Weapons used on Mary?

[Henry Flower]

Hello Henry

I agree with you about the inner edge of the calf; I suspect that the gash Dr Bond referred to cut her calf muscle so severely that it's flopped out of view, causing the "hollow" where the body of the calf muscle used to be. A deep gash extending from just below the knee to 5 inches above the ankle would damage the most bulky part of the calf muscle, i.e. the very part you've shown by the dotted line.

Edit: I'd also point out that the line of the inner calf, as we look at it, appears to be rather "scalloped" or jagged, oddly enough from a point just below the left knee to about 5 inches above the ankle. Above and below this jagged line (shown in red below), the outline of the skin is smooth and continuous.

[ATTACH]18263[/ATTACH]

I think we're looking at the location of the gash described by Dr Bond, behind which the damaged calf muscle itself is lying out of sight.

I'm left thinking that what you've described is the only option, G. It does suggest that Bond has somewhat understated the nature of the wound. A sizeable portion of her inner calf muscles have essentially been carved from the bone.

Has anyone with any tech skills had a go at anatomically labelling what we can see in this image?

[Henry Flower]

Hi Henry,

Yes, fine thank you, now back from seven weeks physical therapy. I can now walk and talk at the same time.

What we're looking at is a re-creation of the Kelly murder scene.

I would direct your attention to the right knee and thigh.

Regards,

Simon

Simon. Firstly, very glad to hear you're doing ok, that's good news.

You are - as is your wont - leaving us with more questions than answers. A recreation by whom, for what reason, and when?

And if the right knee and thigh, why not also the left?

[Sam Flynn]

Has anyone with any tech skills had a go at anatomically labelling what we can see in this image?

[ATTACH]18264[/ATTACH]

This is the "vertically split femur" (not!) that spawned the axe/cleaver theory. We're not looking at a single, straightforward object, but a combination of elevated thigh (and possibly knee), mixed up with bits of bedding and wrinkled, blood-soaked sheets. The perspective here is very confusing, and it takes a lot of working-out!

I would add that one easily-identifiable artefact in the image is the arched aperture visible in the lower left-hand corner of the image, shown in red below. This is, alarmingly, where Kelly's external genitalia used to be.

[Henry Flower]

I'll give you this: in all my years of feeding my inner deviant online and in books, I have never come across an image of a murdered or dead human's face that is as impossible to decode as this supposedly human face.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Henry,

Quite.

Regards,

Simon

[Henry Flower]

This is the "vertically split femur" (not!) that spawned the axe/cleaver theory. We're not looking at a single, straightforward object, but a combination of elevated thigh (and possibly knee), mixed up with bits of bedding and wrinkled, blood-soaked sheets.

The sheets, I assume, are the green. So you're saying that the orange is not a split femur, and therefore presumably not a femur at all. And what exactly do you understand to be the purple? It looks almost as though light is coming through, or the photo has been damaged in some way, scuffed. I can't quite work it out.

Broader question: Have good reproductions of the MJK photos been examined and annotated by an experienced and qualified forensic pathologist?

[Sam Flynn]

The sheets, I assume, are the green. So you're saying that the orange is not a split femur, and therefore presumably not a femur at all.

Agreed on all points, Henry. There are bits of sheet, or possibly chemise - cloth, anyway - elsewhere in the frame, the folds in which have been misinterpreted as various body parts and tissues in the past.

And what exactly do you understand to be the purple? It looks almost as though light is coming through, or the photo has been damaged in some way, scuffed.

I always thought this was a scuffed part of the photographic plate.

Have good reproductions of the MJK photos been examined and annotated by an experienced and qualified forensic pathologist?

I can't recall that they have, Henry.

There was, however, a brilliant sculpture/installation recreating the scene, which appeared in an exhibition amid some controversy a few years ago. Questions of taste aside, it was a superb piece of work which really helped in making sense of what's going on in those photographs. (I don't have any links, before anyone asks!)

[Henry Flower]

Agreed on all points, Henry. There are bits of sheet, or possibly chemise - cloth, anyway - elsewhere in the frame, the folds in which have been misinterpreted as various body parts and tissues in the past.I always thought this was a scuffed part of the photographic plate.
I can't recall that they have, Henry.

There was, however, a brilliant sculpture/installation recreating the scene, which appeared in an exhibition amid some controversy a few years ago. Questions of taste aside, it was a superb piece of work which really helped in making sense of what's going on in those photographs. (I don't have any links, before anyone asks!)

Thanks for your assistance Sam.

Follow-up question: does anyone here know an experienced and qualified forensic pathologist!?!?!

[Robert St Devil]

hope you dont mind the intrusion henry. i always interpreted the part in purple to be the inside of the pelvic bone, and the white scratches were made by the tip of his blade. ive been trying to line-up if that is where the inner muscles of the pelvis attached to the pelvic bone.

[Sam Flynn]

does anyone here know an experienced and qualified forensic pathologist!?!?!

Someone with a good grounding in anatomy would do just as well. I've long been interested in anatomy myself, and have studied it, almost as a "hobby", since I was a kid. Much later, as part of my degree, I took an examined module in neuroanatomy under the splendid Prof Bob Lieberman at UCL, albeit neuroanatomy is probably not going to help us much with the MJK photographs! That said, for a lay-person, I'm pretty good at telling apart my gluteus maximus from my humerus.

[Sam Flynn]

hope you dont mind the intrusion henry. i always interpreted the part in purple to be the inside of the pelvic bone

That's not the pelvis, Robert. The region of Mary's gruesomely-exposed pubic arch is visible in the bottom left-hand corner of the image, and the pelvis would be located, in relation to it and allowing for perspective, just above it and to the left. If you look at MJK2, you'll see that her left hand is resting just above the pelvis in the region of the pelvic (iliac) crest, and you can just see the same hand in the same position in MJK3:



The bit with the purple scratches on Henry's snippet above seems to correspond to that loop of cloth (bedsheet?) that interposes between Kelly's left forearm and knee in the MJK1/MJK2 photos.

[Henry Flower]

hope you dont mind the intrusion henry. i always interpreted the part in purple to be the inside of the pelvic bone, and the white scratches were made by the tip of his blade. ive been trying to line-up if that is where the inner muscles of the pelvis attached to the pelvic bone.

R St D - there's no intrusion, the more the merrier!

As it happens, what you describe is precisely what I thought for many years. I always read it as being the inner curve of the ilium of the pelvic bone.

The problem comes when you try to marry that idea up with what you see in the other photo.

And also, the ilium of the female pelvis tends to be much higher up than that. If that's her (huge!) ilium, where the heck is the rest of her pelvis? I think it must be the knee.

The ilium may be just visible. It might be the red area here:

[Henry Flower]

Sam you beat me to it

[Sam Flynn]

Sam you beat me to it

Glad we're on the same wavelength!

[jerryd]

R St D - there's no intrusion, the more the merrier!

So what is this that seems to be attached to the "bedding"? If you look at Henry's picture you can see the smaller square (orange in my picture) has a small "eye" in the middle of it. The orange square appears to have partially fallen out of the red square but looks like it fits perfectly inside of it. Not a body part or bedding in my opinion.