|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1022
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 10:45 pm: | 
|
Helge,
Now back to you... What on EARTH are you doing to come up with those numbers? OK, so you can estimate the length of the head, but you can't just draw a another line that's not on the same plane of reference elsewhere on the photo and know what length that is... Then you do this and seem to come up with numbers out of nowhere... You say: "Since we know the difference in perspective makes anything on line 3 (mid-table) 1.324 times bigger than on line 1 (face)"... No, we don't know that. How did you come up with that?
And then when you say the table is 22 inches, you say: "Not a small table." What? 22 INCHES is TINY for a table. You pretty much can't get any tinier than that and still have it be a table instead of like, say, a potted plant stand.
Assuming this number is right -- which so far you haven't demonstrated any reason why we should think it is -- that's actually more support for the idea that the object is the right size to be the flesh in question. Mary was cut from knee to groin up to stomach and across to the other knee or nearly so. For someone 5'6" tall, the top of a thigh is about 14 inches long. Between some hanging off and the rest kind of flopped on, a 22 inch table is absolutely not at all too big for the item on it to be the flesh from the legs... and, as a matter of fact, since Dr. Bond says that the flesh IS on the table, even going by your numbers nothing else on that table is ANYWHERE near as big as it would need to be for even just one thigh.
So, AGAIN, unless you want to believe that Dr. Bond couldn't tell the difference between a pillow and the mutilated flesh off a dead woman, or that for some reason somebody thought it would be amusing to take the flesh off the table and replace it with a pillow for the photo, you pretty much have to face facts here and realize that the object in question is the flesh from her legs and groin.
And that's not even getting into the obvious muscle pattern in the dangling flesh and the fact that you have Mary's orifice staring you in the face!
I mean, come on people.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 492
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 3:11 am: |
|
Dan, the point was that the table seems to be quite paralell to the bed. If it is even approximately so, we have two approximate paralell lines in the table end and the top of the headboard.
You say that they are not perfectly lined up. I said they were approximately lined up. I did mention this caveat.
If you don't understand the math that is not my problem. You may claim that the lines I used are not paralell, and I allready know that would give an error.
That the headboard is crooked, as you say, does not come into the equation. It does not matter, as long as it is reasonably paralell to the short end of the table. A line may be paralell to another even if it is on a different level above the floor. It may be paralell on the floor, or on the ceiling, or anywhere in between.
You are correct that in the example with the boxes you posted there are no vanishing lines to be made out between any two boxes. But each box actually do give such lines, only that the angle and perspective on that particular image makes it a tad bit more difficult to measure because the lines are not converging that much. An imaging processing software would have no problems with that, however. It's still there. You actually can't take a photograph and not have it there.
In the MJK1 image we are so fortunate that it is clear enough to make a reasonable correct calculation, that is the only difference.
The lines of the headboard and table is actually similar to the two lines you draw from one box, IF the bed and table are paralell!
And they seem quite paralell to me. Please don't say things like I take numbers from out of thin air. This is elementary high school math (at least in Norway). I explained where I got the numbers from. It is not magic.
When I said the table was large I meant that. I did not compare it to tables as such. I compared it to normal size bedside tables. And I was comparing it to the size the table needed to be for you to be correct.
So. Anyone may claim that the bed and table is not paralell. Anyone may claim MJK had a head above or below average size. That would make the numbers change a bit.
But not that much. Come on!
Feel free to make your own calculations. And if you by any chance can prove the table is not paralell to the bed, I would love to hear why.
Really.
That said, if you instead of not accepting the feasibility to calculate this, rather argued that the calculations here yield only an approximation of the actual sizes, you would be correct. Obviously there are some margin of error. I even said I would go along with the possibility that the table was "only" 20 inches. That is stretching it a bit, IMO, but okay.
Another thing. Bond DID state there were flesh on the table. As far as I know no one is disputing that. What you seem to take for granted is that he would also have mentioned anything else on the table that he did not find relevant to the medical examination, such as a bolster.
I find his mentioning (or lack thereof) of the bedclothes on the bed itself also somewhat wanting.
So far I have not made up my mind about the patterns (stripes) on the image. You may be right on that. (And I say that without having studied it in detail) Could I suggest we get better quality photos to work with? Digitally altered images makes absolutely no sense when it comes to interpreting details.
About the orifice. In my opinion there is no way anyone can carve that part off from a body and put it on a table and still make it look like the real thing. At least not without propping the flesh up with something. If that was done, why was not that mentioned?
And how was the piece washed?
Such things WOULD have been relevant to mention.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on November 23, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3235
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
er, this thread is interesting I don't know if i dare post on it the amount of replies are gonna come through but i wanted to ask would MJK even have had a pillow in the first place?
We know however, don't we, that the flesh was on the table because thats what the report of Bond's said. Right?
Are you saying the 'pillow' can't be seen on the first photo but can be seen on the second. Where is the flesh on the second photo then???
????
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 190
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 9:30 am: |
|
Hi All
Interesting stuff Helge and I would actually go along with your estimate of the size of the table, but this tells me it was a small table too, in fact it is about the size of my coffee table, if I sit on the coffee table my thigh takes up a similar amount of space as the object to the left of the picture, and I am slim.( That's about as technical as I get)
I am not sure we who see it as flesh even see it the same way, to me the object on the left that hangs over looks like thigh muscle.
I would need to see a figure calculated for the surface area taken up by thigh muscle and skin and tissue from groin, abdomen etc. to be truly convinced that it's too big....can that be done?
Debra |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 267
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
Good morning people. Today's lesson is Flesh ala Table: First select a small end table, roughly 20-22 inches in length, or a bit bigger than a stool top. If it's just a bit wider than your shoulders, you've got it. Now select a victim that's described as somewhat stout. Yes, she'll do. It's important to begin with mounds of flesh that will support the rest of your impressive heap, so begin to carve the flesh from the thighs and keep going until the bones are denuded. What's that? Oh, well that means devoid of flesh. Now lay that flesh out on the table before going onto the next section of her body. No fair skipping ahead. Notice how nicely marbled it is? That's the fat. Yes, I agree there is quite a bit, but that adds to the flavor. It is up to you how to proceed next, but I prefer to remove a section from the lower abdomen as a secondary... plateau and finishing it all off with some nice pubic area chunks. You say the table is already filled to capacity? Well you may have to compress it a bit on the ends, giving it that pillowy effect that's to die for.
Great and there you have it. Flesh ala Table.
Next Week: Head Cheese
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Erin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 62
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
Debra, I'm not sure about the surface area (I'd have to look it up), but I can tell you that it is significant, much more so than I think most people realize. Frankly, given the amount of skin and other tissues Dr. Bond described, I'm surprised that the table held as much as it did.
Earlier I threatened to show pictures of cadavers to prove my point. I won't go so far as to post actual photos here, but I will direct your attention to a site where those with strong stomachs can see for themselves just how much flesh we are talking about here. Go to http://www.anatomy.wisc.edu/courses/gross/, where you can view videos of actual cadaver dissections. Consider yourself warned, however--the footage is very graphic and could be disturbing to some.
I am not posting this link to be ghoulish or to upset or provoke anyone. My intention is merely to prove that contrary to what some of you might believe, human flesh is not an insignificant substance, particularly when considering the amount described by Dr. Bond. The object in question needn't be a pillow to be so large. Nor does it need to be smooth, although I tend to agree with Dan that the apparent "pattern" is probably some kind of digital artifact. Don't take my word for it, though; see for yourself. Dissections 1, 8, and 25 are particularly useful for our purposes.
As to whether Jack could remove the "orifice" in a clean unbroken line, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. I doubt any of us have actually tried it, nor do we have the expertise to do so even if we were inclined to undertake so gruesome a task. If I had to hazard a guess, I wouldn't call it "impossible." Ed Gein was pretty handy with his knife, and he was hardly what I'd call an expert. Furthermore, I don't see why Jack would need to prop anything up. The vagina (let's call it what it is, shall we?) may be surrounded by fat but is itself composed primarily of muscle, which is quite capable of holding its shape. The same goes for the abdominal and thigh muscles, and even more so the tendons and ligaments.
Anyway, sorry to get so anatomical on you all. I hope I haven't spoiled anyone's dinner. I think these things needed to be brought out, and now was as a good a time as any.  |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 268
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
Erin,
You're gross! You must be from Oklahoma
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 651
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
I have been looking at Dr Bonds report, and without wanting to get embroiled in a discussion which seems to be reaching one stalemate after another I will just point up observations from this point on and let people make what they will of them.
Regarding Dr Bonds report......here are some observations that I found interesting......and gave me pause for thought.
First, the term he used in describing what was actually placed on the table is.......
'The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.'
This is flaps plural, telling us that it was more than one piece.....fair enough because there could be two piles of flesh there.
I wanted to look more closely at what he actually meant by the terms flaps......
The dictionary definition of the word flaps is this:
'something broad or flat, flexible or hinged and usu thin, that hangs loose or projects freely.'
That could cover the pile on the left hand side, although it does indicate that usually a flap is something thin and that is actually what I think of as a flap to be fair.......a flap of skin to me would be just the thickness of the skin with some underlying fat....and not with a large lump of meat attached to it. That however is just my interpretation of the word and others will have their own.
Looking at Dr Bonds report in sections I then tried to work out what he actually meant.
1. The skin & tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps.
This should actually be relatively easy to estimate.......we know how thick the skin and tissues of the average female abdomen would be. We know Mary was buxom and her height, but it is obvious from her legs and arms that she was not fat. She was without any real doubt, just an average sized, but generously endowed young woman.
If the flesh from that section from the costal arch to the top of the pubes was removed in 3 pieces.....which might have varied in size of course, they would be approx 6 - 10 inches square....it wouldn't actually matter how much these approximations are out, because there are definite limits to how big these pieces could have been.
We can't say how small they might have been, but we can of course set their upper limits and even the largest size would mean that they would still fit very easily into that pile on the right hand side of the table.
Without grossing people out here, the largest size they could have been is about the size of a small rolled up magazine....when they were folded over. (Sorry but I couldn't think of anything else to approximate a size).
So we have 3 distinct flaps of skin there.
2.The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock.
This is a bit more complex......but after I had thought about it for a while I got a few ideas.
We know that the right thigh was taken back to the bone.....and this expanse of flesh stretched right around from the buttock taking in the right thigh and extending across to include the external sex organs.
That is a considerable amount. But when I looked at what he had actually said more closely, it read differently.
It says that the right thigh was denuded to the bone.....but then he talks about the flap of skin again. Would a flap of skin really describe that amount of skin, fat and underlying muscle accurately? In the paragraph above he uses the term 'skin and tissue.' why then does he hear describe it as a 'flap of skin' here?
That amount of flesh, fat and muscle is not a flap of skin. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
So here we already have four pieces of skin and tissue making up the pile.....
3.The left thigh was stripped of skin, fascia & muscles as far as the knee.
This is not actually accurate, because we can see that it was only the inner thigh from the photograph and not the whole thigh.
Unfortunately it doesn't say how much of this was actually put onto the table.....but looking back at his first comment....he just says that the flaps were placed on the table. Not that helpful in determining how much.
It is clear though that there were 5 distint pieces at least put on the table.....and that it was not taken off in one larger wholly intact piece.
Therefore if the pile on the left is flesh it doesn't fit in at all with the description in Bonds report. If it is flesh, it shows both thighs in one piece, with the pubes attached not just to the flap of skin from the right thigh, but to the left one as well. I also shows the flesh from the abdomen in one piece not three and attached to both the left and right thighs.
In other words, whatever that thing is on the left hand side, it is one continuous piece, top to bottom and side to side, If the object dangling over the edge of the table is her right thigh, then it sould not be joined onto the rest of that object....but lying on it's own, etc., etc.,
Those are just observations, which people may or may not agree with. But I thought they were worth mentioning.
Janie
xxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on November 23, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4273
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Dan,
No the pattern is not a result from a JPEG compression. It is a pattern of lines following the shape of the object and the folds of the item in question. The pattern is in fact not the main point, but that there are clearly visible seams and stitches on the object. Like on a piece of fabric. It is not human skin, nor is it flesh.
And what on earth is your point with blowing up the picture that much to ridiculous proportions?
EVERY picture with JPEG compression looks totally lousy with that kind of blow-up, and gets lost in an ocean of distorted and blurry pixels! I just don't get you sometimes.
Again - the seams, folds and stictches on the object are clearly visible.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 23, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 614
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Assuming the legs of the table are 2X2", on the picture I have the far leg measures .090 and the near leg measures .120 on a line parallel to the top. That would make the average .105. In that same frame the table top is almost exactly 1". You have to do a little estimating here because the corners are slightly rounded. Dividing .105 into 1.000 and multiplying by 2 for the leg width you get 19.048. Even allowing that finished lumber is slightly smaller than its given size, the table looks like it's very near 19" wide which is in the ballpark. Just another gestimate but a somewhat reinforcing one none the less.
Do we have too much time on our hands or what? I no longer have to work so that's my excuse.
Stan |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 271
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
It looks like whale blubber to me, or a big section of thigh, fat, muscle and all, with the skin on top.
It has been said she was stout. Stout = bulky and bulky = fat. If it was a pillow or some fabric, which I find difficult to believe, it doesn't really matter unless someone wants it to. She was slaughtered like a pig, and her fat and flesh were deposited on the table. Pillows don't matter except to give people something inane to argue about.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 652
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 7:32 pm: |
|
HI Mike,
Well this is hardly an inane argument. If that is a pile of Mary's flesh on the table it brings into question a great many important points.....the first being that we completely have to re-evaluate Dr Bonds report and more or less throw it out of the window.....or we have to reconsider what kind of mind set Mary's killer actually had, and the amount of skill he had to be able to effect something like that. It actually brings into question a great many very important issues.
And Mary was not fat.....she was buxom.....her arms and legs and face show a well proportioned woman with an attractive shape, just slightly on the plumpish side.....
Just observations........
Janie
xxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on November 23, 2005) |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 10:06 pm: |
|
Helge,
All we can really do is wildly rough approximations. You seem to be admitting that now. Earlier you were talking precise figures and some mythical way of figuring things out by applying some vanishing point to two items that were not at all lined up with each other. Your posts about perspective showed that you did not know what I was talking about, and, furthermore, your response above seems to have missed my point completely. You responded with "You are correct that in the example with the boxes you posted there are no vanishing lines to be made out between any two boxes." which was not only not even my point but that point is wrong. Hell, I even drew the vanishing lines in, so obviously they can be made out. What I was showing is that you don't got some magical way of determining sizes in a photo just be assuming things line up. The headboard is not level with the bed, the body is not lined up parallel with the bed, and so forth.
Later on you point out that the bed and table are lined up in the long photo. That they are. We can get a rough appoximation here, but then these measurements end up proving your earlier claim that the item on the table was way too huge to be the flesh from the body wrong. It's exactly the right size. So while we can argue about vanishing lines and so forth until the cows come home, the point is that even your size estimates show your claim wrong.
As far as other points you added later... Where do you come up with the idea that the flesh had to have been washed?! It was a simple matter of picking it up and placing it on the table with the cut ends facing down and behind. Any fluids leaking out would have gone down and behind. It's nice like the whole surface would be covered in it. And, as far as cutting so as to preserve the vaginal opening, I don't think that would be hard. We know (and can see in the photo) that the flesh was cut down underneath into the buttocks area as well. Preserving the vaginal opening doesn't even become an issue as the whole thing was lifted out in one piece.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1025
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 10:36 pm: |
|
Jane,
Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with your major points. "Flaps" does not necessarily mean small and rule out the large expanse of flesh we are talking about. Neither does the term indicate that these flaps were separate from each other; for example, the flap on an envelope is attached to the envelope, and if you take the envelope apart at the seams you have several flaps all attached at the center. If you do as the Ripper did and cut the top off each leg and cut up across the abdomen and below the genital region you have a central connecting area and two flaps coming off of it for the legs and the flap for the abdomen at the top. Simple as that. You are trying to argue based upon a very narrow interpretation of a word, and one that not only doesn;t hold in all cases but one that I don't really think works at all. If these were three separate parts they no longer would be flaps they just be pieces. The thing that makes them a flap is that they have something to stick off of. Your version might be one way to interpret the meaning, but it's certainly not the only way to interpret it, as it would have to be for your argument to mean anything here.
Glenn,
The whole point here is that A) Patterns can and do show up artificially, B) This particular photo is, quite honestly, one of the poorest quality photos I have ever seen, and the JPEG compression involved is so incredibly bad that I can't even get boxes of JPEG artifacts that bad by setting my software to the worst settings, C) In the close up what you are seeing is not only not normal JPEG compression in a photograph, but in it you can see that the colors and the details in each block differs quite substantially from the ones next to them... You can see the artificial pattern both on the leg and in other places -- the other places being oriented so the pattern is just harder to pick up. Any subtlety in colors is completely washed out by this process, so for you are anyone to try to base some conclusion of patterns on the original surface based upon subtle changes is completely hopeless, as the photo just doesn't have the quality to do that.
What I am finding rather humorous here is how in the threads discussing the alleged pictures some people think they see in the close up photo or the supposed FM on the wall and etc., people jump in to talk about how horrible the quality is, and how people can see things that aren;t there, and how people can see what they want to see.... and now when it comes to a case where people here see something different from what Dr. Bond reported, now they are claiming that they can see subtle details in the same photo to try to support their opinions. At least be consistent in your arguments.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 289
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Hi all, you know I really dont like posting on an archived thread and using Stephens band with up, but I feel I need to comment here. The photo looks like flesh to me. Im not prepared to say WHAT it is, but those "patterns and stiches," may be due to the drying and shrinking of tissue and the fact that the photos were black and white on silver emulsion glass plates. I do have some photographic expertise having won 7 KINSA awards for my photos and teaching several adult education classes in photography. Also I happen to work in medicine. I think the biggest thing that sways me is the fact that LVP was rich with colors and patterns. We tend to think of the period as drab because we only have black and white photos of the time. That wasnt the way it was. One has only to look at restored Victorian houses to see they loved bright colors. Look too at Kates Shawl..Michealmass (whatever that is) Daiseys. These guys had the brightest color schemes till the late 60's. I got a feeling any bolster MJK had would have been quite gaudy. IMHO its flesh ....Brad |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 650
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 12:05 am: |
|
"we have to reconsider what kind of mind set Mary's killer actually had"
I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that Jack was composing a vignette, and that understanding that vignette might give us clues to his mind set. Obviously, we have to start by deciding what it is we are indeed seeing.
I have to say that while I always thought this was a horrible scene, now that I think I understand better what I am seeing, it's truly hellish.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 653
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 12:24 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
I completely take your point that the word flap can be taken in many ways, and the illustrations you made about the envelope put it across well.......that is purely my interpretation of the word and was just really my way of finding my way through and trying to make sense of what Bond was saying.....just seeing if the word had more than one meaning.....which is does of course.
In terms of Bonds description it could well apply to a multitude of things. Not very helpful.
What really caused me some serious thought though is that he does speak of at the very least five pieces of flesh and tissue, whatever size or shape they were, being placed on the table.
I can't reconcile that with the mound on the left hand side, which is one continuous, unbroken surface from one end to the other, top to bottom side to side. There may well be an explanation for it.
If it is taken as flesh, then presumably her killer could have arranged it so seamlessly that it appears to be one piece, but it seems to me to be rather a forced piece of reasoning. It wouldn't be the first time that a killer had taken that amount of trouble posing his victims body, but I truthfully can't find any where on that shape that could constitute a join between pieces.
This is especially true if we look for a join between the pieces of the abdomen and the thighs.
If the area between the costal arch and the top of the pubes was cut off in three pieces, then why is the 'flesh' of the abdomen in that pile still firmly attached to them? It just doesn't make any sense. If someone can explain that for me, then I will certainly rethink, but until then I have to stick with my thought that it is a bolster.
Ultimately the pile on the right of the table is made up of a considerable pieces of flesh and tissue. If the large object on the left hand side is the flesh and tissue of Mary's thigh and abdomen, then what is the pile on the right? There is no flesh of the thighs and abdomens left unaccounted for if we consider the piece on the left to be body tissue.
Also why is that mound so bloody and obviously flesh, when the mound on the other side shows not one spot of blood or other fluids? It just seems rather odd that there should be such a marked difference between them.
Even if we take that the pile on the left could be the right amount of body mass to be have fitted on Mary.....where did all the matter on the right come from. Just how big was Mary?
There may be an explanation that I've missed somehow, but I can't see how that shape on the left can possibly match in with Bond's post mortem.
I'm not being awkward here for the sake of it, because I have to take Bond's account as being accurate.......and try to match it with what we are seeing in the picture. With the best will in the world, it does not match in anyway if that is a pile of flesh.
I do agree that the quality of that photo is totally horrendous which is half the problem, but I have the very best version of the photo available on it's way to me and as soon as I have it I will put up that section as good as it can be got and see if it helps at all.
Love Janie
xxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on November 24, 2005) |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 272
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 12:35 am: |
|
Jane,
Okay, it's not inane to you, only to me. By the way calling someone buxom is about the same as stout which means heavy which means overweight which equals fat. I didn't say obese. Fat is fat.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 654
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 12:45 am: |
|
HI Brad,
If that object is a bolster, then the material is the standard striped ticking that was used to make them. It is still used, and is especially constructed to keep the feathers in. If it is a bolster it is identical to the bolsters used on practically every bed in the East End of London from then until the present day.
Covers were put on over the top, but very often they were just left 'raw' although the feathers always poked through and stuck up your nose in the night!
This would obviously be more familar to the British posters. I am sure Harry Mann for one will remember them very well......a bit of a British institution!
And I'm afraid it's not quite true about the bright colour schemes, more affluent houses it is true of.....very much so, but in the poorer houses there would have been the odd bit of colour such as a shawl or a piece of fabric, but for the most part everything would have been painted a dirty brown, a dull whitewash and the material was generally very plain because it was cheaper to produce, pretty awful to tell you the truth.
In those days patterned material was much, much more expensive than plain because it had to be either print or woven with the pattern in it, and that was time consuming. So although some patterned material was used here and there, just look at the old photos, they may be black and white, but you can see that there were not that many patterns about.
If anything the fact that some people are seeing stripes on it actually adds very great weight to the idea that it is in fact a bolster, rather than the reverse.
I got rid of my old striped ticking pillows I think, but if I still have any I will scan a corner of it in and show you what I mean, feathers and all!
Hugs
Janie
xxxx
(If you are ever over there on holiday, take an hour or two to go to the Jeffryes Museum in Shoreditch, it is well worth it and it does give a good background to life in the area at the time. I worked there for quite a few years and it is wonderful!) |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 655
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 12:53 am: |
|
HI Mike,
There are a lot of buxom women out there who are now going to take you off their Christmas card list permanently and are probably looking for good hit men as I type.
Buxom, is not fat, buxom means having a curvy, feminine form, a generous bust, and cuddly.......no way, does buxom equal fat.
Dictionary definition of buxom:
said of a woman: with an attractively rounded figure and large breasts.
Just be grateful I'm a bean pole or I'd never speak to you again!
Hugs
Janie
x
xxx |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 274
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 1:48 am: |
|
Jane,
Sorry, I really just wanted to get the point across that MJK was no slip of a lass. She had some meat on her bones... until it got on the table.
And... when someone says they are buxom or pleasingly plump, they are fat. Just ask anyone who ever answered a dating advertisement. Saying buxom is an attempt to be nice. I never said fat was bad. It just is was it is.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 223
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 3:10 am: |
|
Jane,
Bolsters could be either commercially manufactured,or hand made.The one I believe to be under Kelly's head,appears of poor quality,so probably hand made.
They could be made from a variety of materials,and hand made ones consist of a variety of fillings.A hand made one would normally be of the same width as the bed.
They were quite common when I was young,and were common among Victorian people. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 493
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 4:17 am: |
|
Stan,
Thank you very much for doing that calculation. As you say, we are in the ballpark. I was about to do this today, but you saved me some work!
Your idea of using the standard dimensions on the wood was great! I did not give you enough credit for that last time, but now I see it was actually a great idea, not just a good one!
Dan,
Where did I say this was a "wildly rough estimation"? Making such comments and putting words in other peoples mouth would normally be considered admitting that the counter arguments are pretty slim indeed! I stand by what I said earlier, and I have said I can go as far as the table being 20 inches. This is not an admission of any weakness on my part, I am only being honest about the fact that any such work would be approximate.
But approximate does not in any way mean "wildly rough approximate". With all due respect, it is your interpretation of my work that is wildly rough and approximate.
IMO what I did is the best approximation we can get without running this picture through expensive imaging software.
Or Jane Coram's eyes...
And if you think I have doctored my results any way, that is a wrong assumption. The reason I knew where this was going was that I had done this thing before, but decided to do it all over again, with better accuracy, since I was going to actually post my results this time.
I would just "love" that you were right. It would tell us some more about Jack's psyche and make this entire scene even more grisly than it allready was.
We're all human. Sick or not, it does have a certain fascination...
But I can't disregard physical facts.
About the phrase :
"You are correct that in the example with the boxes you posted there are no vanishing lines to be made out between any two boxes."
This was probably a bad sentence. At least it did not get through to you what I meant. But then again, I admit that I also did not get your point entirely.
What I meant was that there is a difference between trying to create those lines using two separate lines from TWO such separate boxes. The reason this does not work is that we have no way of knowing if they are paralell in real life.
If there are several objects making several vanishing points that does not matter either. We just have to choose one, and not mix numbers from another set.
The bed and table create ONE such imaginary box because they are paralell. Had they not been, it would obviously have been the equivalent of trying to use lines that were NOT paralell. I know that does not work...
An important thing to remember is also that such vanishing lines that I used tell us nothing about any real size of anything in the picture. It only tells us the RELATIVE difference in size between different objects.
And I have to reiterate once more. Even because the headboard is "crooked" the line from the top is still PARALELL to the table. Its spatial orientation does not matter as long as it is paralell.
The head is, as you say, not entirely paralell to my reference line. That introduces some approximation. That approximation can be calculated using more reference lines. If you do, you will find that the result differs by so little because of the small distance involved that it is close to the intrinsic margin of error that I have anyway, because I can do no better manually than to measure things in half a millimetre (at best). In other words, the error introduced is negligible.
How do I know Saucy Jacky washed this bit? He probably did not. That is simply not very likely. And neither did anyone mention this. But he must have had in order for us to see what we see.
IF we assume it is flesh, that is.
That anyone could cut off this huge piece, with no trace of blood on it whatsoever, defies explanation. If it is flesh, then Jack propped it up, washed it or otherwise cleaned it.
Fancy smancy talk about blood dripping in this direction or that is nonsense. Jack had to handle this thing, remember? Not just placing it on the table, but also while actually cutting it off.
He may have been good, but nevertheless he had to stay inside the envelope of physical reality!
Anyone thinking otherwise believes in a supernatural Jack.
I don't.
So to sum up. My mind was not initially set either way. I admit there is some level of approximation here. But this is NOT an admission that my calculations are wrong. On the contrary they are pretty good.
All,
About MJK being "fat". No she was not fat. Buxom or not, she was not fat. Look at the arms and legs. If it boils down to the fact that you "need" the piece of "whatever" to be flesh so bad that you have to invoke the concept of a fat lady in that bed...too bad, THAT is being desperate.
Ok. I'll try to transfer the measurements to MJK2 later today. I can't work with paper copies of this nature at work, so it has to wait.
Maybe, just maybe, the size of the chunk is consistent with it being flesh. I don't think so. But now I realize there would be people that might think so no matter the result
Helge
(Message edited by helge on November 24, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 192
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 6:31 am: |
|
I had thought that I may be interpreting the description 'bolster' wrongly, but now I have seen Harry Mann's picture, that is what I thought a bolster was too.
I cannot see how that corresponds to what is seen on the table at all, sorry, but I hope Jane manages to get the better picture posted up, maybe it is much clearer on there.
At the moment I see muscle shape, a vulva etc., skin side up, with the darker chunky area underneath it the bloodier area where it has been hacked off.
I don't think any of us are arguing over the table size, it seems a fair calculation by both Helge and Stan.
Thanks for the website Erin, through the cracks in my fingers that is more or less what I thought I was looking at.
Debra |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3239
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 6:38 am: |
|
no one said she was fat.
Did they?
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 193
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 6:47 am: |
|
Yes Jenni I meant to put that on my post too, Helge, the comment about those who thinks it's flesh needing MJK to be fat is unfair, only one person has said she was fat, nobody else has. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2357
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 8:28 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
I can usually grasp your arguments and I usually agree with them.
My mother taught maths and I work in an accounts department, so I'm ok with figures. But when it comes to three dimensions and perspective, I'm hopeless. My sense of direction always lets me down too.
So be gentle with me and explain this to me very slowly, if you would.
You wrote:
The measurements are 2.6 cm for the head and 5.1 cm for the table on my paper copy…
You then calculated that the actual size of the head would have been approximately 21.3 cm based on dividing Mary’s height by 8, and from that you worked out that 1 cm on your copy = 8.2 cm life-size (ie 21.3 divided by 2.6).
I’m with you so far.
You then multiplied the table measurement from your paper copy by 8.2:
5.1x8.2=41.8
and you wrote:
Since we know the difference in perspective makes anything on line 3 (mid-table) 1.324 times bigger than on line 1 (face), we get:
41.8x1.324=55.3
What I don’t understand is why you shouldn’t be reducing the calculated size of the table (from 41.8) to compensate for the difference in perspective that makes it appear 1.324 times bigger than it would if it was further back in the photo, at the same point as the head.
I’m probably all over the place here because no one else seems to be having trouble.
Just tell me to go back to school - I won’t mind in the least. Hubby would be having kittens right now if he could see the muddle I’m in here. 
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 24, 2005) |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 656
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 9:13 am: |
|
HI Debra,
I'm not sure if this is the first time I've actually posted a direct answer to you, but if it is....Hi! 
I actually can see why a lot of people see it as flesh, and it does look very much like it.....but if we put aside totally what we perceive the texture to be.....and even how big Mary was and just stick to Dr Bond's report then we have to get closest to the truth.
Dan hit the nail on the head there, that the best way to judge what we are seeing here is to stick to Dr Bond's report which is I think pretty accurate, although he could have given us a bit more detail, bless him.
I may be wrong, but I get the impression that those who are seeing that as flesh are seeing it as one large piece....your description in your post seems to read that way........but if that is the case then it is in total opposition to what Dr Bond put in his report. In fact it could not be more opposed.
Dr Bond put that there were at the very least five pieces, three really quite small from the abdomen and two considerably larger pieces from the thighs.......that isn't what we are seeing in that shape on the left hand side. That is a huge expanse of unbroken material. (Apart from the stitiched seam lines, which are being pointed out by some people between the two kinds of odd fabric, one striped and one plain)
If that lump is flesh, then we have to look at the positioning of the vulva, which would actually appear to be halfway down Mary's left leg, and account for the pubic hair which we are told by Hebbert was removed.
So basically, even though our eyes might tell us it looks like flesh and it has the semblance of a human shape that would roughly fit the area, unless Dr Bond got it utterly and completely wrong in his report, that cannot be human flesh.
If someone can reconcile that discrepancy, then I will be very happy to change my opinion, but I can't believe that Bond got it that wrong.
Hugs
Janie
xxxx |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 657
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 9:21 am: |
|
Sorry, nearly forgot,
The bolster that Harry put up is not the sort that was common in that era.....that's a really posh version.
Almost every single Victorian bed, rich or poor would have had one, but most poor people had a striped ticking one, that always flopped about because it was poorly filled and not a nice big fat one like that.......they always ended up looking just like that shape on the table, whether we believe that is actually a bolster or not. That is just a plain old fact, which anyone that has had feather ticking bolsters will confirm, not an opinion.
The shape on that table is as close to a photograph of a ticking bolster as it is possible to get.......I haven't had a hunt yet to see if I have any left of my Nan's, but it I have I will get a pic up of it.....and it is very different to Harry's.
I wonder if Harry has an old ticking pillow.........to show what we mean. It does make it a lot clearer when you actually see what they looked like after some wear.
xxxxx |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3240
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
Its the weirdest looking bolster I ever saw!!
That said, and you know I am verging on the side of caution here, but i do think it is the flesh. As I said earlier, the flesh can clearly be seen on the wide shot, so a) where did it go on the second shot and b) where is the so called bolster on the wide shot?
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
hello,
me again,
are we even looking at the same thing re this bolster/flesh?
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 658
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 11:10 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
More importantly, if it is flesh, why didn't the police/photographer include it in the wide shot from the other angle?
If that is flesh, then the bulk of the removed flesh was on the left hand side of the table......why didn't they include it in the shot....instead of cutting it off completely? They only needed to change the angle of the shot slightly to get it in. But they didn't........could that be because it was just a bolster and not worth getting into the shot?
Just a thought.
Hugs
Janie
xxxx |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3242
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Hang on right,
if the flesh is on the right as we look - now surely thats not in dispute is it? that's definately flesh. I don't think we even need to worry abou that. Then what is it on the left? If on the left is a pillow/bolster why is it such an odd shape?
Conversley - if on the left is also flesh, where has it come from, in that surely that's all of it on the other side - right?
But - is anyone still following this?, but if whats on the left is either a pillow/bolster or flesh then where, where oh where is it on the wide angle photo.
Is it there?
I'd venture a guess at the answer being, errrr not sure. Becasue frankly i am not in aroom at the moment where I can have a look. There are people sitting behind me who might even think i'm vaguely normsl. not that that's easy for us to imagine..
anyway
?
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3244
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
Hang on right,
if the flesh is on the right as we look - now surely thats not in dispute is it? that's definately flesh. I don't think we even need to worry abou that. Then what is it on the left? If on the left is a pillow/bolster why is it such an odd shape?
Conversley - if on the left is also flesh, where has it come from, in that surely that's all of it on the other side - right?
But - is anyone still following this?, but if whats on the left is either a pillow/bolster or flesh then where, where oh where is it on the wide angle photo.
Is it there?
I'd venture a guess at the answer being, errrr not sure. Becasue frankly i am not in aroom at the moment where I can have a look. There are people sitting behind me who might even think i'm vaguely normsl. not that that's easy for us to imagine..
anyway
?
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 659
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
HI Jenni,
The smaller pile on the right is most certainly flesh and tissue, no one questions that.
The larger pile on the left if it is a bolster is a very poorly stuffed one......possibly because there is a tear in it and a lot of the stuffing has come out. It is so loosely filled that it is folded over on itself......like a chinese fortune cookie.....and in a similar shape.
It isn't in the larger wide angle photo......the photographer framed the picture so that portion of the table was cut off......of course we don't know why.
Hope that clears it up a bit.......
Love you bunches
Janie
xxxx
sorry I haven't emailed back yet. I will do it shortly, been up to my eyes in it here! |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 194
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Hi Jane, I think if anyone is going to convince me it's a pillow of some sort then it will be you, I remember my grandma's old saggy ticking pillows, ticking is like a thick stripe with a thinner stripe either side ...right? We used to call them prison pillows when we were kids.
I don't see ticking or stitching yet, but I am holding out for a clearer picture! And just today I thought I saw what looked like loose bits of stuffing on the table at the side of the object....??????
The points you made about Dr. Bond's description of the removal of various parts of the flesh compared to what we see on the table are good ones and it is something I am going to look into more closely myself when I get more time, it is a much more persuassive argument than the size issue I must say.
As for the pubic hair thing, I think Gareth's explanation a way further up covered that well.
Thanks Jane.
 |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 660
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Hi Debra,
I only carried on looking at the possibilities because I hate not to get to the bottom of things.I have no idea if the observations I've made are right or wrong. I just did the same thing I do when I am doing reports for other photographic analysis, list the possibilities and see where it gets us.
Over the years you just have a set routine and procedure you follow and if it works stick to it.
I think in the end though I still have to say I think it is a bolster.....a bit of a wreck of a one to be sure, but there are at least 9 reasons I can find for it being a bolster and only a couple in favour of it being flesh, so I have to go with the most likely scenario.
I'm still very happy if anyone can give some more persuasives reasons for it being flesh, other than it looks like it. It seems though looking back over the thread that there is little solid evidence to show that it is flesh,other than the fact that it looks like it to some people.
I still though keep coming back to the fact that it was not inluded in the wide angle shot from the other direction. That makes no sense to me at all if indeed it is a huge mound of flesh. Not the sort of thing you could ignore.
Those pillows were like blooming rocks weren't they? No wonder you called them prison pillows!
Love Jane
xxxx |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1028
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
You asked Jenni: "More importantly, if it is flesh, why didn't the police/photographer include it in the wide shot from the other angle?"
First up, we're talking about a very small room here. It could simply be that he couldn't get the camera back up far enough to capture that detail in that shot. Second, we have no idea of how many different photos were taken, so perhaps there is one from that angle that does have that -- or, since that photo was handed around for the use of Victorian police sensibilities, perhaps the version of the photo we have had that section cropped off. Third, your question can be easily turned around so that you ask why the photographer for the second photo went to so much trouble to frame a pillow in the image when he should have been taking a picture of the very important detail of the leg and abdomen flesh -- oh, wait a minute, that's right, that's exactly what he did do. That looks to be the entire purpose behind that second photo: to show where the flesh got cut off and where the flesh went. Otherwise it's a pretty pointless image, as a body shot from down by the feet looking up would have been better. They went to a lot of trouble (either moving the bed or, as I think, possiting the camera on the rolled up fabric on the side of the bed without a stand) to get this shot. Why this shot? Well, when you realize what the large object in the background is, it's pretty bloody obvious why they took the shot.
And, sorry, but your claim that Bond's report says that the flesh was in separate pieces and that there were five separate ones doesn't really seem to come from anywhere solid. Bond's report does not say this, it's how you have interpreted it, and for the life of me I can't follow how you came up with that. The parts on the right hand side of the image are not parts of the thigh and groin. Those are innards. So to ask how those could fit in with the leg and abdomen flesh from the left as all part of one whole is missing the point.
Furthermore, the pile on the right looks bloody and gory because those are guts and interior pieces, which of course are going to look that way. The part on the left looks relatively clean because it's an exterior piece.
Hi Helge,
Going with what I just said to Jane... You wrote: "If it is flesh, then Jack propped it up, washed it or otherwise cleaned it." I'm sorry, but that's simply not a reasonable argument at all. There's absolutely no reason why the outside surface (which is what we are seeing) would have to be washed, as the blood is on the inside (the side we don't see). We know from reports that the floor was covered in blood and gore, so that fits. Remember also that he would have removed this section before knifing and handling the insides, so there's no reason to expect gory handprints on the outside when he lifted it off.... and even if he had some amount of blood on his hands, to move it to the table he'd be carrying with the right, so, depending on where he grabbed, there may be a handprint on the right thigh which we don't see because it's on the far side of the image. He also may have lifted from the underside, or used his long knife underneath to support the weight as he pulled it over. You seem to be envisioning some sort of messy procedure that isn't at all likely. And then you go on to argue that it would take someone with supernatural skills not to have the flesh be coated in blood -- I'm sorry, but you're off in fairy tale land with that comment.
And, as far as the math goes, what you promised earlier (calculating relative sizes based upon use of a horizon line) is simply impossible. Your further calculations don't use the same method, but you still are pulling things out of thin air. You wrote: "Even because the headboard is "crooked" the line from the top is still PARALELL to the table.", but we don't know that. That's just another assumption you've made.
You've admitted some small ambiguity with your numbers, I'm telling you that there's a lot of it there.
You also said: "IMO what I did is the best approximation we can get without running this picture through expensive imaging software. Or Jane Coram's eyes... " Actually I do have expensive imaging software, and I have eyes trained in this sort of thing. But of course you just want to pick a set of eyes from someone who happens to agree with you.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 275
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Perhaps this isn't the thread for this, but what the hell?
There is this romantic idea floating around that MJK was some sort of saintly girl who "coulda been a contenda" had she just had a few breaks in life. According to the dissertation about her on the Casebook, she was well-liked and seemed to be of a better quality than others of her ilk. It also says she was 5'7",stout and was attractive. She was also younger than the other victims. Are you really going to say bad things about someone you knew who was recently butchered? I hope not.
All this really means is she was a young whore. Obviously she was making a better living at that than at other things, or she wouldn't keep doing it despite her boyfriend's anger (if you believe him).
There is nothing about her that makes her better than any of the other victims. One may point out that she wasn't a complete drunk. No, but she was certainly headed there. Testimony says she was a loud drunk, when she drank. A couple more years doing the dirty, and she was no different than the rest.
This attempt to glamorize a whore does nothing for the case. If she took money from customers for sex, she was a prostitute, plain and simple. She was stout, and that means fat, plump, chubby, whatever you want to call it. Being stout wasn't unappealing to men in those days, and with a nice corset, stout becomes buxom. I'm sure people (Johns mainly) would have found her attractive.
My point in putting her in that fat column is just to show that there was plenty of flesh on her, and I don't think I'm exaggerating if you want to define stout. I never said she was grossly overweight, and perhaps 'fat' isn't PC. It doesn't make it untrue, however.
If you want to create a beautiful Cinderella out of an young, stout prostitute, you're lying to yourselves. There is nothing romantic here. It's as glamorous as a crack whore.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 661
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Mike,
It's nothing at all to do with the descriptions of her, either written or verbal.....you can see her arms and legs in the photo that's all that's necessary.......all of the descriptions are immaterial in this instance.
Nowhere in any post have I seen her glamorized on this thread.
No one is saying she was Cinderella. We are trying to decide if that is a pile of butchered flesh or a bolster...hardly the stuff that fairy tales are made of......
Mary was not even that plump.......her arms and calves show someone who would today probably be a size 14 in UK sizes.....and basically her size is only one of the points relevant to this particular discussion....and her basic personality, whatever it was doesn't have any bearing on it at all.
Janie
xxx |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 195
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
You just got in before me Jane, but just to add, my point about not calling her fat was nothing to do with PC or glamourisation, it was the point that she wouldn't have to have been fat for her flesh to take up that amount of room on the table, it was a small table!
Stout in that period also meant sturdy robust strong or healthy as well as fat, and being fat then wasn't necessarily the same as being fat now.
A woman described in her autopsy around the same time period as being LARGE and well nourished, which I would take to mean fat, had a...get this....a whopping 35 and a half inch bust and 28 and a half inch waist!!!
Debra |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 662
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
HI Dan,
Yes I take your point that there were other photos taken and that pile could have been featured more centrally in one of those and that is a fair point.... as you rightly say in MJK2 the central focus of the photo is the abdomen and inner left thigh region.
I just feel that the left hand pile is simply included there is simply because it was in shot behind and without actually removing it from the table, it had to stay in shot. That is subjective of course, but I can see that there are explanations as to why it wasn't included in the wide shot.....it just seemed a bit odd to me personally.
As to Dr Bonds report, I am at a bit of a loss to see how it could be interpreted any other way than the way I read it......
There is only one possible interpretation concerning how many pieces were cut from Mary. I don't think anyone can dispute that can they? At the very least 5 pieces.
Quote:
'The skin & tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps.'
How can that be read any other way?
Mary only had one abdominal area covering the costal arch to the pubes.......if her killer cut off the flesh and the underlying tissue from that area in 3 large flaps.......then they could not be intact and still attached to the thighs in MJK2. That is a physically impossibility.
'The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock'
Here he talks about a seperate flap of skin from those cut from the abdomen. There is no way it could be open to any other interpretation. If it have been attached the left thigh he would have said:
'The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation and the flesh of the left thigh & part of the right buttock'
Instead he says:
'The left thigh was stripped of skin, fascia & muscles as far as the knee.'
The thighs were detached from each other and from the abdomen, it is completely impossible for them to reattach themselves flawlessly to form that pile on the left hand side of the table.
If you can show me how that is possible then I will obviously accept that there is a very good possibility it is flesh, but until then I have to stick with what Bond says.
Simply: Was Mary's abdomen cut into three pieces or not?
If it was then that pile on the left hand side is not Mary's flesh, because you can see the pubes there supposedly and the flesh above is untouched.
I just need to see a reasonable explanation of that before I can re-evaluate what I'm seeing there.
Janie
xxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on November 24, 2005) |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 663
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Sorry double post.
I didn't think that could happen? oh well.....it always happens to me!
Anyway, I think I have gone as far with this as I can.......I will just say what I said before.....and that is that people are not really going to be persuaded one way or the other on this and it is very open to different interpretations.....it seems very unlikely that it will be resolved one way or the other.
If it's any consolation I seem to be in the minority here by a long stretch, so if majority opinion carries then I have interpreted it wrongly, but I'm willing to take the can back here and take the shame if I am.
I think it's a bolster......and that suits me.
Janie
xxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on November 24, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4274
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
Mike,
You are really out of line here.
I don't think anyone here with some bit of knowledge of the social conditions could really romanticise Mary Kelly. We all know she was a whore, and possible not always of a pleasant character. And since Jane was brought up in the area herself and lived in the middle of it, she probably would be the last one to paint a glamourised picture of the people there and the prostitution millieu.
But stout does not mean fat - not in any meaning of the word. Stout is someone who is sturdy or maybe weighs a few more pounds than normal. But fat is something else!
I have no idea what you're on about.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 24, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4275
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
I don't know what the majority says, Jane, but you are certainly not wrong.
It is definitely a bolster and I for my part can't understand how anyone can see it as anything else.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 496
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Too much going on for me to follow!
I will still do the work on MJK2, I promise. But even though it is pretty basic, I just could not do it tonight. I'm too sleepy-eyed as it is.
Just some comments tonight...
Dan, your belief in an imaginary world where blood stays only on the "inside surface" of flesh while being handled by presumably bloody hands is amusing, but not more than that. It needs no further comment IMO.
Again, you clearly show that you have not grasped even the basics of my calculations here. And I actually thought the math was pretty self-explanatory! I guess I was wrong on that one!
Now suddenly you think the table and bed is not paralell. Well, that is your prerogative. I think it is, and I think people may make up their opinion on that for themselves. I will not comment that any furter other than that I have shown this to several professionals prior to making that statement, and needless to say, they agreed.
Let me just remind you of a previous statement of yours:
"...Later on you point out that the bed and table are lined up in the long photo. That they are..."
I see you have changed opinion, and again, that is obviously your prerogative.
The type of imaging software I am talking about is not the same as you are talking about. That is clear as the day. I specifically said I would have used forensic quality image interpreting software such as PhotoModeller Pro if I had access to it. That program would do exactly the same calculations that I did, only with several thousand reference lines, and would therefore give the size of any object in the picture. Manually I can only do so much, and need to stick to my established vanishing lines for reference. The program calculates such lines "everywhere" based on some fancy math that accounts for the focal lenght of the objective in areas where no vanishing lines exist as well.
Since you don't do that kind of thing with your software, I think you are talking about other type of software. But if you do have anything like what I am talking about, please use it to prove me wrong.
The mentioning of Janes eyes was said tongue in cheek. No need to mock it. The fact is still that she did interpret this uncannily close to my result. As you noticed Stanley also came close in his calculations based on lumber sizes. That ought to be indicative of something.
Anyway, let us agree to disagree.
Jenni, Debra. I'm sorry if I sounded unfair. If you did not think MJK was fat, then this comment was simply not meant for you! In my opinion she needs to have been ultra fat in order for the lump on the table to be a piece of her. All I see is someone pretty normal sized on the photo, so that seems simply wrong. Anyway, my apologies.
Caz, The table appears bigger than it is compared to the body, yes, but this is all about the measuring unit!
A measuring unit on the head actually appears SMALLER than if it had been on the table because it is further into the picture... Anyway, I know that sometimes I write things a bit awkward because English is not my first language.
Here is the reason more properly explained: When my measuring unit (in cm's) are transferred from the bed (where 1 cm equalled 8.2 cm's in real life) to the table, the value must be multiplied with 1.324 which gives that 1 cm (on my measuring rod) here equals (8.2 x 1.324) 10.85 cm's (in real life). I measure 5.1 cm at the table, this equals 5.1 x 10.85 = 55.4 cm's in real life! This equals about 22 inches.
(It is the same calculation as before, but done slightly different for clarity???)
Jane,
Personally I don't think the majority can claim any victory just because they are in majority. The majority can also be wrong.
After all, the majority once believed the earth was flat!
Helge
Edited because I was too tired to put in the right numbers the first time.
(Message edited by helge on November 24, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 862
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 6:48 pm: |
|
Stan,
Your lumber idea was actually more on target than you gave yourself credit for. That is, certainly in the USA in the 19th century, lumber was finished to the stated size. A 2x4 actually measured two inches by four inches and not the truncated matchsticks sold as that size today. So, the legs were likely a true 2x2. The modern discrepancy used to give me fits (ouch) making repairs on my mom's old 19th century farmhouse.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 664
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 6:48 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
Well I am happy to agree with you that it is a bolster, whatever anyone else says.
I have learnt an awful lot during the course of the discussion though and would still like to see your method used on MJK2 if you didn't mind doing it, just to satisfy my curiosity.
Some very interesting points have come out on both sides, so it does just show that even if two sides can't reach an agreement, it can be very profitable in terms of research.
Thanks for all your hard work.......and for the comment about my eyes...... I do actually have incredible eye sight thank goodness. One of the few bits of me that do still work!
Love you bunches,
Janie
xxxx |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 497
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Don,
Yes, Stan did a good job there. I'm just relieved that it came close to my result!
I feel kind of jittery on this one, even though I KNOW I'm right. Hahah.
Jane, my sweet Jane,
I will do the MJK2, for you, if for nothing else!
Have done some preliminaries, but I'm so tired that my numbers chrash!
I don't really know the difference between a bolster and a pillow. Privately (when I'm talking to myself) I still call it a pillow...
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1178
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 7:02 pm: |
|
People:
According to Robert McLaughlin's book The First JTR Photographs, Zwerghaus Press,2005 on page 80.......professional photographer McLaughlin explains that that "fortune cookie" shaped object on the left is a bolster.
Bob states further on that same page:
" There are many examples in Victorian times,and much later,of using all available material. Odd bits of fabrics sewn together for clothes and practical decoration like cushions and bedding...".and Bob does mention the rip in the bolster.
One brief comment on my part about the preceding posts...
This table that is next to MJK's bed is in a peculiar spot from the start. I would guess that the murderer place or dragged it away from the kitchen area,after he murdered her. Its utilization was for the subsequent madness.
Considering her poverty,its likely that this was a kitchen table, not some sort of end table,which if one gives a cursory glance at,could give the impression that it was just that. Kelly wouldn't need an end table for an alarm clock or phone or lamp,as she is not known to have had one of these items.... A kitchen table, albeit probably one that measured within the parameters of 36 inches to 40 inches wide and a low standing table at that.....Kitchen tables are ballpark 32-36 inches tall. This one appears to be 24-30. Just a thought...... |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
