So what happened to that femur...?

[kjab3112]

Hi Fisherman

If you cut down onto the bone then try to strip the periosteum as happens in a fracture fixation or joint replacement for example, the bone is quite easy to clean (as you're lifting a fairly solid structure with a softer structure above it). All the killer would need to do is cut down onto the bone (knowing where it was) then scrape up the bone. Admittedly I've not much experience of denuding bones of murder victims but I can't imagine a newly killed victim would be much different from a live patient.

Paul

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

If you cut down onto the bone then try to strip the periosteum as happens in a fracture fixation or joint replacement for example, the bone is quite easy to clean (as you're lifting a fairly solid structure with a softer structure above it). All the killer would need to do is cut down onto the bone (knowing where it was) then scrape up the bone. Admittedly I've not much experience of denuding bones of murder victims but I can't imagine a newly killed victim would be much different from a live patient.

Paul

Ah, my prayers answered - thank you, Paul, for providing a professional opinion! From what I gather here, it seems what happened was that the killer consciously scraped the periosteum away from the bone. So the sequence would involve cutting the flesh away together with vessels, muscle and sinews, clearing it away from the bone and thus freeing it. Then the peritoneum was scraped away, leaving us with the bare bone in that picture.

So no difficult operation, but one that seems to have been consciously aimed at displaying the femur.

Which is pretty much what I think happened.

Copenhagen tomorrow, so I won´t see any replies until Saturday at the earliest. Once again thank you, Paul.

[Sam Flynn]

Ah, my prayers answered - thank you, Paul, for providing a professional opinion! From what I gather here, it seems what happened was that the killer consciously scraped the periosteum away from the bone. So the sequence would involve cutting the flesh away together with vessels, muscle and sinews, clearing it away from the bone and thus freeing it. Then the peritoneum was scraped away, leaving us with the bare bone in that picture.

The periosteum is extremely thin, and can be scraped away easily, even in the same movement as those used to remove the muscle. I've prepared enough meat to know that this is the case, and that it doesn't require much effort at all. Check out this clip of a butcher de-boning some beef:

https://youtu.be/GUOWsc38cJo?t=325

I'm sure there are better examples out there, or you can try it yourself.

NB: I'm pretty sure there are thin strips of periosteum and/or muscle still adhering to the femur in places if you look closely. If so, it's evident that the killer didn't take much care in stripping the thigh completely, which would have been very easy to do, if that had been his intention.

[Fisherman]

The periosteum is extremely thin, and can be scraped away easily, even in the same movement as those used to remove the muscle. I've prepared enough meat to know that this is the case, and that it doesn't require much effort at all. Check out this clip of a butcher de-boning some beef:

https://youtu.be/GUOWsc38cJo?t=325

I'm sure there are better examples out there, or you can try it yourself.

NB: I'm pretty sure there are thin strips of periosteum and/or muscle still adhering to the femur in places if you look closely. If so, it's evident that the killer didn't take much care in stripping the thigh completely, which would have been very easy to do, if that had been his intention.

Interesting. When I say the bone looks very white, you say that it is an old picture and so it is hard to tell.

But when I say that it seems the killer scraped the periosteum away, the picture is suddenly of so high quality and so sharp as to allow for you to "look closely" and discern "thin strips" of periosteum...? (are you sure they are strips and no flaps, by the way?)

Maybe the aging of the picture only goes to prove your points, and not mine?

The killer cut away the flesh and muscle from that thigh.

He then proceeded to scrape the periosteum away.

I have a pretty good idea why.

That´s really all there is to it. Nothing much to worry about, Gareth.

[Sam Flynn]

Interesting. When I say the bone looks very white, you say that it is an old picture and so it is hard to tell.

It's an old picture, and somewhat "contrasty". Lighter areas might well appear to look even lighter, if not whiter, than they did originallly because of that.

But when I say that it seems the killer scraped the periosteum away, the picture is suddenly of so high quality and so sharp as to allow for you to "look closely" and discern "thin strips" of periosteum...

There is no contradiction in what I said, therefore, and I find your insinuation of double standards distasteful.

The strips of muscle clinging to the bone are dark, therefore somewhat immune to the effects of contrast or over-exposure. Unless they are bits of dirt that got onto the print over the years (which I don't think they are), it appears that there were still small strips of muscle and/or other tissues still adherent to the femur in some places. That being the case, it's clear that the killer wasn't overly concerned with leaving the bone entirely cleaned of flesh, which would have been easy to achieve if he so intended.

[Fisherman]

It's an old picture, and somewhat "contrasty". Lighter areas might well appear to look even lighter, if not whiter, than they did originallly because of that.The strips of muscle clinging to the bone are dark, therefore somewhat less susceptible to the effects of contrast or over-exposure.

There is no contradiction in what I said, therefore, and I find your insinuation of double standards distasteful.

Personally, I find double standards as such distasteful.

The picture is quite good enough to tell us that the killer made it his aim to deflesh down to the bone and to scrape the periosteum away, clearly exhibiting where we end up if we work ourselves into a thigh.

An old picture can suffer from many types of decay and damage, and there is no reason to suggest that one type of damage is more likely to be present than another. The white appearance is no more and no less likely to be a correct depiction of reality that your perceived strips of flesh. If we are ready to accept one matter, we should be just as ready to accept another. So in that particular sense, "double standards" are better that single ones.