|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 255
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 11:37 pm: |       |
Brenda,
Even if it is what Joan thinks it is, why is that more terrible than what we already know he did? Joan also seems to think this is too shocking for me to believe. Not at all. I just don't think that's that the photograph shows. And I also think such a display would have been noted in Bond's report.
Frankly, nothing about the Ripper's deeds could possibly shock me. For example, even if he didn't write the Lusk letter, I think it's probably that he ate the missing Eddowes kidney.
Andy S.
|
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 5:17 pm: | |
Hi Andy; There are also bamboo blinds, which would perhaps be cheaper, and have small spacing.
Yes, I noticed that statement that they photographed the contents of the room before disturbing anything, and then started re-arranging everything! I wonder where those pictures are!
Well, every morning the sun comes into my room through my mini blinds and makes striped designs on my bed or wall, that was what looked familiar to me.
I guess we will have to do some research on the blinds and curtains of the era.
Joan |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 6:38 pm: | |
Brenda; Oh yeah, like I said to Andy, your brain cannot even handle what you are looking at! Jack the Ripper was no Boy Scout making bed rolls.
To try and get the perspective of what I am trying to decifer from the picture, I turned the picture on its side so that the table is at the top of the picture, or even completely upside down, and it has the appearance of a woman with her legs up in the air, a very suggestive sexual pose. The way it is on the table would be like looking at a woman from behind bending over. Either way I think this is what he was trying to achieve with the arrangement of the flesh.
I wish we knew the exact arrangement of the room before anything was moved, as he may have had her looking at her own body parts in some way. Who knows?
Thanks for joining in here.
Joan |
Brenda
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 9:48 am: | |
"Even if it is what Joan thinks it is, why is that more terrible than what we already know he did?"
Andy, its that its even more shocking, if that's possible. That means not only did the Ripper kill poor Mary Jane and pose her for maximum shock value, but he also took a big slab of what he cut off and posed that too! Its almost like having to deal with two bodies!
I tend to deal with the victim photos with a clinical mindset. "yeah yeah I've seen all of this before"...but to have something new pointed out to me brings it home to me again just how evil the Ripper really was.
Whoever he was, I am so glad he's dead now and can't hurt any more women. Or men. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 260
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 10:47 am: | |
We do need to follow some logic here. We have a statement that the room was photographed before things were moved. We have one wide photo of the crime scene. While not definitive, this suggests that the photo we have was probably taken before anything was moved. We have no statement that any photographs were taken after things were moved. Therefore, it is most logical to assume (again, not definitive) that all photos were taken at the same time, i.e. before anything was moved. Certain things about the positioning of the table might suggest movement before the picture was taken but these could be the result of a tricky camera angle.
We know that there was a coat hanging over at least the broken portion of the window, acting as a substitute curtain. We know that blinds or curtains are costly (bamboo, I should think, would be especially costly). Therefore, the simplest explanation is that there was no actual curtain or blind, but that the term "curtain" or "blind" in the news reports referred to the coat. I suppose there might have been a flimsy curtian present which necessitated the additional covering of the coat for privacy. But it's hard for me to imagine what sort of curtain would cast a pattern of vertical shadows like that.
An old fashioned, worn out, feather pillow on the other hand would be very limp and pliable (have you ever seen one?) It could be folded or rolled. It could easily have a striped skin or case. It could easily have been sliced during the attack.
Sorry Joan. I'll leave it at that. But you just haven't convinced me.  Sorry, but in light of the previous Abberline hoax, I'm not going to spend any appreciable time on this one.
Andy S.
|
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 11:24 am: | |
Erm, I'm not exactly sure what is being talked about here. I thought it was common knowledge that what was on the table was, as the description of her body as it was found stated:-
"The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table."
Of course, this may not have been what you were talking about, so please forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick. |
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 11:53 am: | |
First, sorry about the color selection but once I got something close to what I had, I stopped. This is not great quality but it does show something darker than the table top seemingly coming from the gashes in the pile of whatever.
This photo consists of cells B3 & C3. The dark maroon is the deeper, for lack of a better term, shadow. The yellow is where more light was present, whether from the doorway or the window. The brown midtones I attribute as the standard table top finish.
Regarding pillows and gashes. Weren't most pillows in that era stuffed with feathers? If so, should there not be feathers lying all around on the floor and visible on the floor in the original MJK picture?
If someone can do this better, please as it will not hurt my feelings whatsoever!
Best of wishes,
Billy
 |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 262
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:57 pm: | |
Billy -- Feathers used in these pillows were rather heavy. They would not tend to be scattered much unless the pillow were flailed about. But that is a good point that I hadn't thought of. Maybe there were some feathers lying about for all we know. And I'm not saying for sure that it was a pillow. It may have been a blanket. But it looks more like a pillow.
Sarah -- yes, it is agreed that there were lumps or strips of flesh on the table also. We are questioning whether the large object to the left in photo 2 is flesh or an inatimate object.
Andy S.
|
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:37 pm: | |
Hi All; Well Stephen asked us what we are seeing in this photo, and I gave my opinion. Honest to God I am not trying to be a smart arse, the first time I saw that photo was a few years ago when my kids got me the Companion for Christmas, and I could see right away what I thought it was, a big slab of female flesh. It took me a while to study the orientation, matching up the rounded cut on Mary's right thigh to the rounded edge of the flesh on the table, and at the other end it is longer, matching up with the long strip taken off the calf.
I never saw a pillow with blonde pubic hair attached to the middle of it.
I say that the whole piece was removed from the body and flipped over onto the table. I don't have any fancy photo shop stuff to try and re-orient it for you.
Yes Sarah, they said that the flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table, and they seem to have taken the trouble to move the table a bit to get that in the shot.
I guess I always took it for granted that everyone else knew what they were looking at until I got these responses!
About the windows, Andy, there were two windows, a big one and a small one. I don't think Mary's clients or even while living with Joe would like to have sexual acts with a wide open view to all others in the court.
If either window had a blind, and the windows are over to the right of the picture as you look at it, then the shadows would still be horizontal as they hit the table, but they play along the curves of the object in a wavelike pattern.
Stephen; The wispy object in the foreground of the picture may be that material seen on the bed, but I also asked some people who look at "ghost" pictures and they suggested three other ideas;
1) That the photographer or someone was smoking near the camera.
2) There is a feather (possibly from a ripped pillow) floating by as the picture was taken.
3) There is a wisp of a man's beard in the picture. Did the photographer have a long beard?
Hey my name is "Joanie O" not "Antonio"
Where is Billy with that filtered version?
Joan
|
Angelina Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 6:48 pm: | |
Shun me if I am wrong, but doesn't the object on the table appear to be more than one item?
If you agree, then wouldn't that eliminate the pillow altogether? And if you don't agree, then take a closer look at the object again. The bottom half that tapers off into a more narrow end has the striped pattern on it, but the rest of it does not. Wouldn't a pillow have the same design all over??? |
Mike E.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 9:55 pm: | |
Well, here's the best I can do for now. I think you can now perfectly envision what Joan has been saying. The "lump of flesh" on the table is obviously exactly what she has been saying. You can clearly see the vaginal/anus area in the picture from this orientation. Looks like a major tummy-tuck gone mad..
 |
Sarah Long
Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 41
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 9:39 am: | |
Ok, I must be blind. I can't see anything that looks like that. Believe me, I want to (I'm not being gross or anything about it). Sorry to ask this but could people be more specific. It still looks like a pillow to me.
Joan:-"I never saw a pillow with blonde pubic hair attached to the middle of it." - Where is this?? The picture is black and white so how can you possibly say it's blonde or pubic hair? I can't see any hair. Am I looking at the right thing? Are we talking about that thing on the left of the table (or right if we look at the upside pic above)? |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 154
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 2:00 pm: | |
i still can't see anything but i'll take your word as this is far to gross for me!
jennifer |
Mike E.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 12:24 pm: | |
Sarah, does this make it more recognizible? I circled her privates. Just above and slightly to the right of that, is the "eye" of the "alligator" people were talking about. That "eye" is actually the back of her left knee as Joan stated. You can still see the tendon dimples in it. Her skin and fatty tissue was literally "peeled", and her entire bottom half including the right leg to the knee, and the left leg below the knee were thrown on the table as one large piece. That thick skin/fatty tissue is what you are calling a "pillow"...
 |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 70
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 12:02 pm: | |
Mike,
Ok, I know Joan is a woman, but I gotta say. It doesn't look like that. Honestly. If you compare what you are saying is her private area to her body on the bed, well it's just too big. Also I've never seen the back of a knee look like an eye on a crocodile. I'm sorry, this may be grossing people out here, but I still can't see it. Why is the "head of the crocodile" stripped though?
Sorry, you must think I'm really dumb, but, maybe I am. |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 71
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 12:12 pm: | |
Mike,
It just dawned on me that we might not be looking at the same thing for the "eye". I took your photo and put my own circle on it as to show where I think where the bend in the knee could be because the thing above it was what I thought the "eye" was but that looks nothing like the back of a knee. But if I'm right then what you circled couldn't possibly be her privates.
 |
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 12:50 pm: | |
Sarah, I am seeing the "eye" on the left leaning portion (about 45 degrees). The "eye" is immediately above the leftmost top of your circle, the dark area surrounded by white.
Gotta call the boss to see if I still have a job,
Talk with you later,
Billy |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 5:29 pm: | |
Hi Mike and Sarah; I think where Mike circled is actually several knife wounds that were made on the thigh very close to the genital area. It is these wounds that look large and gaping, but I don't think a young woman like Mary looked that bad.
Where you circled looks like a small deep stab wound, and a fold of the flesh. I think the back of the knee is the part that looks like a eye and eyelid for want of a better description. It is hard to make out everything because of the shadows and unnatural way of looking at a body.
Don't look at it too much , you might get nightmares! Imagine what the women of Whitechapel felt like when they heard what was happening to the other unfortunates.
Well, Stephen asked us what we could see, so we will leave it up to him to see if he agrees with us or thinks we are hallucinating!
Thanks for the replies
Joan |
Angelina Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 1:38 pm: | |
Mike,
I agree with Sarah. That section that you circled just doesn't fit the proportions of a woman's privates. Please let me know what lead you to this conclusion (pointing it out a little more graphically,if you don't mind)
I do have a question also. The part that is referred to as the "eye of the crocodile", what is to the right of it (as in the pic above)?
It appears to be a piece of flesh that has been sliced, but I'm not sure what part of the leg it is from.
Thanks
Angelina |
Mike E.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 2:38 pm: | |
I still maintain that what I circled, is her privates. Sarah, don't forget that this is no longer backed and stretched tight by muscles, tendons, and bones. It's deflated if you will. Because of that, it's going to be distorted a bit. The place you circled above, is simply a fold in the skin of the inside of her thigh. The left leg-skin is folded out spread-eagled, then back and up, kind of like a gymnist can do. Think of this kind of like rubber, since it's the entire thick epidermis peeled off of her bottom torso. The back of the knee is directly above where you circled. The "eye" of the crocodile is actually a depression in the skin caused by the skin being loose from being cut and peeled. It's darker due to lighting, and it being a depression. The "ridge" area above it, is the skin that's usually covering the muscle in the back middle of a human knee. So, I believe this is what a human knee would look like after being peeled off of the muscles and tendons. It's much, much more horrible now that I can see it as it is. He literally skinned her down there in one very large piece. |
Brenda
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 1:07 pm: | |
It was always the consensus on the old boards that what we are looking at was a pillow. If this is in fact flesh, then in my mind this is no longer a crime of passion but a cold, calculated killing. For those who think Mary's murder was a crime of passion made to look like a Ripper murder, this should change your mind. This was the Ripper. |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 84
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 7:17 am: | |
Brenda,
I always thought that Mary was killed by the Ripper.
Mike,
"don't forget that this is no longer backed and stretched tight by muscles, tendons, and bones."
Ok, fair enough but it still looks nothing like her privates. If it was then it would have to have been stretched to make it that big. I'm sorry but I just don't see any of what you said above. Maybe my brain just doesn't want to comprehend it. It can see it as skin but it just sees it in a different way. the bit I circled looks more like the back of her knee to me but it is hard to tell as he has skinned her. We'd need to look more and the first photo to determine what isn't on the bed.
|
Mike E.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 7:15 pm: | |
I agree, this goes far beyond a "simple" crime of passion. It took far more work to skin her, then a simple, "I think I'll kill Mary today" type of thought. If he wanted to kill her, he simply could have slit her throat, and it would have been done.
As I see it, the person that did this was either flat out insane, or specifically hated Mary SO badly, he felt he HAD to DESTROY her! I'm all for believing that Joe could have done it, but how could he have fooled the police afterwards? Any person that took the time to do what he did to her, was a VERY disturbed person. That would have been enough to unhinge anybody that wasn't already insane. I find it very hard to believe that if Joe did it, he wouldn't have been mentally disturbed for at least a bit of time afterwards. Enough so that he would have never been able to get past the police interrogation. Unless Joe was a major sociopath to start with, but if so, where's the evidence of that in his life? Police (at least today) ALWAYS suspect the life-partner first in cases like this, and Joe would have had to fight against that suspicious frame of mind of the police. I just can't see him doing this as a lifetime "one-off" and walking away so easily.
What would be most interesting, is if we could get somebody with some very good Photoshop abilities to work on these photos. We need some sort of software that can enhance it, turn the flat photo into 3D, then possibly wire-frame it, and make it possible to articulate pieces. Then parts could be swapped back and forth between the two photo's. I'm sure there are people that can do this. |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 99
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 8:50 am: | |
Mike,
Personally with regards to Joe (hope this makes sense), Mary may have been what unhinged him. I think he was a disturbed person but I think it was his love for Mary that made him like that. She rejected him and he couldn't handle it so he went, well, mad.
I think that unless there is work done to this photo that we'll never be able to truly clarify what is on that table. It depends what people see. Reminds me of a very gruesome magic eye book. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1383
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 6:07 pm: | |
Mike, I agree. If Joe planned the murder, he'd have done it differently. If on the other hand he suddenly flipped, he'd have been caught.
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
