|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1680
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 2:14 pm: | 
|
Hi David, Philip, Christian etc.
In regard to the question about whether there were pieces of flesh hung from nails at 13 Miller's Court, that could well have been so even if it is not evident in the existing photographs of the room.
I speak more fully about this question on the thread for Simon Wood's extraordinary claim in his recent dissertation that the white strip we see in the smaller photograph, which we have assumed is a strip of light, is actually a hanging organ.
I don't believe he is correct and I give my reasons for refuting his argument on the other thread. See you there, I hope.
Best regards
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 240
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 8:55 pm: |
|
I don't want to be forceful about this, but IT'S A BONE!
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 876
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 9:29 pm: |
|
David -
'Scattered about the room' isn't technically against what we already know. Things were all over the bed around the body and on the table. I think that would warrant said description without stretching reality too far.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Karyo Magellan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 7:19 pm: |
|
Hi Everyone
Interesting to read your comments on my interpretation of the image of Kelly’s corpse and I just thought I would clarify my reasoning which I probably should have done in the book!!
The observation in Bond’s report suggesting that; ‘The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone’, is a definitive observation and although it is a little vague there can be no disputing it – and I don’t. A significant portion of flesh including skin and muscle of the right inner thigh was clearly removed by the killer.
What is open to interpretation, however, is what is depicted in the image. I’ll refer to the bone/skin area as ‘the tissue’ and this is in fact very well reproduced in the above pictures.
In my opinion:
1. The tissue is too superficial along the ventral surface of the thigh to be the femur which would be expected to be deeper.
2. The tissue is too white and much too well defined to be bone exposed in the midst of bloody hacking of muscle! I suspect that the denuded bone as described by Bond is partly covered by the tissue if this is indeed skin. Bone would not have to be clean and white to be regarded as denuded and would almost certainly still have muscle attached
3. Skin contracts when cut and the well-defined cut edge of the skin just above the knee, and the well-defined curved edge of the knee-end of the tissue quite reasonably look as though they may have been continuous
4. If the tissue is skin then it has collapsed to some extent because of the removal of underlying muscle which is why it does not follow the line that one might expect from knee to torso
5. At the torso end of the tissue there is considerable disruption, as Christian points out, and there are what I believe to be several cuts that present a puzzle if the tissue is bone.
I suspect that the tissue has always been assumed to be bone because of Bond's report but it is difficult to raise convincing arguments as to why that should be the case and on balance it seems far more likely that the tissue is a flap of skin and not the denuded bone to which Bond refers!
Hope this clarifies and regards to all
Karyo |
Christian Jaud
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
Hi Mr. Magellan,
thanks for joining in.
As I tried to say (and Tom Wescott expressed in more eloquent words), I think the book is a very good read, with well justified reasoning and deductions, which, as always in cases like that, one can agree on or one can dismiss, but they're never ridiculous.
That's why I was so surprised being confronted with the sudden statement about the bone.
So thanks again for sharing your line of thinking.
As a sidenote: If it's not a bone it could be part of a sheet (or the like) as well, ever thought about that?
Can I ask you about the light-problem I addressed above:
Why should a gaslamp in Miller's court give sufficient light to illuminate a room (through closed door and covered (draped) windows)even only sufficiently to see anything, specially when you mention a few pages earlier that those lamps where only a bright dot in the night?
Best regards
Christian
P.S.: I still think MJK being a JTR victim is not disproved though. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3165
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 11:27 am: |
|
Yo everyone,
just reading this book. And as the author seems to be reading this thread I'll watch what I say, but, who on earth proof read this book!!
Anyway, now that's out of the way. And can I say it is nit picking and I'm sorry, but anyway now thats out of the way,
what's all this with criticising Dr Bond, he said she was not wearing a chemise, she was not wearing one!!
He said it was bone, it was bone, maybe not in the place we're talking about on the picture though? After all you can't see all the leg isn't that the case?
To be fair I haven't got to that part yet.
but still, I won't let things like that stop me. Maybe all will become apparent?
Jenni
ps what was the average height of a woman in 1888? i don't mean to be funny here, but am wondering if 5" 5 might not be too bad an estimate on that?!!
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 826
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
Jenni,
Dirty secret this, but a cursory proofing (at best) is now the publishing industry norm. Saves money, don't you know?
Was never able to get a definite fix on heights for an article I wrote a while back, but 5-5 seemed a good figure for an East End male in 1888, so women would be several inches shorter. Average height seems to have dropped throughout the 19th C until better nutrition and conditions reversed that trend for those born in the last couple decades of the century.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3174
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Yo Don,
I just thought maybe that would be a plan for the next edition. I wasn't being rude, well maybe a little, I'm sorry if it came accross that way. I'll offer to do it for free to make up for the rudeness.
Its by no means the worse ripper book I've read this year (you all know what I'm talking about) in fact its probably one of the better ones of recent times.
Yeah that's what I thoguht when Kayro (am I spelling this right) used it as a connection between the victims. I would think it was a connection between lots of women at that time. hardly surprising.
astill havent got to the Kelly bit your all on about though.
Everyone really seems to dislike Bond. Whats he done wrong?
Jenni
ps i hope the irony that I had to edit this for typos and probably still missed some isnt lost on anyone!
(Message edited by jdpegg on November 10, 2005)
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1120
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 6:23 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I'm not sure who you mean, but I don't think anybody here has suggested Bond has done anything wrong, or criticized him. I think some of us are open to the idea that his report might only be a preliminary one and there might be further details to be had--let's use both Bond and Hebbert. As far as whether that's a bone or not in the photograph, it looks like bone to me; I've always taken it to be bone and Bond is pretty clear about bone being exposed. Denuded is a very specific word to use, there's nothing iffy about it--it means, pointblank, that the bone was naked. And my eyes tell me that it was as well.
But on the other hand, I also think A System of Legal Medicine is a reputable source of information, given that it's a book on medical jurisprudence aimed at a professional audience and based on material contributed by Bond's assistant at the time, Dr. Hebbert. It reinforces Mr. Magellen's suggestion (according to his post and what others have been saying about his book) that what we're seeing in the photograph isn't bare bone. So, Mr. Magellen is supported by a believable source and not hanging out there by his lonesome.
I like this thread; it made me re-examine something I've always taken for granted, which is a pretty cool thing. I still think it's exposed bone, but I'm open to a good argument. For me, though, the real point is that we should use both Bond and ASLM as contemporary sources for assessing Kelly's injuries. That's no insult to Bond though.
Philip, good point about the scattered organs, thanks.
Dave |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 827
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 7:51 pm: |
|
Jenni,
Nothing rude in your post as far as I'm concerned. Even prestige publishing houses these days issue books that are rife with errors (not to mention sloppy fact checking) and the reason is to save money. As someone who once did that task I can attest that jobs have dried up in the field.
Dave,
I've never read the ASLM so I can't speak about it, but I recently had to read a professional paper that dealt with the Ripper murders and it was full of factual errors about the crimes. The jurisprudential conclusions may well have been valid, but that would be despite the poor Ripper research.
Yo Don (that name has a ring).
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1121
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 9:30 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
Debra Arif has transcribed the relevant section on Kelly here. It's part of a larger section on how to determine sex by an examination of the skeleton (the Torso murders are also included if I remember right). I haven't sat down and made a thorough comparison between it and Bond's report, but one thing that jumped out at me is the claim the pubes were removed (it's noted because apparently there is a difference between how male and female pubic hair grows). Whether the Ripper did this as a bit of finesse to desex Kelly or whether Kelly did this to herself (a possibility that has been pointed out to me), I don't know. But it does make me wonder if we really have the complete picture of what happened.
Of course, your point is very fair, and ASLM does make one error in referring to Bond as a coroner, and then another, if we accept Bond's report that the thigh bone was denuded, so I do accept that a medical work is also capable of errors. Perhaps there are others there that people can point out. Taking into account your experience (which I respect), ASLM still seems to me to be a more reliable source than say, someone using sensation to sell a book, because the Ripper is really not the point this book is driving at. ASLM wants to show how to use the skeleton to determine identity. Overall, it seems to be more or less in line with Bond, except that it's firm that the heart was indeed taken away, where Bond's report is somewhat vague.
Anyway, I don't mean to steer the topic away from Mr. Magellen's book, which seems to have received some favorable comments. My point is that perhaps Bond's report isn't all there is to know, although I do agree that it's apparent that the bone was denuded, laid bare. I think. 
Cheers,
Dave |
Karyo Magellan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Hi Christian
Thanks for your comments and for those from Tom, and sincere apologies to all if there are any editorial errors – no matter how many times a book like this is edited there is always room for one more run through but there comes a point at which it just has to stop.
On the matter of the bone/skin debate until relatively recently I also assumed that what was depicted in the photograph of MJK was bone but after seeing high resolution copies of the originals I changed my mind. Pictures reproduced in books do not show enough detail. There is certainly a possibility that the skin/bone area on Kelly’s thigh is sheeting – the edge of an over sheet perhaps? But it’s the cuts and disruption at the pelvic end of the area that convince me that it’s skin. In my opinion the area is most probably skin, less likely to be sheet, and least likely to be bone. I’ve attached the relevant area from the copy of the original image that I used.
The point about gas lighting is that the ordinary gas lamps of the day were just not powerful enough to illuminate any significant distance from the source – the inadequacy of lighting is mentioned frequently in testimony and in Mitre Square for example the gas lamp at the north corner of the Square did little to illuminate the south corner. Illumination in close proximity to a lamp was better although in some cases (testimony at McKenzie’s inquest) standing directly beneath it would be the best place to stand without being seen. The plan of Miller’s Court reproduced in The Daily Telegraph shows a lamp almost directly opposite the door to number 13 and probably little more than 3m away. Close even for a limited power gas lamp and light could have entered the room around an ill-fitting door, although I’m certainly not suggesting there would be enough for Kelly’s killer to work by. Significant light past the curtains may have been less likely. My thoughts on what happened in Miller’s Court are of course speculative and there is a possibility that the lamp had in any case been extinguished by the time Lewis and Prater heard the cry of ‘Murder’ - this has relevance if the cry came from someone discovering the body. Prater states that: ‘I noticed the lodging house light was out, so it was after 4 probably – I heard a cry of oh! Murder!’ But was the ‘lodging house light’ the one opposite number 13 and if it was then how did Prater know whether or not it was lit unless she could see light from it - she makes no mention of getting up and looking out of a window?
It will always be difficult to accept that MJK was not a victim of the Ripper - but on the basis of what evidence was she a victim?
If you ignore the mutilations to MJK then how many of the remaining circumstances of her death are duplicated for any of the Ripper victims? This is a perfectly justifiable exercise because other victims that were not mutilated can still be linked! Thus had Kelly not been mutilated (the extent is not important) would anyone have ever considered her to have been a victim of the Ripper and if so why?
Okay – I’ll leave you to it – if there’s anything that you’d like me to respond to then please feel free to email!
Best wishes
Karyo |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 621
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
I don't know if this helps, but I have done some photographic enhancement on at area and this is about the best I think that could be done with it.
I had actually never even thought about it being anything but a totally denuded femur before and I can actually see some possibility now that it might not be........although I still have to say it is 50/50 either way, which doesn't help much, but I can see Mr Magellan's reasoning on this.
Here are the pros and cons I can see using the enhanced image below:
In favour of it being the totally denuded femur, what appears to be a straight expanse of bone is definitely not. At the hip end there is a piece of flesh dangling over what we suppose is the femur and this is what gives it the appearance of a break. There is actually no question about that at least. It is very evident indeed in the enhanced photo. There also appears to be some pieces of muscle there too.......so I hope that clears up the question of whether or not it is broken. It isn't
At the knee end there is a large darker patch, but I have a strong feeling this is just a blemish on the print and was not on the original.....it lookes like a stain to me, but it is transparent and the line of the underlying form can be seen through it. I would be interested in people's comments on that. I will look at some of my other prints of the photo and see if it is on them in a minute.
The other point is that when the photo is turned from sepia to black and white, the whited area which we presume is bone does not appear nearly so white as it does in the sepia print,possibly making it more consistent with exposed bone.
Against it being the femur is that there seems to be a slight curvature to it that seems incongruous with it being bone. It really does seem to have a serious dip in the middle, which I find a bit disconcerting, but whether this is an optical illusion, I'm not sure.
If the surface there is flesh, then I find it a little odd that her killer would have defleshed the thigh and then draped it over again in that fashion.....not impossible of course, just a bit odd.....but let's face it we are not dealing with the norm here anyway.
It is quite consistent with the tone of the rest of her flesh in the picture as well.....
So I really am torn on this one now....Bond said it was denuded to the bone, I always thought it was the femur and I still think that it probably is, but I think Mr Magellan has done a great job in making us rethink what we are seeing there and I look forward to reading his book.
Jane
 |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 5:02 pm: |
|
Karyo,
It's clear to me at least that the "cuts" you appear to see on the image are actually strips of flesh or sinew attached to the muscle at the back of the thigh "flopping" upwards and over the bone. I've tried to illustrate this by drawing blue lines to the left of each "strip".
Using my amateurish annotation as a guide and/or comparing it with the original, you should be able to see that these "cuts" are continuous with the mass of flesh under the "white thing" and furthermore are in front of, rather than incised into, the femur (for such, I believe, the "white thing" is). |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 243
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 12:00 am: |
|
Just bone. Denuded leaves us with bone and that's that. What would it matter anyway if it was a flap of skin (which it isn't)? What would be the purpose of further debate? Would it give us new suspects or new implements of butchery to consider? I don't think so. No matter. It's BONE.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 6:33 am: |
|
i know one thing, its making me feel very weird looking at that close up for very long.
Like I said before we dont know do we that thats the area Bond meant he could see bone? we are just assuming?
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Christian Jaud
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
Hi Karyo,
thanks a lot for your answers.
Well, I certainly think that there's at least a good reason to look at those pics again with an open mind.
After all, you wouldn't be the first Magellan in history to discover short cuts ;-)
Best wishes
Christian |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page