Got to agree with both of you here, but (and a big but), we don't have the official police inventory. The phrase "Tin Matchbox empty" springs to mind
Rob |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1765
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:48 am: |
|
Rob,
Yes, very true.
Monty
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
fjl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
I agree with Rob, it's one of the weapons, but I've long thought it to be a saw, Rob. It's a standard butcher's saw, 1888. The loops at the centre are supposed to carve limbs, and notice how the top handle tilts upward a little to accomodate the full hand grasp.
Well done for the good close-up. |
Maurice Dechamps
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 1:17 am: |
|
Hello again,
SANDY: - Thanks for your reply, I do have some feedback.You have hit the nail on the head. I only realised after reading the other posts that there is a wide gulf between people's perspective.I guess now I can see my error in that on the web people can post from any country in the world, and that due to many factors, no two people see exactly the same thing. You are right - I need to be more explicit in my description.
I definatley see no physical material, of the human body such as a pelvis or bones. What I see is just fabric - perhaps a sheet - lying between her arm and the top of her groin. The mark I see has , in my view, been put there by the hand of man. I was going to ask Dan this , but I'll ask you Sandy. With the trouble I seem to having posting my picture images - CAN YOU PLEASE ASSIST ME BY MAKING THIS POST. I want everyone to see EXACTLY what I am.
The thing is that white mark smack in the middle of the picture Dan posted. IT IS VERY SKULL LIKE IN APPEARANCE. There are 2 distinct eyes at the top, a gap in the middle and an elongated tongue poing out. From the tongue is obliquely pointing NNW in direction. IF YOU COULD PLEASE CIRCLE THE IMAGE AS CLOSE AS YOU CAN AND ENLARGE IT ( without distorting it) THAT WOULD BE EMENSELY HELPFUL.
* also - if you can, you could post a second picture with the line of symmetry running through the image between the eyes to the tongue.`This shows both sides match.
JANE CORAM: I am very much looking forward to your post.
GARETH W: As for random images - see my comment below to Suzi. If you are serious - your find looks good. It looks like smeared fingerprints trying to form letters. I see SEHEN.
SUZI HANAY: I realise it is easy to be cynical in this case with all that has come out in 116 years. But I think this would be a fair statement. From what I have reaserched - Serial Killers, sometimes, leave clues or 'signatures'. In a crimescene such as MK's - it visually is a 'pigs breakfast'. I think that in your haste to be cynical , you are precluding the very real possibility he has left a clue amongts this 'pigs breakfast'.
I thinks you need to achieve a balanced view of what is randomness, and the actual possibility that Jack left us a clue.
Thanks alot - Maurice |
Snarpwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 9:50 pm: |
|
What poofery. What a waste of bandwidth. Do you folks know how many satanic and other symbols have been "noticed" on Mary Kelly? You'd have to be half barmy just to respond seriously to this stuff. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Suzi,
As I said earlier, I don't see anything in the mangled wreckage of MJK's abdomen, but the "letters" apparently daubed on the thigh(?) on the bedside table are certainly there, I assure you. The fact that there are four distinct letter-like shapes (and a fifth less distinct) arranged in the same place, at least one of which is partially obscured by the bed-linen in the foreground makes this unlikely to be a mere "accident" or trick of the light in my book.
Robert,
What I see there could well be a flap of flesh, with some pooled blood, rather than a knife. If it *is* a knife then the blade has a very crude appearance, besides which its handle appears to be missing.
All,
I'm starting to think that the strange "minotaur-like" light patch originally pointed out by Maurice as a "satanic symbol" could possibly be nothing more than the severed ends of the left renal artery, left renal vein and left ureter, seen in cross-section.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2757
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 2:28 pm: |
|
Hi Rob,
Exactly..........and Kates' red 'cigarette case' too somehow springs to mind too!
At the risk of further cynicism!!............A .... KNIFE!!!!!!!!!...Blimey I'm sure they'd have noticed that small item in the room over said ginger beer bottles and the odd 'Fisherman's Widow'!(yep Mont and the pipe!)
Tho' as you say Mont no one made comment of the ubiquitous 'bathtub' thats true!!!!!!(Praps Everyone had one in Millers Court and they were de rigeur!!!!...somehow I doubt it!!!)
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2758
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 2:44 pm: |
|
Maurice-
In what you so graphically describe as a 'Pigs Breakfast' I am sure that there MAY have been some form of 'clue' as so often left by many serial killers!
BUT what ever it was, it must have been pretty subtle,or maybe only to be noticed by another ,linked to the case....whatever, it eluded the police of the time...maybe in their horror of the 'scenario' they missed it....somehow I doubt it!
Gareth.....have spent a long time now looking at my GOOD pics of this scene from both sides!!! and I cant see anything!!!!
Rob C
Love the knife!!! Funny that isn't it!! case closed!!! LOL
Suzi |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Maurice,
I do not have very good software for editing, however, I will see what I can do. I do feel the need to state again that I don't see any symbols or designs. I think what we are looking at is a part of her anatomy. The question now is what part?
Rob,
I will also see what I can do about the "knife". By zooming in (just a little), the object begins to look like something that is just a part of the original mess, and not a knife or weapon, but as I have already mentioned, I do not have the proper skills or software to really go into great detail with it, or to get any good results. I don't believe that a knife would have been at the scene and then not mentioned. Anyway, perhaps there is someone out there who can get a better visual to post here and then everyone can decide for themselves. Sorry this isn't much help.
Sandy |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2759
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Sandy
I feel it's a great help!!!!! ,software aside I think needles and haystacks are a relatively easy task compared to this here!!!!!!
COME on........its all part of the unspeakable viscera.........and that's it!!!
Suzi } |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
Suzi,
I agree with you. The police were under a tremendous amount of pressure to catch JtR, and I am sure that they (the police)would have taken into consideration everything and anything that may have been considered a clue. I do not believe that there are/were symbols, designs, monograms, or any other such things at the crime scene. The police surely would have noticed something like that. I do however, understand the feeling that looking back after over one hundred years, that there may be something there that the police had missed, or would have considered unimportant. Hindsight is 20/20 they say. There is always that hope that something might turn up, that something unexpected might present itself. That aside, yes, what we are looking at is simply a part of what was left of Mary. Realizing that, one cannot help but think about what happened to her, and because of that, we should probably make sure that we don't get too far ahead of ourselves and risk sensationalizing what was done to her. I mean "we" in a very general sense. Am I making any sense here?
Sandy |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2760
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 3:31 am: |
|
Hi Sandy!,
Course you're making sense!!
If you look at all the things that the police at the time allegedly 'missed'...Symbols,lettering various,axes........hearts!!!!!!you begin to wonder how they proved a credible police force at all....the whole thing takes on a Gilbert and Sullivan aspect!!.There are I hate to say ,some things that do fit this picture quite well,but Im quite sure that with the resources,techniques etc at their disposal in 1888 they did a sterling job!
As you say there's always that hope......without that what are any of us doing here?!....That's our 'raison d'etre' after all!!!
In hope,
Suzi |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 467
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 2:19 am: |
|
I don't know if this helps at all, but a full length picture with the area circled at least might eliminate things.
It is on the tissue or is part of the tissue and not on any kind of cloth. My guess from the area is that it might be intestines, or just some part of the abdomen......
 |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 771
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 8:01 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
I do have to agree that that section definitely has no cloth present. That's a body cavity, where her lower abdomen/groin was removed (along with the flaps from the legs) and placed on the table. Its hacked up interior flesh, not some surface someone could have inscribed with a pen for some reason. I do think the circular patches are some sort of cross section of some sort of vein or artery or something along those lines.
But, wow, when you go to make your point, you do have cool art. :-)
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
MattyB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 6:55 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
This is my first post here after some years as a 'student' of the Ripper case. Whilst I am not convinced that the item on Kelly's bedside table is a knife or a saw or indeed anything of significance, I am always surprised by those who argue that something can not possibly be the case on the basis that the police didn't pick up on it at the time. This applies to suspects, clues, and all sorts of other aspects of the case.
Many times, too many in my view, I have read people dismiss a suspect (e.g. Barnett, for example) on the basis that the police didn't seem to suspect him.
Can we remember that the police FAILED to solve the case! This means, obviously, that they didn't have all the answers. And, unlike the Victorian public and media who ridiculed them, their inability to solve the case was not because they were totally useless but because this was a new breed of case and Abberline and co. were only human beings. They were capable, as are the rest of us, of making mistakes!
As someone here has already pointed out, they don't seem to have noted the washtub under Kelly's bed, clearly visible in the famous photograph.
Therefore, the fact that the police don't seem to have taken a clue or suspect seriously in 1888 does not mean that they were right about it.
Some ripperologists seem to swing between taking the ideas of the police at the time very seriously or implying that they were totally clueless.
They didn't solve the case in 1888. We probably won't now either. But that doesn't mean that we can't figure things out in 2005 that the police back then couldn't.
Just my opinion, for what it's worth. |
S. Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:43 am: |
|
Hello Suzi and Sandy,
I have a different way of looking at what you say about the police in 1888.Infact, I politely disagree with you.I am not in law enforcement, so it's not for the mice to tell the lions how it is. However, I look at what you say differently.From what I know of the time, the police of 1888, and detectives such as Abberline ect, one word springs to mind - METHODICAL, METHODICAL,METHODICAL.
The only problem is Suzi ans Sandy, Jack the Ripper was not methodical.He was an enigma.I think that it is extremely possible that a clue he might have left at the scene was not detected due to it's probable obscurity. A hot shot FBI detective in 2005 might spot a little clue, but it is possible a small clue was not detected in 1888. All the best.
Suzi , you are absolutely right about hope .Amateur ripper sleuth's, such as me do still have hope. Remember this, he has not yet been caught! |
S. Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 12:47 am: |
|
Gareth W,
The game now is for you to find out what these letters could possibly mean in terms of choosing a motive, or suspect. What could they possibly mean? |
fjl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
It's not a waste of bandwith when a discussion such as one on the murder weapon emerges. There's a good, large butcher's saw, somewhat of a very large knife, if you want to call it one, obviously for trade use, as in carving commercial meat, lying on the table. That is breakthrough, not bandwaste. Let's discern the difference! |
Dorset
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Hi there,
I'm slightly confused, in some books the FM on the wall of Mary Kelly's place is clearly more visible in some of the books than in others.
Can any one tell me why,
David |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:16 pm: |
|
Suzi,
Not codding, honestly! I have looked at a "good" monochrome picture as well, and the letters are indeed lost in the contrast/shadow. But, tweak the brightness of the image gradually and you'll soon see the letters emerge just as clearly as in the sepia image posted earlier.
The important thing, from a "non-artefact" point of view, is that I can see NO OTHER "letters" emerging anywhere else on the image, least of all five "letters" in a row, least of all five "letters" that - consistently - appear of the right size, appearance and consistency of having been daubed on by by a finger dipped periodically into a semi-viscous writing medium.
The word "SEHE(N)" ["LOOK"] may have been a taunt to those whom the murderer knew would discover his "sculpture", alternatively - given the general direction of the remains of her gaze - a taunt directed at Mary herself.
If it *was* actually a message, then "SEHE(N)" implies that a German - or less likely - Yiddish speaker (or someone familiar with those languages) daubed the letters and was possibly therefore Mary's murderer. Likewise "GEHE(N)" ["GO"] also has German connotations but could - even more outrageously - have been part of the longer word "Gehenem", which is pure Yiddish and means "Hell".
Make of it what you will, but since the police weren't averse to suppressing some evidence linking the Jews to scenes of crime, then perhaps this might explain why this photograph went missing from the police archives for nearly a century. It might also explain why the putative clue was never reported or otherwise widely documented at the time.
Perhaps this deserves a separate thread - I'm a bit peeved that I've inadvertently linked my (possibly equally dodgy) discovery with the "Satanic Symbol" thread!
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 776
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Hi Gareth,
Sorry, but if you look at the photo I posted and examine the darker areas to the left and right of the area you think you see letters on you will see more shapes of a similar nature. They don't stand out as well as they are on a dark background instead of the less dark background of the flesh hanging off the table, but they are of the same form as the things you have convinced yourself are letters on the flesh -- except they are floating in mid air!
It's easier to see if you have your monitor set to a bright setting... PC monitors especially are known to be dark (it's their default gamma settings) but I'm on a Mac and can see them clear as a bell without adjusting my screen.
That means they are either just random noise on the image that you have isolated and interpreted as letters or they are letters across the surface of the photo. Either way they were not actually present at the crime scene.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2767
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Right!!!! Gareth,S.Ryan (cool name!),Dan et al
Ive tried everything and despite Janes Illustration (Its just innards!!!!)...Just HAVE to say there's nothing there!!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2768
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Jane think the knee nearest the door in the skeleton's too high it was splayed and didnt really obscure
Thanks to Spry for that image!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2769
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
WASHTUB clearly and beautifully seen in this pic tho..............and not recorded!!!!!
Suzi |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3713
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Suzi, darling
"Jane think the knee nearest the door in the skeleton's too high it was splayed and didnt really obscure."
What on Earth do you mean here? I don't understand a thing of it. Please elaborate.
And what do you mean 'nearest the door'? The leg Jane's been talking about is the one closest to the camera -- that is Mary Kelly's left leg (not left as we see it). Or have I misunderstood you?
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2773
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 6:29 am: |
|
Glenn!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mary's left leg is closest to the viewer!!!!! see you back on the 'other thread!!'
Sorry to confuse!!!! :/
Suzi |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3718
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 8:22 am: |
|
Oh OK, Suzi.
My mistake. We mean the same leg, then.
This bloody second language thing again...
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 39
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
Hello everyone.
I have not looked at this thread for a couple of days. Matty, in answer to "I am always surprised by those who argue that something can not possibly be the case on the basis that the police didn't pick up on it at the time."
I believe that if there was a knife sitting on the table, the police most definitely would have noticed it. I understand that the police were not used to the breed of killer that they were dealing with, and yes, they were human and probably made their share of mistakes in the investigations. However, I do not believe that the police force would have decided not to acknowledge a knife sitting on the table, next to a mess of flesh that had been removed from her body.
So...to believe that there was a knife sitting on the table and the police did nothing about it, or considered it of no consequence, would imply that the police force were clueless. There are also no symbols or monograms on the body. Surely the police would have noticed. As I have mentioned in an earlier post, the pressure was on for Abberline to find this guy. The public and the media were not very forgiving. The police would not have let something such as a knife go undetected. As I mentioned in an earlier post (I don't believe I am quoting myself),
I do however, understand the feeling that looking back over one hundred years, that there may be something there that the police had missed, or would have considered unimportant...There is always that hope that something might turn up." - Now, I do believe this, and yes, things may turn up and that is something that I think we all hope for. I do not believe that 'thing' is going to be a knife sitting on the table next to Mary's mutilated body. It's not there.
Sandy |
S. Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
Snarpwinkle,
Lighten up. There are more obscure things dicussed on this site than this.Like did walter Sickert have a funny penis. As Maurice put it, you, or anyone, does not know whether Jack did leave a clue amongst this mess. History tells us that many SK's do. So even if we wade through the dud's, we might hit a live one. Cheers!
Spinal Tap - " but our amplifiers go to 11! " |
K. Graham
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 9:13 am: |
|
WRONG - WRONG - WRONG- WRONG - WRONG - WRONG.
I am overuling on this call. That mark is not innards. Look at Suzi Hanay's post at 3.37 pm. That sheet she has on covers her entire torso. Look closely. There are patches of blood stains all over the white sheet, leaving a red and white sheet. Follow the sheet as it tucks under her left arm. It goes from white to red - where blood has stained it. Thus the thing is a white object against a dark red background.
I have a university degree in anatomy, and it looks nothing like I have ever seen - not arteries or intestine.I believe her killer has placed that mark there with a bright substance to stand out against the red sheet. Thanks.
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 4:44 am: |
|
Dan,
I see what you mean, but enhancing your image reveals the "floating letters" to be merely graininess in the image that don't "spell" anything. The "GEHEN/SEHEN" on the flesh appears more "structured" to me and the odds of random photographic noise creating actual words emerge must be quite small. It's almost a case of monkeys and typewriters, if you catch my drift.
Again, if all we have is noise it's difficult, but not impossible, to explain the apparent occlusion of the letter "H" by the fold in the foreground bedlinen.
It could, of course, transpire that the photograph was kept betwen the pages of a book and that some writing on the adjoining page has "leaked" in contact with the print. But it would had to have been very "dauby" writing to produce that effect and, unless the photograph itself is the wrong way round, written in reverse.
I'm really not 100% convinced it's there at all, but given the odds involved I'm just as doubtful that it's merely random noise.
Jane,
Thanks for the anatomical model - great stuff. As I said earlier, the other "mystery image" being referred to in this thread could well be the cut ends of the renal artery and vein. From your artwork, these vessels are certainly roughly in the right place to produce the "satanic symbol" effect noted by others.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
