So what happened to that femur...?

[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.

[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]

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.

Thatīs really all there is to it. Nothing much to worry about, Gareth.

[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]

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 wonīt see any replies until Saturday at the earliest. Once again thank you, Paul.

[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

[Sam Flynn]

Correct, each muscle is only attached to a bone at the ends, by tendons. Once the knife slices the tendon the muscle can fall away from the bone at one end.
I can only speak to stripping lamb, pork & beef but the human anatomy is just the same in that respect.

Agreed, in every aspect.

My first three years out of school was as a butchers apprentice.

Just as useful in this context as any medical opinion

[Sam Flynn]

Butchers don't even make such a mess like that.

Absolutely correct.

A slaughterhouse might be a little more appropriate.

Except slaughtermen are much neater.

[Fisherman]

What I find interesting is that not only is there an overall lack of surgical skill, but a lack of butcher skills also.

Butchers don't even make such a mess like that. They have diagrams explaining which parts of an animal are cut away and how.

A slaughterhouse might be a little more appropriate.

However, I strongly doubt JtR worked in any such places or had that experience.

I doubt this because I think from Tabram to Kelly shows an escalation of experimenting with the signature and it seems he is learning when the body has been drained of blood so he can mutilate. I would think a slaughterer would have known that well before Chapman and yet he only appears to get to this point with Chapman to harvest her organs.

I donīt see the Kelly murder as messy. I believe it was highly organized and very controlled, and that the outcome was exactly what the killer was striving to achieve.

There will always be controversy about it. Some say that the killer was a masterful apprentice of Rudolf Wirchov, able to extract a heart according to the latest finds and methods of medicine, others say that it was nothing but mayhem and annihilation.
I think that of all the Ripper murders, this one is the strike that is clearest in disclosing the killers aims and inspiration grounds. And it really should be, given that this was where he had all the time in the world to get it right.

[Batman]

Okay, guys, thank you for your contribution. I take what you say on board, and I will speak to a medico somewhere in the future.

What I find interesting is that not only is there an overall lack of surgical skill, but a lack of butcher skills also.

Butchers don't even make such a mess like that. They have diagrams explaining which parts of an animal are cut away and how.

A slaughterhouse might be a little more appropriate.

However, I strongly doubt JtR worked in any such places or had that experience.

I doubt this because I think from Tabram to Kelly shows an escalation of experimenting with the signature and it seems he is learning when the body has been drained of blood so he can mutilate. I would think a slaughterer would have known that well before Chapman and yet he only appears to get to this point with Chapman to harvest her organs.

[Fisherman]

Okay, guys, thank you for your contribution. I take what you say on board, and I will speak to a medico somewhere in the future.

[Wickerman]

Correct, and the muscles themselves are bounded by sheaths; it's not as if they're "stuck" to the femur along its entire length. It wouldn't have taken much effort to get Kelly's leg looking like that.

Correct, each muscle is only attached to a bone at the ends, by tendons. Once the knife slices the tendon the muscle can fall away from the bone at one end.
I can only speak to stripping lamb, pork & beef but the human anatomy is just the same in that respect.
My first three years out of school was as a butchers apprentice.

[Sam Flynn]

Whther there is a pattern or not is for each of us to decide. You donīt see one, I do, itīs as simple as that.

It's not really a question of "patterns". Remove the muscles from the thighs and you end up with a clean looking femur.

[Fisherman]

It depends on the type of biologist one is. It is very broad. Some biologists may have a very limited understanding of say human biochemistry and human anatomy but a great understanding of plant biochemistry and plant anatomy.

This also goes for Medical scientists. Some have a limited understanding of pathology but a better understanding of cancer research.

I know that quite well too, Batman. I have it from my wife, whoīs a broad. In Paris, to be more exact.

[Fisherman]

That's because they are eating and not cutting. They are tearing with their paws and dentition.

Take an uncooked whole chicken and see if you can remove the meat with just your hands. You will get pretty far and pull chunks away from the bone quite cleanly even without a knife. If a dog got at the same chicken it would look more like something that been scavenging on it.

Apparently, you have never seen me eating.