MJK1 & MJK3 don't tally!

[lynn cates]

not stiff

Hello Rivkah. Thanks. If she was hardly stiff, that might indicate a later killing?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Do we know the exact time the photographs were taken?

regards,

Hi Tecs.

We have a timeline, as the door was broken open at 1:30 pm, and the autopsy commenced at 2:00 pm, we have a 30 minute window for the photo's to be taken.
We read the photographer was sent for while a preliminary exam was being made on the body (after 1:30?). Would they move anything?, we would hope not but who knows.
So maybe the photo's were taken after the brief exam but before the autopsy, say 1:40-2:00 pm?

I'm not clear on why the photographer only removed his equipment at 4:30 pm, seeing as how the body had been removed by 4:00 pm.

Maybe the police let him leave his tripod set-up in the room just incase they decided more photo's were necessary, or maybe he did take subsequent photo's during the autopsy which have not survived?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

I wonder if the killer quit when he did, because rigor was beginning to set in, and the muscles were getting too tough to cut.

The problem tends to be the opposite, flacid muscles which offer less resistance to a blade tend to drag, they are more difficult to cut through.
Muscles which are firm slice better, with flacid tissue you need a very sharp knife, with firmer tissue, less so.

Is it even remotely possible he could have somehow known that heat slowed down rigor, and that was the reason for the fire? did slaughterers know that?

No, that was only discovered when doctors found out what the chemical reaction was that caused rigor. Largely due to the presence of lactic acid, not known I believe in the late 19th century.

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

Hello Rivkah. Thanks. If she was hardly stiff, that might indicate a later killing?

I'm an advocate of that, but I still haven't found out what so much missing tissue would do to the perception of rigor. I've been looking through forensics journals (online), and most articles that might possibly be on point you have to pay for. I'm a little shy about inquiring "Hey, I post to this 'Jack-the-Ripper MB; can you tell me whether the article will answer this question, before I pay for it?'"

The problem tends to be the opposite, flacid muscles which offer less resistance to a blade tend to drag, they are more difficult to cut through.
Muscles which are firm slice better, with flacid tissue you need a very sharp knife, with firmer tissue, less so.

Is that true even if you have a surgical knife?

No, that was only discovered when doctors found out what the chemical reaction was that caused rigor. Largely due to the presence of lactic acid, not known I believe in the late 19th century.

So, I should stop thinking about the possibility that JTR (or, whoever killed MJK) may have somehow stumbled into the fact.

[lynn cates]

any

Hello Rivkah. Thanks. Without tissue, one wonders whether there would BE any rigour.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Is that true even if you have a surgical knife?

Sharp blades go dull very quickly when slicing into muscle/tissue for any length of time. I can only speak from the perspective of someone who had an apprenticeship as a Butcher when I was younger, we were continuously sharpening our knives, though they were not surgical instruments which might last a little longer because they are made from a different material.

So, I should stop thinking about the possibility that JTR (or, whoever killed MJK) may have somehow stumbled into the fact.

I would take Dr. Bond's words as a guide, that rigor had not set in at 2:00 pm, so death occurred many hours before the autopsy began, though it was evident in the tissues at this time.
The murderer departed at the very least three and a half hours before the autopsy began at 2:00 pm.

If they can conduct an autopsy while rigor is appearing then it cannot present much of a problem.

Regards, Jon S.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
If the bolster type item was indeed bedclothes, two points have to be addressed.
1]Why was the bedclothes rolled up in that position, and who did that?
2] In order for this item to have found its way on the table close to the bed , someone either walked round the bed and placed them onto the table next to the mound of flesh, or passed them over the bed again, to place on that gruesome table.
It would not have been necessary , when any bedding [ if in the way] could have been placed anywhere in that room, and certainly not displayed next to Mary's flesh [ That poor young woman].
Regards Richard.

[RivkahChaya]

Hello Rivkah. Thanks. Without tissue, one wonders whether there would BE any rigour.

Cheers.
LC

I've mentioned that before. Since people didn't know what caused rigor, they might not think to take missing tissue into account when estimating it.

[Tecs]

Hi Tecs.

We have a timeline, as the door was broken open at 1:30 pm, and the autopsy commenced at 2:00 pm, we have a 30 minute window for the photo's to be taken.
We read the photographer was sent for while a preliminary exam was being made on the body (after 1:30?). Would they move anything?, we would hope not but who knows.
So maybe the photo's were taken after the brief exam but before the autopsy, say 1:40-2:00 pm?

I'm not clear on why the photographer only removed his equipment at 4:30 pm, seeing as how the body had been removed by 4:00 pm.

Maybe the police let him leave his tripod set-up in the room just incase they decided more photo's were necessary, or maybe he did take subsequent photo's during the autopsy which have not survived?

Regards, Jon S.

Jon,

Thanks for this.

I might be opening a real can of worms here but I always thought it was different and I'll explain the possible confusion below.

I always thought that the doctors entered the room at some time after the door was broken down, 1.30PM and the preliminary examination then began at 2PM (the one where we have position of body etc by Dr Bond.) But, there was a further examination the next morning at 7.30 AM which I always thought was the one where they carefully made sure that every body part was back in place. (Again, I'm not at home and so don't have my files etc I've had a look through casebook but I can't find reference to that quote about the doctors taking great care etc.) If the examination where they put the body parts back carefully was done in the room, then that would confirm that the photographs must have been taken before 2pm when they started work. It would also explain why the body was still there at just before 4PM.

But, if as I always thought, it was the next morning examination where they put all of the body parts back, then we have the body lying in situ between 1.30 and 4PM during which time the photographs could have been taken.

The confusion may arise out of the terminology. The examination of the body in the room should correctly be referred to as a "post mortem examination," often, of course, abbreviated to "post mortem." But the examination the next morning is the one that should be described as an "autopsy." I hate picking people up on details as it can come across badly when written down, but you do above describe the examination in the room as the "autopsy" and I wonder if confusion over the two leads to a belief that the only possible time to take the photos was between 1.30 and 2PM?

In fact, on this very website the 7.30 AM next day examination is described in different pieces both as a post mortem and autopsy.

Having said that, nowadays, the two are often intertwined and confused and to add to it, I believe that there may also be a U.K./U.S.A. difference in terminology as well!

Please accept my apologies for pedantry, but I'm sure you can see why I'm picking up on it.

The main thing I was wondering was whether any police officer glanced at his watch and scribbled somewhere "Photos taken at 1.42PM" for example.

regards,

[Monty]

A bolster.

Monty

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Thanks for this.

I might be opening a real can of worms here but I always thought it was different and I'll explain the possible confusion below.

I always thought that the doctors entered the room at some time after the door was broken down, 1.30PM and the preliminary examination then began at 2PM (the one where we have position of body etc by Dr Bond.) But, there was a further examination the next morning at 7.30 AM which I always thought was the one where they carefully made sure that every body part was back in place. (Again, I'm not at home and so don't have my files etc I've had a look through casebook but I can't find reference to that quote about the doctors taking great care etc.) If the examination where they put the body parts back carefully was done in the room, then that would confirm that the photographs must have been taken before 2pm when they started work. It would also explain why the body was still there at just before 4PM.

But, if as I always thought, it was the next morning examination where they put all of the body parts back, then we have the body lying in situ between 1.30 and 4PM during which time the photographs could have been taken.

The confusion may arise out of the terminology. The examination of the body in the room should correctly be referred to as a "post mortem examination," often, of course, abbreviated to "post mortem." But the examination the next morning is the one that should be described as an "autopsy." I hate picking people up on details as it can come across badly when written down, but you do above describe the examination in the room as the "autopsy" and I wonder if confusion over the two leads to a belief that the only possible time to take the photos was between 1.30 and 2PM?

In fact, on this very website the 7.30 AM next day examination is described in different pieces both as a post mortem and autopsy.

Having said that, nowadays, the two are often intertwined and confused and to add to it, I believe that there may also be a U.K./U.S.A. difference in terminology as well!

Please accept my apologies for pedantry, but I'm sure you can see why I'm picking up on it.

The main thing I was wondering was whether any police officer glanced at his watch and scribbled somewhere "Photos taken at 1.42PM" for example.

regards,

Hello Tecs.

You are quite right to raise these issues, for the most part I think you are correct.
Without digging out every reference I think we see this the same way.

My understanding is, a preliminary exam was conducted at 1:30 pm, the photo's were taken after this, but before 2:00 pm, when Bond said they began the autopsy, which took about 2 hours, the body being removed at 4:00 pm.

However......and this is worth mentioning, the body had not been 'assembled' in Millers Court because the police removed the detached organs in a pail and took them to Dr. Phillips's surgery.

The Post mortem began Sat. morning at 7:30 am, and proceded for some hours where they attempted to replace every body part in its correct location. It was in the early afternoon that the principal players, Macdonald, Phillips, Bond, Moore, Abberline and Reid all returned to Millers Court to sift the ashes a second time.
Something apparently was missing.

To your last point, I have never read a reference by anyone as to when the photo's were taken.

This I am not clear about, where you write:

But, if as I always thought, it was the next morning examination where they put all of the body parts back, then we have the body lying in situ between 1.30 and 4PM during which time the photographs could have been taken.

Agreed, the body did lay in room 13 until 4:00 pm, but Bond informs us the autopsy began at 2:00 pm and continued for some time.
I guess we have to consider whether the photographer is expected to do his job during the autopsy, in a small room with six doctors and police officials, or they cleared out to let him work unhindered, thereby interrupting the autopsy.
We have to ask ourselves, why would that be necessary?

I also think it is necessary to ask ourselves, what was the reason they sent for a photographer in the first place?

If, as I suspect, it was to capture the crime scene, then the photographer should capture the room after as little disturbance as possible, much like how it is done today. Which means the police are going to want the photo's before the autopsy begins.


Regards, Jon S.

[Tecs]

Hello Tecs.

You are quite right to raise these issues, for the most part I think you are correct.
Without digging out every reference I think we see this the same way.

My understanding is, a preliminary exam was conducted at 1:30 pm, the photo's were taken after this, but before 2:00 pm, when Bond said they began the autopsy, which took about 2 hours, the body being removed at 4:00 pm.

However......and this is worth mentioning, the body had not been 'assembled' in Millers Court because the police removed the detached organs in a pail and took them to Dr. Phillips's surgery.

The Post mortem began Sat. morning at 7:30 am, and proceded for some hours where they attempted to replace every body part in its correct location. It was in the early afternoon that the principal players, Macdonald, Phillips, Bond, Moore, Abberline and Reid all returned to Millers Court to sift the ashes a second time.
Something apparently was missing.

To your last point, I have never read a reference by anyone as to when the photo's were taken.

This I am not clear about, where you write:


Agreed, the body did lay in room 13 until 4:00 pm, but Bond informs us the autopsy began at 2:00 pm and continued for some time.
I guess we have to consider whether the photographer is expected to do his job during the autopsy, in a small room with six doctors and police officials, or they cleared out to let him work unhindered, thereby interrupting the autopsy.
We have to ask ourselves, why would that be necessary?

I also think it is necessary to ask ourselves, what was the reason they sent for a photographer in the first place?

If, as I suspect, it was to capture the crime scene, then the photographer should capture the room after as little disturbance as possible, much like how it is done today. Which means the police are going to want the photo's before the autopsy begins.


Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

Thanks for this, it could get interesting!

You are correct in reading my mind, that is generally how I always saw it. Except, do we know for certain that the photographs were taken before the Post Mortem examination in the room commenced at 2PM or is it just a guess? It would be a perfect time to take them but an alternative could be:

1.30PM door broken down

1.30-2PM Doctors make cursory examination of the body (which may have extended into the actual post mortem examination) and photographer is sent for.

2PM onwards examination continues and Police examine room.

At some unknown time the photographer arrives.

3.50PM Room is cleared and photographer is told to get the pictures before the body is moved.

4PM Body removed.

7.30AM Next day. Autopsy begins which involves replacing missing parts.

Wouldn't this explain why the lighting conditions were gloomy? 4PM in November would be almost dark. Also, if the photographer was sent for just after the door was broken down, for him to have taken the photos before 2 would involve somebody travelling to his address (or wherever he was found), finding him almost immediately, him dropping everything, getting his equipment together, transporting his equipment to Miller's Court (through the gathering crowds), setting his equipment up, then taking two photographs. All in less than 30 minutes?

To me it sounds like it is more likely the pictures were taken later on at some unknown time.

And returning to the semantic argument, and forgive me as I've never explored this line before and am making it up as I go along, I wonder if a misunderstanding at some point between Post Mortem and Autopsy led to a belief that the photos were taken before 2PM? If indeed, that is a belief. If Bond or someone else said something like "The photographs were taken before the autopsy." then strictly speaking he means before 7.30AM.But as they are taken at Miller's Court, clearly that could simply mean "they were taken yesterday." Perhaps he was just distinguishing them from Eddowes photographs which were taken before and after Autopsy. Or perhaps he was just making clear that the only photos of MJK were the ones showing her in exactly the state they found her, there were none taken after she had been reassembled. Eddowes had a photograph taken literally just before her autopsy and maybe people were just clarifying that that didn't happen with Mary? But if he said they were taken before Post Mortem, then they must have been taken before 2PM which would require the photographer navigating the problems I listed above.

If we want to go deeper, the cursory examination at 1.30PM to me looks like it meandered into the post mortem and I would imagine the medicos in the room regarded the whole examination from 1.30 onwards as being the post mortem examination of the body.(Being completely pedantic, by definition the cursory examination at 1.30PM was a post mortem examination). They would know that the next days examination was the autopsy, but most people would not recognise the subtle difference. And as a doctor had already observed through the window to establish that she was beyond help, what purpose would another cursory examination serve anyway?

On balance, I'm thinking that the photos could well have been taken around 4PM!

regards,

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for this, it could get interesting!

You are correct in reading my mind, that is generally how I always saw it. Except, do we know for certain that the photographs were taken before the Post Mortem examination in the room commenced at 2PM or is it just a guess?

Hi Tecs.

Unfortunately, we do not know what time they were taken.

It would be a perfect time to take them but an alternative could be:

1.30PM door broken down

1.30-2PM Doctors make cursory examination of the body (which may have extended into the actual post mortem examination) and photographer is sent for.

One caution I have is that we also do not know at what time the photographer was sent for. He could well have been sent for by Dr. Phillips, who was early on the scene at just after 11 o'clock.

We also do not know who the photographer was but I think the most likely is often thought to have been one Joseph Martin who, if I'm not mistaken, can be placed in a photographers shop at 11 Cannon Street Road, which is barely 15 minutes from Dorset St.
Cannon Street Rd. is just east of Batty St.

Wouldn't this explain why the lighting conditions were gloomy? 4PM in November would be almost dark.

Gloomy?, we do see daylight through the door jamb in one of the photo's, and we have the outside shot, not known for sure when it was taken but some have claimed we can see the two broken panes.
I'm not sure the existing photo's are not consistent with a daytime of about 1:30-2:00, or thereabouts.

To me it sounds like it is more likely the pictures were taken later on at some unknown time.

I'm stuck with the reason they wanted the scene captured. I think it was to record the scene-of-crime, as we do today. If I'm right they were taken before anything was moved beyond what the police needed to move to establish the extent of the crime scene.
So, I favour 1:30-2:00 pm.

As for the difference between Post-mortem and Autopsy, I'm as guilty as anyone on that score.
All investigations on a body after death are Post-mortem investigations, but the only one legally defined to meet certain requirements is classed as the Autopsy, in this case for the Coroner's inquest. That took place Saturday morning.

So we have a difference of opinion, either "just before 2:00" or "just before 4:00".

Regards, Jon S.

[Monty]

The reason, I suspect, the photo of the body was taken in situ rather than the usual practice of the mortuary, is because of the condition the body was in.

They wanted a photo of it intact. Reports show Kelly was taken out in boxes.

Monty

[Michael W Richards]

A couple of things Ive noticed can be addressed...the body was cold, and in a state of rigor which was advancing at the time she was examined in the room. That means her limbs would not be easy to move. Nor would anyone want to move the body one iota, if cataloging the room and the corpse in situ is any indication of their interest in recording the exact details as they found them. Including Marys body position.

The problem I think is with MJK3. To take that photo you have 2 options, move the bed from the wall, and risk accidentally moving the body position...or you place the camera on the rolled up bedding that was stuffed down beside the bed and the partition wall. If you look at that bedding and imagine the angle you could get your lens focused on, I think you could get something like MJK3. The Photographer may have even put that bedding there himself to accomplish that. The other method is placing a camera there on the bedding and using a remote shutter, a squeeze bulb accessory, to take the photo.

As to the baphomet........its a bolster and/or bedding, the pinstripe print is visible on it.

A better question is what exactly is on the night table along with the stomach flaps? Anything? And another question, we have from the left, from the right, how about from the foot of the bed? Anyone feel there may be more Mary Kelly slides taken? I sure do...maybe as many as 6.

Cheers all