MJK's arm was NOT severed!

[richardh]

Can we get one thing stright, Mary Kelly's right arm was in no way severed, partly severed or even attempted severed from her body.

This fallacy that seems to get repeated in many articles stems from the autopsy report of Thomas Bond who used the quite correct medical term of 'abducted' when referring to Kelly's right arm position:

The right arm was slightly abducted from the body and rested on the mattress.

This medical term has been incorrectly interpreted as 'severed' and is repeated time and time again in articles, posts, online media and probably dozens of other places.

eg:
From the Whitechapel Jack website:

She was inclined slightly to the left side of the bed, and her head was resting on the left cheek. Her right arm had been partially disconnected from the torso; her legs were spread wide and placed at right angles.
LINK

It is wrong.

Abduction simply means the arm was 'moved away from the midline of the trunk'
When you stand and then raise and lower your arms like a bird flapping wings you are 'abducting from and then adducting to your body'.

Bond's description does not mean that Kelly's right arm was in any way cut away from her body. The flesh was gashed and hacked at - similarly to her thighs being hacked and cut away (degloved) but Bond's use of this medical term 100% means what I describe above).

The Killer did not attempt to sever her arm. The [severely lacerated] arm was still firmly fixed to her body.

Abduct and Adduct

[Wickerman]

Can we get one thing stright, Mary Kelly's right arm was in no way severed, partly severed or even attempted severed from her body.

This fallacy that seems to get repeated in many articles stems from the autopsy report of Thomas Bond who used the quite correct medical term of 'abducted' when referring to Kelly's right arm position:



This medical term has been incorrectly interpreted as 'severed' and is repeated time and time again in articles, posts, online media and probably dozens of other places.

eg:
From the Whitechapel Jack website:


It is wrong.

Abduction simply means the arm was 'moved away from the midline of the trunk'
When you stand and then raise and lower your arms like a bird flapping wings you are 'abducting from and then adducting to your body'.

Bond's description does not mean that Kelly's right arm was in any way cut away from her body. The flesh was gashed and hacked at - similarly to her thighs being hacked and cut away (degloved) but Bond's use of this medical term 100% means what I describe above).

The Killer did not attempt to sever her arm. The [severely lacerated] arm was still firmly fixed to her body.

Abduct and Adduct

I wasn't aware anyone thought her arm was severed, clearly I'm not aware of the site you quoted from. There is a lot of nonsense out there which I make no attempt to follow.

Yes, 'abducted' merely means moved away from the alignment of the body, which I believe can be verified by one of the photo's where her right forefinger can be seen out on the edge of the mattress, the wrist, forearm, elbow, her arm being almost perpendicular from the torso.

[richardh]

I wasn't aware anyone thought her arm was severed, clearly I'm not aware of the site you quoted from. There is a lot of nonsense out there which I make no attempt to follow.

Yes, 'abducted' merely means moved away from the alignment of the body, which I believe can be verified by one of the photo's where her right forefinger can be seen out on the edge of the mattress, the wrist, forearm, elbow, her arm being almost perpendicular from the torso.

No, that's not her right arm.

The right arm was slightly abducted from the body and rested on the mattress. The elbow was bent, the forearm supine with the fingers clenched.

Note the Bold text in the quote.
What is seen in that photo at the right corner of the mattress is bed-clothing/material. Kelly's right arm cannot be seen in that photo because it is on the mattress only slightly away from her body. The back of her right hand rests on the mattress and her right palm faces the ceiling. What you describe in the photo does not match Bond's description (quoted above)

Also,
Mary's upper body was positioned at the extreme left of the mattress so for her right hand to be seen at the location you describe in the photo would require her right arm to be abducted far more than what Bond quotes as 'slightly abducted'.

Her right arm cannot be seen in that photo.

[Wickerman]

What we do not know is at what point Dr. Bond's description was intended to capture.

We might always assume the doctor is describing how the body was found, meaning what they saw immediately on entry. Yet, if that were the case Bond would have had no idea about the amount of blood under the bed, which he describes, before it was moved away from the wall.

"The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square."

As there were approx. a half dozen doctors in attendance, they cannot all stand at one side of the small bed, so the bed was pulled away from the wall, allowing them to see the pool of blood on the floor.

Neither would Bond know which organs were found beneath what part of the body, without some kind of superficial examination.
Bond also described her right thumb, which might suggest the doctors not only took hold of her right arm is order to examine the hand, but had also moved the bed away from the wall in order to facilitate the superficial examination.

The notes taken by Dr. Bond therefore, cannot be assumed to show the position of the body as it was initially found.
His notes appear to be a summary of the conditions at no particular time, but certainly following the first superficial examination.
Photographs were taken after the superficial examination, which then means her right arm is not shown in the position it was found, it had been moved in order to facilitate the examination of her right hand and arm. Bond also tells us her intestines were beside her on her right side, the arm then was not close to her body.

The second photo, taken from an angle which suggests the camera was placed between the bed and the wall, looks towards the bedside table, so sufficient room had to be made between the bed and the wall so as to stand a tripod in that space.

Press reports do tell us there was a superficial examination of the body before the photographer was allowed to record the scene.

"Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, soon arrived, and was followed by Dr. Bond, of Westminster, divisional surgeon of the A division, Dr. J. R. Gabe, of Mecklenburgh-square, and two or three other surgeons. They made a preliminary examination of the body and sent for a photographer, who made several photographs of the remains."
Morning Advertiser, 10 Nov. 1888.

I am suggesting the position of her right arm in the photo is not where Dr. Bond described it, due to the preliminary examination.

[The Rookie Detective]

What we do not know is at what point Dr. Bond's description was intended to capture.

We might always assume the doctor is describing how the body was found, meaning what they saw immediately on entry. Yet, if that were the case Bond would have had no idea about the amount of blood under the bed, which he describes, before it was moved away from the wall.

"The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square."

As there were approx. a half dozen doctors in attendance, they cannot all stand at one side of the small bed, so the bed was pulled away from the wall, allowing them to see the pool of blood on the floor.

Neither would Bond know which organs were found beneath what part of the body, without some kind of superficial examination.
Bond also described her right thumb, which might suggest the doctors not only took hold of her right arm is order to examine the hand, but had also moved the bed away from the wall in order to facilitate the superficial examination.

The notes taken by Dr. Bond therefore, cannot be assumed to show the position of the body as it was initially found.
His notes appear to be a summary of the conditions at no particular time, but certainly following the first superficial examination.
Photographs were taken after the superficial examination, which then means her right arm is not shown in the position it was found, it had been moved in order to facilitate the examination of her right hand and arm. Bond also tells us her intestines were beside her on her right side, the arm then was not close to her body.

The second photo, taken from an angle which suggests the camera was placed between the bed and the wall, looks towards the bedside table, so sufficient room had to be made between the bed and the wall so as to stand a tripod in that space.

Press reports do tell us there was a superficial examination of the body before the photographer was allowed to record the scene.

"Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, soon arrived, and was followed by Dr. Bond, of Westminster, divisional surgeon of the A division, Dr. J. R. Gabe, of Mecklenburgh-square, and two or three other surgeons. They made a preliminary examination of the body and sent for a photographer, who made several photographs of the remains."
Morning Advertiser, 10 Nov. 1888.

I am suggesting the position of her right arm in the photo is not where Dr. Bond described it, due to the preliminary examination.

That would also explain why there's a bulk of what looks like bedding on the table in MJK3 that ISNT there in MJK1.
In MJK1 there's only a pile of flesh on the table; whereas in MJK3 there's BOTH the pile of flesh AND the bedding; which isn't on the table in MJK1 because it would have partially obscured her "full body" shot.

In other words, at least some bedding was moved and either placed or removed from the table; depending on which order the photos were taken in.


Thats also the only way that MJK3 can be considered as an authentic photo, because the 2 photos DONT match up,...


.. but NOT because of the body...it's because of the bedding being moved.


Using that logic it seems reasonable to assume that other things may have been moved too; between different photos being taken.


RD

[richardh]

As there were approx. a half dozen doctors in attendance, they cannot all stand at one side of the small bed, so the bed was pulled away from the wall, allowing them to see the pool of blood on the floor.

It's also possible that they might just crouch down and take a look under the bed without moving a thing! - In fact, that is more logical and feasible IMO