Announcement

**Ally** · 02-18-2008, 04:21 PM

Magpie
Superintendent Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,684

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannorder
Human flesh, compositionally anyway, isn't substantially different from the larger cuts of meat at the butcher's shops. It's not going to "try to make its way to the floor."

Point taken, but I thought I'd point out that larger cuts of meat from butcher's shops are often tied with string or netting precisely to enable them to keep their shape...

(I agree that "try to...." etc. is perhaps going too far, though)

Magpie
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Magpie
Visit Magpie's homepage!
Find all posts by Magpie

5th February 2007, 11:24 AM
Ally
Superintendent Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,797

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disregarding the fact that we have no way of ascertaining what the fat composition would have been of a poor victorian, there is simple matter of gravity at work and while the flesh would not have "tried to make its way to the floor" it would not have stayed in such a nice, and let's face it "poofy shape" without any sort of support. As has already been pointed out, most butchers tie off with plastic or with string larger cuts of meat to make them maintain shape, and even then they aren't "puffy", roasts are solid and squelch on the bottom when you slap then down on a table, they spread out --they don't "puff".
__________________

Ally
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Ally
Find all posts by Ally

15th February 2007, 07:56 AM
Tutto
Inspector Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: M�laga, Spain
Posts: 250

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello everyone !

Well, I would like to put my two cents...from a medical point of view. I'll give a few reasons to prove (from my point of view... ) that this item on the table is NOT flesh from MJK body.

1. The size (volume) is absolutely different of what we can expect...the item is far too big to be from her legs, groins and vulva.

2. This is a plain item in texture (with stripes !! ), we see no anatomical references in it (pubic hair...), nor blood stains (bloody fingerprints, i.e) neither the edges of the cut...

3. The properties of skin, fascia and muscle (rich in water and connective tissue, so more rigid) don't allow this creases (see yellow rectangles) nor "falls" that way. Compare it with the flesh on the other side of the table, this is the usual behaviour of pieces of flesh.

4. It's basically impossible to cut it "in bloc" of this length...there were many different cuts as the picture shows...you can�t do this wound with only one cut.

Well, I�m sure there are a lot of subliminal data (harder to describe) that make me be sure that this is not flesh. I�m sure, hence, that if you show this picture to 100 medical men...99 will say it�s not flesh from MJK. (The other one is "a little nuts" ...all have ours) .

Cheers,

Tutto

Sorry for my short command of English, I would like to explain it better...
Attached Images

__________________
Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio. Seneca.

Tutto
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Tutto
Find all posts by Tutto

15th February 2007, 08:25 AM
Magpie
Superintendent Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,684

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutto

2. This is a plain item in texture (with stripes !! ), we see no anatomical references in it (pubic hair...), nor blood stains (bloody fingerprints, i.e) neither the edges of the cut...

Hey Tutto!

Good post!

I just thought I'd mention in fairness that according to Hibbert's account, Kelly's pubic hair was absent...

Magpie
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Magpie
Visit Magpie's homepage!
Find all posts by Magpie

15th February 2007, 11:55 AM
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Superintendent Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,854

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tutto,

Excellent post; kind of great to hear an opinion on this for once from someone who actually have medical knowledge.
Yes, those exact spots you marked out were the parts that always have convinced me of that this is stuffed fabric and not flesh.

A work well done, Tutto.

All the best
__________________
Glenn L. Andersson
Writer & historian, Sweden

"The Swedes are the Men that will not be blamed for Nothing"

Glenn L Andersson
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Glenn L Andersson
Find all posts by Glenn L Andersson

15th February 2007, 12:02 PM
caz
Superintendent Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Shirley, Croydon, Surrey, UK
Posts: 1,753

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magpie
I just thought I'd mention in fairness that according to Hibbert's account, Kelly's pubic hair was absent...

Hi Magpie,

This extract from a post by Grey Hunter last year may help put the absent pubic hair back in its proper context:

A Matter of Interpretation

'It is stated in the original Bond report, "The skin & tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps. The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock..." These removed flaps, which included the pubic area, had been placed on the table. Thus, in my humble opinion, there is no evidence to suggest that the pubic area had been shaved, or the hair alone removed. All that is indicated is that the flap of skin bearing the pubic hair had been removed from the pubes, and was thus not present on the body. And, significantly I feel, the wording here is that of Harris and not Bond/Hebbert. And, I would think, had Kelly been shaven in the pubic area Bond would have commented on what would have been, in Victorian times, an unusual condition for a poor female.'

This is where the full post and broader discussion can be found:

Last Call! - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1367&page=3

Place to post information about Annual Conferences, Whitechapel Society meetings and other gatherings both formal and informal.

Love,

Caz
X

PS I vote for the crocodile.
__________________
When she was good she was very very good, but when she was bad she was horrid - only without the curl

caz
View Public Profile
Send a private message to caz
Find all posts by caz

15th February 2007, 12:40 PM
Ally
Superintendent Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,797

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hiya Tutto,

Great to have your 2 cents from a medical perspective. Believe it or not, all the points you have pointed out have been pointed out by non-medical (heh before I came back and edited, I had written non-medicated ). They were dismissed as hogwash and rubbish. Maybe it will be given a keener appreciation coming from the medical end.
__________________

Ally
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Ally
Find all posts by Ally

15th February 2007, 01:08 PM
jukka ruskeeahde
Superintendent Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: finland, the center of the universe
Posts: 1,667

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Tutto!

Muchas gracias!

You have clearly seen much trouble studying this issue!

All the best
Jukka
__________________
"When I know all about everything, I'm old. And it's a very, very long way to go."

jukka ruskeeahde
View Public Profile
Send a private message to jukka ruskeeahde
Find all posts by jukka ruskeeahde

15th February 2007, 05:29 PM
Tutto
Inspector Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: M�laga, Spain
Posts: 250

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Magpie, Glenn, Caz, Ally, Jukka and everyone,

Thank you all for your kindness, I appreciate it very much . You all know I am happy to help if I can. Only two aditional points:

I agree about 'MJK pubic hair topic" with Caz, because I share Grey Hunter interpretation..and, well, Moore & Campbell give us a definitive proof in a disturbingly premonitory image (see below)...in page 303 of From Hell, there is a full uncensored pic

Ally, I absolutely believe what you tell me.

Cheers;

Tutto

P.S. Good Spanish, Jukka !! De nada, amigo m�o.
Attached Images

__________________
Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio. Seneca.

Tutto
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Tutto
Find all posts by Tutto

15th February 2007, 05:37 PM
PerryMason
Chief Superintendent Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,559

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi all,

I just wanted to add my two cents that Tutto makes a great contribution with the information he is putting together. A greenie is on the way amigo

Off topic for just one sec, please bear with me because Its personally bugging me of late....look at Tuttos blow-up on post #13. Great resolution on that, but aside from that, look on the table, just in front of the entrails. Is that a knife, or a hand mirror?

Best regards to all.
__________________
Sincerely yours,

Michael

"Its not who you are, but rather what you do that defines you."

**Ally** · 02-18-2008, 04:33 PM

Thread Tools

15th February 2007, 07:04 PM
New Bug
Chief Inspector Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London W1
Posts: 666

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There does appear to be an object under the flesh but Lord, it could be anything. Looks more like a book to me - a flattish rectangular object. Was anything itemised as being there?

The bit that looks like a 'handle' projecting leftwards, seems 'drawn on', as when contemporary photographers did touch-ups for clarification.

Blimey, that illustration should be put out it's misery.
__________________
Best,

Wendy

New Bug
View Public Profile
Send a private message to New Bug
Find all posts by New Bug

15th February 2007, 07:16 PM
baron
Superintendent Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hayang, ROK
Posts: 1,345

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With Tutto's input, it seems the bolster idea is almost irrefutable. So we have bolster on the right and flesh on the left in the photo Tutto used for illustration.

The argument against this being a bolster or stuffed fabric of some sort must lie with the fact that a bolster wasn't described by the police, so far as we know. If this is the argument, and I don't see another one at this time, then it is very weak when presented with the photo, and indeed to see flesh where a bolster almost certainly is, is really no different than seeing a statue of baphomet in the mess.

Cheers,

Mike

baron
View Public Profile
Send a private message to baron
Find all posts by baron

15th February 2007, 07:17 PM
PerryMason
Chief Superintendent Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,546

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Bug
There does appear to be an object under the flesh but Lord, it could be anything. Looks more like a book to me - a flattish rectangular object. Was anything itemised as being there?

The bit that looks like a 'handle' projecting leftwards, seems 'drawn on', as when contemporary photographers did touch-ups for clarification.

Blimey, that illustration should be put out it's misery.

Hi NewBug,

Thanks for addressing my post, even though its briefly off topic. Heres what I see anyway....the item I mentioned seems to be partially under "materials" on the table, is at the edge closest to us, and appears to have a handle, then another portion which starts wider at the left hand side, then narrows. I would even say, at the risk of being drawn and quartered here...that the portion most visible seems to have some reflective quality. Your point on the handle is exactly what I saw too, I wonder if anyone else will look at it and offer an opinion.

To my knowledge, and Im all ears if wrong, there is no mention of either a knife, or handmirror among the items found in that room. But, again, in my opinion, there is indeed an object where I have directed you to look. I originally saw a much less clear picture of this angle, and it is not visible in that, only when attention is drawn there, and in such great resolution, does anyone see anything.

Please look at it again, and bear in mind that for example a Bowie knife might appear like that object seems to.

My best, and Thanks NewBug.
__________________
Sincerely yours,

Michael

"Its not who you are, but rather what you do that defines you."
Batman

PerryMason
View Public Profile
Send a private message to PerryMason
Find all posts by PerryMason

15th February 2007, 07:24 PM
Lisby
Sergeant Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 30

Deb, you are spot on

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can clearly see both the striping and a seam on the object on the table.

Thank god, too, because all these years of looking at tiny repro images had me shamefully convinced it was her buttocks.

Good work, gang. I'll sleep better for it, too.

Lisby

Lisby
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Lisby
Find all posts by Lisby

15th February 2007, 07:54 PM
jerryd
Inspector Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Colorado, U.S.A.
Posts: 123

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryMason
Hi NewBug,

Thanks for addressing my post, even though its briefly off topic. Heres what I see anyway....the item I mentioned seems to be partially under "materials" on the table, is at the edge closest to us, and appears to have a handle, then another portion which starts wider at the left hand side, then narrows. I would even say, at the risk of being drawn and quartered here...that the portion most visible seems to have some reflective quality. Your point on the handle is exactly what I saw too, I wonder if anyone else will look at it and offer an opinion.

To my knowledge, and Im all ears if wrong, there is no mention of either a knife, or handmirror among the items found in that room. But, again, in my opinion, there is indeed an object where I have directed you to look. I originally saw a much less clear picture of this angle, and it is not visible in that, only when attention is drawn there, and in such great resolution, does anyone see anything.

Please look at it again, and bear in mind that for example a Bowie knife might appear like that object seems to.

My best, and Thanks NewBug.

Michael,

I hope I can explain what I see clear enough...At first I too thought that to be the blade of a knife protruding to the left with the handle under the flesh. The more I looked at it, I see the "blade" portion actually being a cross section of flesh or some other matter. It appears to be about an inch or so in depth in the middle and tapers off at both ends. The "flesh" piece extends towards the back side of the table. The top of the filet has a light source on the right side of it making it appear white or lighter and the left side is a meaty color or reddish. If you look at the left side of the "filet" you can see what appears to be bloodstains. Almost as if when placed on the linen piece on the table, it soaked it with blood.

Does that make sense?

By the way, I agree with Tutto on the Bolster.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by jerryd : 15th February 2007 at 08:14 PM.

jerryd
View Public Profile
Send a private message to jerryd
Find all posts by jerryd

15th February 2007, 08:18 PM
New Bug
Chief Inspector Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London W1
Posts: 666

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryMason
Hi NewBug,

Thanks for addressing my post, even though its briefly off topic. Heres what I see anyway....the item I mentioned seems to be partially under "materials" on the table, is at the edge closest to us, and appears to have a handle, then another portion which starts wider at the left hand side, then narrows. I would even say, at the risk of being drawn and quartered here...that the portion most visible seems to have some reflective quality. Your point on the handle is exactly what I saw too, I wonder if anyone else will look at it and offer an opinion.

To my knowledge, and Im all ears if wrong, there is no mention of either a knife, or handmirror among the items found in that room. But, again, in my opinion, there is indeed an object where I have directed you to look. I originally saw a much less clear picture of this angle, and it is not visible in that, only when attention is drawn there, and in such great resolution, does anyone see anything.

Please look at it again, and bear in mind that for example a Bowie knife might appear like that object seems to.

It might be 'off topic' but since there is some kind of object beneath the flesh it's more significant than the idea women are made of mattress-ticking.

I see a solid three-dimensional object beneath the excised flesh. Looks most like a book to me. Could be a box, could be anything. I wondered at a hair-brush, but doesn't look right. I think it continues on under the flesh, away from the viewer; its mass affects the deposition and contours of the flesh. It's not an object solely to the fore. Dunno why there's a bit to the left which seems 'drawn on'. That might be just local damage to the paper. It's just not clear enough. I think there's definitely something under the flesh, though, and its side is partly visible.
__________________
Best,

Wendy

New Bug
View Public Profile
Send a private message to New Bug
Find all posts by New Bug

15th February 2007, 08:30 PM
PerryMason
Chief Superintendent Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,546

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Wendy and Jerry,

First off, thanks for playing To Jerry, I read your explanation and it seems possible by your explanation certainly, however when I look at the picture more I do see Wendy's point about a book, with only one corner exposed.

I have seen other enhanced sections of that photo before, and to Wendy, Ive never noticed that the "handle" was apparently drawn in as you suggest. In another version I have seen, color enhanced to show more detail, the image is very consistent with that of a knife.

But I wont belabour the point with my opinion. I am pleased others like yourselves are curious about that as well.

Wendy asked earlier, is there a list of items that were recorded as being in that room that afternoon, other than the furniture or drapes? We know about the kettle, the mans overcoat, the clay pipe, the candle bit, and now, thanks to Tutto, where the bolster was. But does anyone know of a comprehensive list of contents?

My best to all, and thanks NewBug and Jerry.
__________________
Sincerely yours,

Michael

"Its not who you are, but rather what you do that defines you."
Batman

PerryMason
View Public Profile
Send a private message to PerryMason
Find all posts by PerryMason

15th February 2007, 08:55 PM
New Bug
Chief Inspector Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London W1
Posts: 666

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryMason
Wendy asked earlier, is there a list of items that were recorded as being in that room that afternoon, other than the furniture or drapes? We know about the kettle, the mans overcoat, the clay pipe, the candle bit, and now, thanks to Tutto, where the bolster was. But does anyone know of a comprehensive list of contents?

Yes, I haven't yet found that & would like to.

Coz here's one problem. Like Jerry I'm thinking that any ambivalence to the image at - let's call it 'handle-area', might be blood-soak. But IS there a cloth covering? Looks like a scratched deal table-top to me. If there is a cloth it's going to be blood-soaked, but not glutinous-wet, light-reflecting, surely, by the time the photograph is made?

OK, I've gone to the other photo and can't really see any cloth atop the table - Can the see the table-edges pretty well... Nope, can't make up my mind.

Do we know there was a cloth there?

However I'm thinking the object too regular to be a flesh 'fillet'.
__________________
Best,

Wendy

New Bug
View Public Profile
Send a private message to New Bug
Find all posts by New Bug

15th February 2007, 09:12 PM
New Bug
Chief Inspector Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London W1
Posts: 666

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know, what were those things called which came with the fireplace? You had your scuttle, poker, your fire-arms, and then a metal pan with brush, for dealing with the soot. Pan with a handle. Some think the killer was messing around with the fire in that room. Perhaps it's just a sundry object, he slopped her onto according to his gruesome humour.

If they'd made a decent inventory at the time there would be no puzzling. Holmes would've been doing inventories on dust and fluff, sifting soot and poking dead flies for their TOD. And easily translate the 'neatly folded' clothes.
__________________
Best,

Wendy

New Bug
View Public Profile
Send a private message to New Bug
Find all posts by New Bug

15th February 2007, 09:25 PM
jerryd
Inspector Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Colorado, U.S.A.
Posts: 123

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Bug
Yes, I haven't yet found that & would like to.

Coz here's one problem. Like Jerry I'm thinking that any ambivalence to the image at - let's call it 'handle-area', might be blood-soak. But IS there a cloth covering? Looks like a scratched deal table-top to me. If there is a cloth it's going to be blood-soaked, but not glutinous-wet, light-reflecting, surely, by the time the photograph is made?

OK, I've gone to the other photo and can't really see any cloth atop the table - Can the see the table-edges pretty well... Nope, can't make up my mind.

Do we know there was a cloth there?

However I'm thinking the object too regular to be a flesh 'fillet'.

Boy am I embarassed for spelling fillet wrong. Must be my old age.

Anyways, if you look at the top of the fillet, it appears to have a Y shape in it. To me it looks like carved flesh at different angles. Like it was cut off in several strokes of the knife. And as to the cloth, look at the frayed ends hanging over the table. And the blood soaking I see would verify some sort of porous material like a cloth or piece of material.

Who knows, my spelling was bad, maybe my eyes are even worse??

**Ally** · 02-18-2008, 04:34 PM

Thread Tools

15th February 2007, 09:38 PM
New Bug
Chief Inspector Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London W1
Posts: 666

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryd
Boy am I embarassed for spelling fillet wrong. Must be my old age.

Anyways, if you look at the top of the fillet, it appears to have a Y shape in it. To me it looks like carved flesh at different angles. Like it was cut off in several strokes of the knife. And as to the cloth, look at the frayed ends hanging over the table. And the blood soaking I see would verify some sort of porous material like a cloth or piece of material.

If 'e did 'er into filet mignon you're perfectly correct :-)

I really can't decide if we're seeing a cloth or not - Those details are taken to be fraying fabric?

Perhaps I'll find the inventory one day. Or at least, a better account of the crime-scene than my current book-larning is throwing up.

How many bods took on-the-spot notes?
__________________
Best,

Wendy

New Bug
View Public Profile
Send a private message to New Bug
Find all posts by New Bug

15th February 2007, 10:38 PM
PerryMason
Chief Superintendent Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,434

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi again,

Another good question Wendy, how many accounts, if any exist as to the room contents? We know they were just outside the room by 11:30ish, and on record, didnt enter until around 1:30, and we know there were plenty of folks there by then.

Jerry, Im trying hard to see it as you explained, Im not sure I see the same thing though. Not that you're wrong, or Im right, just as NewBug says, it is difficult to be sure of what is there.

But I feel, book, fillet, knife, hand mirror...whatever it is, something is there amongst Marys entrails.

Cheers all, and thanks.
__________________
Sincerely yours,

Michael

"Its not who you are, but rather what you do that defines you."
Batman

PerryMason
View Public Profile
Send a private message to PerryMason
Find all posts by PerryMason

16th February 2007, 12:34 AM
dannorder
Superintendent Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,544

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Tutto,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutto
Well, I would like to put my two cents...from a medical point of view.

Just to be clear here, are you claiming to be a doctor?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutto
1. The size (volume) is absolutely different of what we can expect...the item is far too big to be from her legs, groins and vulva.

This is a common argument usually made by people who have no idea of what the sizes of the objects seen in the photo actually are. How big do you think this object is, and why do you think that? How wide an area do you think the width of the photo covers? What do you think you are seeing on the sides of the photo from left to right?

There are a lot of things that can be debated on this topic, but, without a doubt, the size of the item in the photo has very little room for argument once the known features that can be seen are accounted for and the distance between them is calculated. It's simply incorrect to say that it's too big to be the missing flesh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutto
2. This is a plain item in texture (with stripes !! ), we see no anatomical references in it (pubic hair...), nor blood stains (bloody fingerprints, i.e) neither the edges of the cut...

OK, so we get back to what you think you see, which is in direct contradiction to what other people think they see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutto
3. The properties of skin, fascia and muscle (rich in water and connective tissue, so more rigid) don't allow this creases (see yellow rectangles) nor "falls" that way. Compare it with the flesh on the other side of the table, this is the usual behaviour of pieces of flesh.

That would depend upon the type of flesh. Muscle flesh is more solid and holds its shape much better than intestines and other internal organs. Some of the matter on the right side are clearly thin strips, which naturally are going to settle. Human fat most certainly does allow creases, and, of course, the areas you marked are exactly where some people see the anatomical features you say should be there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutto
4. It's basically impossible to cut it "in bloc" of this length...there were many different cuts as the picture shows...you can�t do this wound with only one cut.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue here. If you are saying that a single fluid sweep of the knife couldn't separate that much flesh, well, no, of course not, but that wouldn't be required to separate the flesh in one piece. If you mean anyone cutting off flesh would have had to separate the flesh from legs and stomach into separate pieces, that doesn't even make sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutto
Well, I�m sure there are a lot of subliminal data (harder to describe) that make me be sure that this is not flesh.

Well, no offense, but that doesn't really mean much. Most people glance at the photo, make a quick judgment of the overall size that turns out to be incorrect, and then build up a series of conclusions from there. "Subliminal" is often just another word for "believing what I want to believe."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutto
I�m sure, hence, that if you show this picture to 100 medical men...99 will say it�s not flesh from MJK.

Yeah, and a while back someone claimed that all religious leaders would agree with him on some theory of his if it was presented to them, and so far the only one who did read it that I know of strongly disagreed.

In this case, the medical man who was at the scene of the crime and who wrote about the placement of the flesh said that the flesh was there. No offense, but that would seem to be far more important and significant than what you think you see or what you think 99 doctors would say.
__________________

Dan Norder
Ripper Notes - The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Website: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

dannorder
View Public Profile
Send a private message to dannorder
Visit dannorder's homepage!
Find all posts by dannorder

16th February 2007, 12:52 AM
PerryMason
Chief Superintendent Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,434

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi all,

Hi Dan,

Just so you are aware, Tutto is indeed a doctor, with an Internal Medicine specialty. I read your comments and was not sure you were aware of that. Im not saying you cant, and shouldnt disagree with his points, only that he is qualified to make them.

It is nice to see you posting here though, dont see you that often anymore.

As to my earlier point on the "object" on that table, I have had a whisper in my ear on that subject. As Wendy pointed out, it may be something that has entrails upon most of it, and there may be additional entrails draped over the right hand side of that table, right meaning by our POV in the photo. They may be laying on something, with a handle. I might even have a guess what that "object" is, since I own something from the 1800's that appears to bear some resemblance to it.

You may be right Wendy, those bits may be on something. By the way Wendy, I think I also see what you mentioned earlier, there does appear to be some cloth covering part of the table.

Best regards to all.
__________________
Sincerely yours,

Michael

"Its not who you are, but rather what you do that defines you."
Batman

PerryMason
View Public Profile
Send a private message to PerryMason
Find all posts by PerryMason

16th February 2007, 01:42 AM
rapunzel676
Moderator Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a tower
Posts: 320

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tutto, I am not disputing you, but I do have a few questions for you. First of all, while I realize you are dealing with a language barrier, why did you not use the anatomical terms for the parts you described, or perhaps their Latin names?

I would also be curious to know what you think the parts that are visible on the table are, and if they could indeed account for the missing portions of Kelly's body that are not dealt with in Dr. Bond's report? Have you read Bond's report in the original English, or in your native Italian? I think there are certain contained in it nuances which could alter your understanding of it, particularly in regard to the "flaps" of flesh removed from the body.

I am not at all trying to insult you, I am simply aware that you have mentioned that your command of the language is imperfect and I know that this could potentially affect your understanding of the Bond report's contents. My reading of the report indicates that a very significant amount of flesh was removed from Kelly's body and the small pile on the table simply does not seem to account for that. While I certainly do not have your expertise, I have had some limited exposure to human anatomy and physiology and have even gone so far as to view videos of cadaver dissections (I am no ghoul; when I was younger I considered a career in forensic pathology).

I do also believe that Dan's points regarding the distortions in perception created by the angles at which the photos were taken and the medium of photography itself could have an impact on our views of the object in question.

Tutto, thank you for sharing your expertise with us, and again, please do not take this as my questioning of your credibility. I appreciate any and all insights you can provide.

rapunzel676
View Public Profile
Send a private message to rapunzel676
Find all posts by rapunzel676

16th February 2007, 02:13 AM
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Superintendent Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,703

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannorder
Just to be clear here, are you claiming to be a doctor?.

Yes, he is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannorder
OK, so we get back to what you think you see, which is in direct contradiction to what other people think they see.?

Actually no, it is perfectly in tune with what most people are saying here. What you and rapunzel claim that those objects are, is actually the view of the minority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannorder
In this case, the medical man who was at the scene of the crime and who wrote about the placement of the flesh said that the flesh was there. No offense, but that would seem to be far more important and significant than what you think you see or what you think 99 doctors would say.

Firstly, in Bond's post mortem there is one mentioning of flesh on the table. ONE! And that is clearly visible on the table. He didn't wrote two or several. So obviously the object referred to in this debate has to be something else.
Well, the fact that you don't feel that there is enough amount of flesh in Bond's description in order to fit the existing, visible pile, is your theoretical problem, based on your calculations and interpretations.

What you probably is referring to is this:
"The whole of the surface of the abdomen & thighs was removed & the abdominal Cavity emptied of its viscera."
And here he explains where some of this is:
"The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table."

That is the ONLY mentioning of any flesh on a table. So if you're claiming that there is another piece of flesh on a table or in connection with it, you are actually adding something to Bond's report that isn't there.
It is only your personal assumption that they belong to the object we are discussing here. So, if you find Bond so trustworthy and detailed, why isn't there any reference to that exact object we are debating being flesh? Do you suggest he forgot to mention it and its position or left it out deliberately?

All you have to do is use your eyes. Look at the folds and wrinkles, for God's sake. That is exactly how a stuffed fabric like a pillow, duvet or bolster is folding. Do you see the stripes? FOLLOWING the shape of the folds and the wrinkles in different directions?

All the best
__________________
Glenn L. Andersson
Writer & historian, Sweden

"The Swedes are the Men that will not be blamed for Nothing"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Glenn L Andersson : 16th February 2007 at 02:43 AM.

Glenn L Andersson
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Glenn L Andersson
Find all posts by Glenn L Andersson

16th February 2007, 02:34 AM
cappuccina
Superintendent Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,163

Glenn...this is the type of material I visualize in the...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...MJK photo showing the bolster...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...photo hosting

...more ticking examples...

Pardon Our Interruption...

http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...ype=osi_widget

From: http://store.zarinfabrics.com/store/glossary.aspx

Definition of "ticking":

TICKING � originally a twill blue and cream vertical, woven striped fabric used to make "ticks" or mattress and pillow casings. Historically used on walls, also for draperies and other interior uses. Mattress ticking may also be satin damask ticking, or ticking damask.

Dan, How could human flesh be regularly striped like that?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by cappuccina : 16th February 2007 at 02:42 AM.

cappuccina
View Public Profile
Send a private message to cappuccina
Find all posts by cappuccina

16th February 2007, 02:41 AM
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Superintendent Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,703

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Cappuchina,

Yes, well, maybe not with those kind of heavy stripes, but as far as the material as such is concerned - yes. I agree. It is definitely similar.

All the best
__________________
Glenn L. Andersson
Writer & historian, Sweden

"The Swedes are the Men that will not be blamed for Nothing"

Glenn L Andersson
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Glenn L Andersson
Find all posts by Glenn L Andersson

16th February 2007, 02:43 AM
baron
Superintendent Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hayang, ROK
Posts: 1,280

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn,

As I've said, the only argument one might have for it NOT being a bolster is that there is no record of a bolster mentioned... that we know of. I don't recall any record stating there were nails in the wood, and probably because there really was no need to. Just as with the bolster. I don't think it matters much in regards to the crime, but it cannot be refuted.

The debate certainly is one-sided, and should really end.

Mike

baron
View Public Profile
Send a private message to baron
Find all posts by baron

16th February 2007, 02:45 AM
cappuccina
Superintendent Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,163

Hi Glenn...I figure that MJK's ticking was faded...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....from years of (mis)use....the examples I show are all of ticking that is new, or antique ticking in pristine condition...

I will see if I can find a photo with faded ticking in it...

This is better...the ticking is narrower and more faded...

http://cgi.ebay.com/LAVENDER-Ivory-T...ayphotohosting

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by cappuccina : 16th February 2007 at 02:49 AM.

**Ally** · 02-18-2008, 04:41 PM

Thread Tools

16th February 2007, 02:50 AM
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Superintendent Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,683

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by baron
Glenn,

As I've said, the only argument one might have for it NOT being a bolster is that there is no record of a bolster mentioned... that we know of. I don't recall any record stating there were nails in the wood, and probably because there really was no need to. Just as with the bolster.

Not sure I can agree with that, Mike. It's not the same thing.
It would definitely be more important in a post mortem to account for and specify where the pieces of flesh are located than the existence of a bolster or its location, which would have very little to do with his particular job.

But as you say, it is a strange debate, that matters very little for our understanding of the crime.

All the best
__________________
Glenn L. Andersson
Writer & historian, Sweden

"The Swedes are the Men that will not be blamed for Nothing"

Glenn L Andersson
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Glenn L Andersson
Find all posts by Glenn L Andersson

16th February 2007, 02:53 AM
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Superintendent Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,683

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccina
....from years of (mis)use....the examples I show are all of ticking that is new, or antique ticking in pristine condition...

I will see if I can find a photo with faded ticking in it...

This is better...the ticking is narrower and more faded...

http://cgi.ebay.com/LAVENDER-Ivory-T...ayphotohosting

Hi Caps,

Yes, I see what you mean. Could be right.

Looks like my own, actually. (I swear I didn't take it from Millers Court 13!)

All the best
__________________
Glenn L. Andersson
Writer & historian, Sweden

"The Swedes are the Men that will not be blamed for Nothing"

Glenn L Andersson
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Glenn L Andersson
Find all posts by Glenn L Andersson

16th February 2007, 02:55 AM
cappuccina
Superintendent Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,160

...baron, there was also no mention in the police report of the large metal

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...wash/laundry basin you can see under her bed, or of the specific smaller items she had in her room either, other than the phrase, (I'm quoting out of the blue here)..."a couple of ginger beer bottles and some broken crockery" or something like that...They don't mention anything that she had in her room, really, which, considering she owned hardly anything, wouldn't have been very hard to do...I am sure that there were a couple of small items in her room other than the furniture and the "Fisherman's Widow" print... (which may have been an Andrew Wyeth copy, BTW...) They don't even detail the description of the bed or talk about the ticking or the quilt or anything...

I think the atrocity of what the police saw vis a vis her body overshadowed the other data collection/crime scene inventory...

cappuccina
View Public Profile
Send a private message to cappuccina
Find all posts by cappuccina

16th February 2007, 02:58 AM
jcoram
Chief Inspector Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: East Sussex, England
Posts: 551

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Tutto,

I just wanted to thank you for your post, which brought up a couple of points that I hadn't seen mentioned before, namely that skin doesn't crease the way as was displayed in the yellow boxes. It really is great to hear from a doctor on this, because we laymen have been floundering about for ages trying to make sense of it. I do know of course that you are constrained by the quality of the print, but since Stephen was kind enough to post up the better quality copy, it has made it much easier to see detail.

It was suggested, if you didn't mind doing it of course, that you post up a more technical report of what you see there, which I think is a great idea. although I appreciate that English is your second language. (You speak it a damn sight better than a lot of English people by the way.) I'm sure the medical terms would be understandable to most people with some kind of medical training or background in most countries.

I think that if you didn't mind putting up something more technical, even though us lesser mortals might not get the finer points, it would be of great value to everyone.

Once again, Many thanks.

I'd book into your hospital any day, by the way.

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by jcoram : 16th February 2007 at 03:01 AM.

jcoram
View Public Profile
Send a private message to jcoram
Visit jcoram's homepage!
Find all posts by jcoram

16th February 2007, 02:59 AM
cappuccina
Superintendent Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,160

Yes, Glenn, and....the other question I have for you is...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...has your skin ever exibited this regular blue striping pattern as the result of months of freezing cold Swedish winter, or due to fright, or..... for any reason whatsoever ??

Cheers,
cappuccina

cappuccina
View Public Profile
Send a private message to cappuccina
Find all posts by cappuccina

16th February 2007, 03:06 AM
New Bug
Chief Inspector Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London W1
Posts: 666

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn L Andersson
Hi Cappuchina,

Yes, well, maybe not with those kind of heavy stripes, but as far as the material as such is concerned - yes. I agree. It is definitely similar.

All the best

It fades over time and with wear. The MJK photo shows worn, dirty, ticking.

'Ticking' fabric - long used for mattresses and bolsters - is still made, is commonly available, today. You can buy bolts of the stuff in John Lewis. It's smashing for lining huge curtains. It's not some rare historic textile.
__________________
Best,

Wendy

Tutto
Inspector Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: M�laga, Spain
Posts: 250

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello everyone

Drake�s Method...you know

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannorder
Hi Tutto,

Hi Dan,

Just to be clear here, are you claiming to be a doctor?

Yes, I am a physician ...see Michael previous post, he is saying the truth about me there. I�ve found a link to a medical paper I wrote, so you can check it (my "other" name is Antonio Dominguez).

This is a common argument usually made by people who have no idea of what the sizes of the objects seen in the photo actually are. How big do you think this object is, and why do you think that? How wide an area do you think the width of the photo covers? What do you think you are seeing on the sides of the photo from left to right?

My opinion has been already expresed, I am afraid I shall not engage in a further discussion now & here.

There are a lot of things that can be debated on this topic, but, without a doubt, the size of the item in the photo has very little room for argument once the known features that can be seen are accounted for and the distance between them is calculated. It's simply incorrect to say that it's too big to be the missing flesh.

Of course I respect your point of view ...I simply don�t share it.

OK, so we get back to what you think you see, which is in direct contradiction to what other people think they see.

It�s up to everyone (and quite desirable, also) to have their own minds about every issue. I only wanted to put my two cents here, from a medical point of view as I can do it. I am sure you will agree with me that there is nothing wrong about it.

That would depend upon the type of flesh. Muscle flesh is more solid and holds its shape much better than intestines and other internal organs. Some of the matter on the right side are clearly thin strips, which naturally are going to settle. Human fat most certainly does allow creases, and, of course, the areas you marked are exactly where some people see the anatomical features you say should be there.

And they should stand where they are if they keep thinking that way after other opinions have been given. I simply stand where I was in my post...

I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue here. If you are saying that a single fluid sweep of the knife couldn't separate that much flesh, well, no, of course not, but that wouldn't be required to separate the flesh in one piece. If you mean anyone cutting off flesh would have had to separate the flesh from legs and stomach into separate pieces, that doesn't even make sense.

I insist to clarify my words, what makes no sense, from my point of view, is to cut a huge flap like this theorical "item" if you can�t do it without a huge effort. But, again, this is not the right moment to get roped in this discussion, though.

Well, no offense, but that doesn't really mean much. Most people glance at the photo, make a quick judgment of the overall size that turns out to be incorrect, and then build up a series of conclusions from there. "Subliminal" is often just another word for "believing what I want to believe."

Well, I can�t share your last statement (highlighted), neither. I think subliminal means otherwise, but as I think you are a psychologist*, it could be a little bold if I use my own words to express my oposition. Here is a link about it.

Yeah, and a while back someone claimed that all religious leaders would agree with him on some theory of his if it was presented to them, and so far the only one who did read it that I know of strongly disagreed.

It will be very interested to read the opinion of other medical men about this picture. I am always open to learn, moreover, this is one of the main reasons because I am here...the other one is to have fun !!

In this case, the medical man who was at the scene of the crime and who wrote about the placement of the flesh said that the flesh was there. No offense, but that would seem to be far more important and significant than what you think you see or what you think 99 doctors would say.

Well, this is an opinable issue and I don�t share your interpretation of the statements of " the medical man who was at the scene of the crime". It�s my right to keep my own mind...something I will respect as well to everybody else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rapunzel676
Tutto, I am not disputing you, but I do have a few questions for you. First of all, while I realize you are dealing with a language barrier, why did you not use the anatomical terms for the parts you described, or perhaps their Latin names?

Hi Rapunzel

Well, I think my post was understandable as is, but you are right, there is an obvious language barrier...I am far more elocuent in Spanish.

I would also be curious to know what you think the parts that are visible on the table are, and if they could indeed account for the missing portions of Kelly's body that are not dealt with in Dr. Bond's report?

From my point of view, this is the main flesh pile.

Have you read Bond's report in the original English, or in your native Italian? I think there are certain contained in it nuances which could alter your understanding of it, particularly in regard to the "flaps" of flesh removed from the body.

I read it in English...with a gorgeous dictionary aside. My native language is Spanish**, but I understand that my nickname is an "elephant trap" . Anyway, I believe that many people with English as native language think the same, and they have no language barrier...

I am not at all trying to insult you, I am simply aware that you have mentioned that your command of the language is imperfect and I know that this could potentially affect your understanding of the Bond report's contents. My reading of the report indicates that a very significant amount of flesh was removed from Kelly's body and the small pile on the table simply does not seem to account for that. While I certainly do not have your expertise, I have had some limited exposure to human anatomy and physiology and have even gone so far as to view videos of cadaver dissections (I am no ghoul; when I was younger I considered a career in forensic pathology).

I don�t feel as if you were insulting me, of course. You can think perfectly otherwise after reading my opinion and we can go on been friends here ...
I try to be respectful with others and their opinions, always.

I do also believe that Dan's points regarding the distortions in perception created by the angles at which the photos were taken and the medium of photography itself could have an impact on our views of the object in question.

I understand your point of view (pun intended ) but I don�t share it. The difference in size is so big that is not justified by angles, from my point of view.

Tutto, thank you for sharing your expertise with us, and again, please do not take this as my questioning of your credibility. I appreciate any and all insights you can provide.

I am always happy to help...if I can. Now, it�s not the right moment to go on with the discussion, as I�ve stated above. Thank you for your kind words to me, anyway...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcoram
Hi Tutto,

Hello Janie !!

I just wanted to thank you for your post, which brought up a couple of points that I hadn't seen mentioned before, namely that skin doesn't crease the way as was displayed in the yellow boxes. It really is great to hear from a doctor on this, because we laymen have been floundering about for ages trying to make sense of it. I do know of course that you are constrained by the quality of the print, but since Stephen was kind enough to post up the better quality copy, it has made it much easier to see detail.

Absolutely agreed, Janie.

It was suggested, if you didn't mind doing it of course, that you post up a more technical report of what you see there, which I think is a great idea. although I appreciate that English is your second language. (You speak it a damn sight better than a lot of English people by the way.) I'm sure the medical terms would be understandable to most people with some kind of medical training or background in most countries.

I take your idea and will work on it,but, I�m afraid, I can�t do it now.

I think that if you didn't mind putting up something more technical, even though us lesser mortals might not get the finer points, it would be of great value to everyone.

I accept the challenge, Janie. Just leave me do it slow hand, if it�s possible...

Once again, Many thanks.
I'd book into your hospital any day, by the way.

Thanks to you, always...

Hugs
Janie
xxxx

The same, my friend !!

See you all next week, I am out for weekend.

Cheers,

Tutto

*P.S. Sorry for my ignorance about your professional background, Dan, I tried to check it up, but in your public profile I only found a curious statement (because I am fond of this expression as well, even I opened a thread with this name), so we have a lot in common (added to our birth year)...

"Biography:
I'm the perpetual devil's advocate."

I also checked your webpage about Mythology (interesting issue, by the way...) but I didn�t get about psychologist background:

"Dan Norder, who is a member of the American Folklore Society and a recognized expert in cultural beliefs from around the world."

**P.S. I use to say that when I try to speak English, I am just able to speak Yoddish (Yoda�s babbling)
__________________
Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio. Seneca.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Tutto : 16th February 2007 at 12:25 PM. Reason: Yoda�s babbling

Tutto
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Tutto
Find all posts by Tutto

16th February 2007, 03:55 PM
supe
Chief Inspector Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 881

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tutto,

Thanks for the fine postings on the subject. It was good to have some real; medical input on the topic. One would think this would pretty much end the discussion, but you know what they say: Cuisvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.

Have a good weekend.

Don.

supe
View Public Profile
Send a private message to supe
Find all posts by supe

16th February 2007, 06:43 PM
dannorder
Superintendent Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,544

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn L Andersson
Actually no, it is perfectly in tune with what most people are saying here. What you and rapunzel claim that those objects are, is actually the view of the minority.

Yes, Glenn, I am completely aware that I am in the minority on this. But then when we are discussing what is and is not accurate, that's not something people can just vote on. The only way to uncover the truth by looking at arguments and data that fits the facts, not just that a group of people all decide to believe in something. If you've looked these boards for a while, being in the majority on many topics is actually more an indication that you are wrong, because all the people who haven't looked into the topic much make a snap judgment and then stubbornly refuse to even discuss the topic rationally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn L Andersson
Firstly, in Bond's post mortem there is one mentioning of flesh on the table. ONE!

First off, this isn't a full post mortem, it's some post mortem notes that ends abruptly without the standard signature line and other content that is in actual post mortem reports. As has noted by , these notes have the appearance of being a partial set of notes that would later be used to fill out the real post mortem. They were found separate in some police notes and should not be taken as a full and comprehensive final report. Second off, just about everything that is mentioned is only mentioned once, and it's quite clear that the notes we do have do not detail every single bit of internal matter that was removed from the body. Larger groupings of flesh and important organs are going to be more stressed in abbreviated notes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn L Andersson
And that is clearly visible on the table.

What is it with people tossing out "clearly" to mean "I believe this so there's no point to discuss it anymore." As already mentioned several times now, the flesh on the right side of the table is far, far too small to be the missing flesh from Kelly's thighs, groin, buttocks and stomach. On top of that, the flesh on the right has the appearance of internal organs and not muscle tissue at all. All this pointed out over and over and then we have people trying to argue that it's "clearly" the missing flesh despite all that. That's just ignoring the evidence to restate what you said in the first place, that's not a real argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn L Andersson
All you have to do is use your eyes.

That's exactly the same non-argument used to support the idea that the small pile of flesh is really a statue of the demon Baphomet, or a knife, or a mirror or candle and so forth and so on that is wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn L Andersson
Look at the folds and wrinkles, for God's sake.

Fat from a human thigh, especially separated from a bone, is going to have folds and creases, especially where the flesh is bent, and especially where the structure of the muscle tissue under the surface is pushing against it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccina
Dan, How could human flesh be regularly striped like that?

Hi cappucina,

This one was covered in the old threads, but to repeat: The so-called stripes on the fabric are only visible in a small section and not across the entire surface of the object. This means either that the fabric suddenly stops being striped (which some have argued would mean that there was separate cloth involved in its manufacture, which is possible but would be quite convenient to just happen that way) or that the stripes come from another source. There have been three main arguments to explain how those stripes could be there in the photo and not a part of the actual object itself. First there's the concept that light was being cast down onto the object that had shades of darker and lighter areas, such as through a venetian blind or some other patterned object from the light source. In this case the pattern would of course follow the surface of the object, as any light shining onto a 3-D object follows that surface. Second there's the chemical process involved in old photos. These frequently have odd patterning involved. This could help explain why the supposed fabric pattern in some places looks like it actually goes off into the dark, shadowed areas beyond the surface of the object. Third, that it could be aa accident from reproducing the photo. Some other reproduction of the photo have the alleged striping pattern much less distinct. Multiple reproductions of an image can intensify tonal differences in certain ranges to cause banding and other artifacts.

I honestly don't know what is going on in this picture, but considering that the striping pattern is not consistent across the object, it seems a stretch to declare that it was on the object and could not have come from another source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drstrange
If you�ve ever had sex on a cold November night in a drafty London room, you�ll know something is missing from the MJK1 photo, an eiderdown, doona, duvet or whatever you might call it. And that does appear to be exactly what seems to be rolled up on Ms Kelly�s table.

Hi drstrange,

The people who have argued that the object is made of fabric have changed their minds (well, as a group, some individuals are more consistent than others) over what exactly they think it is, but the idea that it's a rolled up bed covering that would go over the whole bed is not what they argue. So it would seem that what you see it being exactly is not at all what other people exactly see either. At some point I think any fair person would have to admit then that it certainly isn't clear if so many people see o many different things so clearly.

As far as the blanket goes, that is not missing from the long photo. See the rounded object down by Mary's right knee in the long photo? That is more consistent with rolled up bed covering.
__________________

Dan Norder
Ripper Notes - The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Website: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

dannorder
View Public Profile
Send a private message to dannorder
Visit dannorder's homepage!
Find all posts by dannorder

16th February 2007, 06:59 PM
Witch
Inspector Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 137

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannorder
Fat from a human thigh, especially separated from a bone, is going to have folds and creases, especially where the flesh is bent, and especially where the structure of the muscle tissue under the surface is pushing against it.

That was poor woman, probably undernourished, not a pig. So I wouldn't expect too much fat in her tissues. Then, the muscles removed from such a big bone as a femur, can't have so smooth surface. And it should have some knife cuts, it's impossible to cut out so big piece of flesh without leaving any traces on it's surface.
__________________
Witch
"I long to go through the crowded streets of your mighty London, to be in the midst of the whirl and rush of humanity, to share its life, its change, its death, and all that makes it what it is." Bram Stoker, Dracula.

Witch
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Witch
Find all posts by Witch

16th February 2007, 07:02 PM
cappuccina
Superintendent Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,161

Hi Dan... the striping is on the bolster case...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...there is a pillow underneath that has stuffing; the outer part of it was probably muslin or something, and plain, not patterned...It looks like I am seeing a bolster with faded ticking, with the pillow underneath...meaning the case is coming off, and you can see the pillow...

The striping while faded is VERY regular...I don't know of any human condition that would account for this...Common sense tells me it's ticking, and the reason the stripes seem to stop is because of the plain pillow material underneath... The striping is also clearly NOT caused by lighting, it is imprinted upon fabric...As others have said here, ticking was very cheap and very sturdy, and commonly used, as it is today for duvet and pillow coverings of all kinds...

My understanding is that bolsters were very common at this time as a way, not only of elevating one's head, but for also making a lumpy and sagging mattress more "even"...Lots of people had bolsters at both ends of the bed becasue of this type of problem. Bolsters were also used to elevate people who had chronic lung conditions...they could then breathe better at night. I could absolutely see MJK having one of these, faded and dirty though it was...

Witch, I absolutely agree with your analysis as well...

Cheers,
cappuccina

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by cappuccina : 16th February 2007 at 07:05 PM.

cappuccina
View Public Profile
Send a private message to cappuccina
Find all posts by cappuccina

**Guest** · 06-25-2008, 06:47 PM

First, hello all !

just a word about that bolster debate (even if it's closed) . When I first went through this topic first time, I was very surprised to discover that not everyone knows what it is. At the time, I thougt that every kid in every country (in Europe at least) had bolsters on the bed when they went to sleep in grandma's house. But maybe it's a french difference, who knows ( I am french) ^_^

anyway, I and everyone I showed the photo ( well I mean those who accepted to see it) and asked "what do you see here ?" answered in the same obvious way "well it's a bolster ! what else ?"

Don't get angry, I know : this, in no way, is an argument

**j.r-ahde** · 06-25-2008, 08:16 PM

Hello Alv!

My sister (she's a doctor and she's Finnish!

) told the thing to be a bolster too!

So, maybe even we Finnish know, what a bolster is!

All the best
Jukka

**Glenn Lauritz Andersson** · 06-25-2008, 09:23 PM

Oh-my-God...
Who reopened this thread?

And yes - it's a bolster.

Hi Alv

Welcome to the Boards.

All the best

**steje73** · 06-30-2008, 10:52 AM

Oh Lordi, it's BACK!
Hehehehehehehehe!

**anna** · 06-30-2008, 12:01 PM

Yep,looks like it.
MJK's getting to be a popular lady....
thoughts of diggin' her up over the weekend..now we're back in Rm.13!

Went back a bit to have a read,and Tutto's(an Italian doctor) point about there not being enough flesh on the table to what he saw cut away in the photo,is interesting.
Especially as we have an Anthropologist,Canadian Mari,who has just joined our ranks,who is the ideal person to put a professional viewpoint on this.

Announcement

The Great Bolster Debate (Re) Revisited

The Great Bolster Debate (Re) Revisited

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment