Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Batman]

If that's not her knee, can you outline her left leg in that photo?

I asked for that a dozen times and they can't do it. Apparently, her Pelvic Girdle has a vanishing left leg

They could even trace the path on phone software paint tools. If they can post here, they can do it, but won't.

Pathologists today including radiologists use 3D based technologies extensively. That 2D world was last century. They have heaps of experience working with human models on computers. Lots of simulations of crime scenes for trial etc. Optics is part of several aspects of medical science Yet not a single experience professional has come forward to support the imagination of some people here. They just reference themselves using techniques that they can't even reference beyond themselves or invoking 'common sense' and then complaining that common sense seeing a knee is wrong.

[Sam Flynn]

If that's not her knee, can you outline her left leg in that photo?

Tricky, because the only part of her leg that conceivably might be in MJK3 would be her thigh, and from MJK1 that would appear to have been almost flush with the mattress and possibly out of sight, even if it weren't for the folds of bedclothes, clean or bloody, getting in the way.

Besides, I can't post any images now, Harry, as (a) I don't currently have access to any useful drawing software and (b) the website doesn't offer me the option to upload attachments. Instead, you might want to take a good look at MJK1 and think carefully about what you'd see if you were looking in the opposite direction, asking yourself whether the "landmarks" I referred to in my previous post can be accounted for in MJK3 (in reverse sequence of course).

Also, remember that if we were looking from the other side of the bed, we wouldn't see a nicely rounded knee, but the reverse view of it, possibly bloodied and primarily dark (not whitish) owing to the removal of significant amounts of flesh from the left thigh ("stripped of skin, fascia and muscles as far as the knee" - Bond).

[Harry D]

If that's not her knee, can you outline her left leg in that photo?

[Sam Flynn]

It's absolutely terrible and totally unscientific. It explains why they don't have experts in pathology agreeing with them.

This is a geometric problem, not a pathological one. Geometric, in the sense that we have to take into account the relationships and sequencing of the various adjacent landmarks we see in MJK1 (left hand -> gap of yucky dark "something" to the immediate left of the hand -> bolt of cloth sticking up -> knee) and their homologues in MJK3.

We must also note where the left leg and knee are pointing, their elevation and their position in MJK1; a consideration which will make it clear that Kelly's knee has to be off to the right, and outside the frame of MJK3.

Along the other dimension, we must consider how the elements align in both images (right leg/garter -> hand -> contents of table) in which case it's obvious that we should be able to see the front of the pile of flesh on the table, and probably the front part of the table itself, if MJK3 had been framed so that the left knee was included in the frame.

The "absolutely terrible and totally unscientific" approach is to think "ooh, I can see a nobbly object, so it must be a knee, and I'm not backing down from my first impressions".

They are literally arguing that the anatomically correct model in this animated gif is wrong. https://imgur.com/QRlL94h

It's not anatomically correct, because the femur would have to be shortened (not merely foreshortened due to perspective) and the leg moved from its resting position in MJK1 in order for her knee to have ended up in such an awkward position in MJK3.

[Batman]

Copycats

The medical knowledge here is at the best, humerus

It's absolutely terrible and totally unscientific. It explains why they don't have experts in pathology agreeing with them.

If they had one expert with qualifications to support their views they would use them... but they don't, because they can't, because there are none.

They are literally arguing that the anatomically correct model in this animated gif is wrong. https://imgur.com/QRlL94h



Anyway, let's get back to before all that and let them show themselves up in their understanding of optics and anatomy if they want to carry on referencing themselves.

Copycats and Kelly
A good way of identifying a copycat is that they only know about what they are copying from what they read in the papers.

So if one finds things about MJK that don't appear in papers with the other victims, then that's a good way to demonstrate the copycat hypothesis has problems explaining how the copycat could know things.

For example, how did he know how to pose MJK? Spread-eagled, her right hand placed into her disembowelment. Her face turned towards the door. It was not as open and displayed as many of his other crimes, but she appears displayed from the crime scene photos and what he lost in a more public setting he gained in the extent of how badly she had been mutilated.

Her right arm was lying supine with her fingers closed. I think this is found in other murders. Eddowes right leg is more bent than her left leg. This seems to be how he organizing things when mutilating from either side! The same appears to have been done to MJK. More bending on the right leg than the left.

So let's get down to it...

Eddowes was murdered/mutilated with her assailant on her right side. We know this because of her intestine piece lying on her left side. JtR throws intestines away from him (Chapman, Kelly), not towards him.

Eddowes right leg is bent more than her left leg.

Kelly was murdered/mutilated with her assailant on her left side. We know this because the bed was up against a wall and is a tight spot. We also know he was moving the intestines and other parts to a table on his right.

Kelly's right leg is bent more than her left leg, same as Eddowes.

Her face turned on the left cheek as is Eddowes.

This shows the posing isn't incidental to the side he is working on.

It also seems he leaves bloody prints on their ankles after posing them.

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=460107

So I think this is one good way to rule out a copycat.

[DJA]

The medical knowledge here is at the best, humerus

[packers stem]

Now let your arm and wrist relax and lay it down in the position of the left arm in MJK1. The ulnar lump is far more obvious than the radial one.

Nope
The ulna is small and protruding .
What we see is larger and more rounded
It isn't the ulna

[Sam Flynn]

Jon
You're placing far too much emphasis on the ulna , which on my wrist sort of pokes out to the side

Now let your arm and wrist relax and lay it down in the position of the left arm in MJK1. The ulnar lump is far more obvious than the radial one.

[packers stem]

Hi Nick.

This is specialized knowledge, not to be decided by an opinion of layperson's.
The highpoint of your wrist is the ulna, it's the same with you, me & Mary Kelly.
Your'e average Joe Public may not even know what an ulna is.

Jon
You're placing far too much emphasis on the ulna , which on my wrist sort of pokes out to the side .
On the MJK3 wrist there is no obvious ulna lump which again suggests that any lump on top is normal for a right hand viewed from that angle .
We'll have to disagree
Maybe I'm deformed but hey ho

[Wickerman]

Hi Nick.

This is specialized knowledge, not to be decided by an opinion of layperson's.
The highpoint of your wrist is the ulna, it's the same with you, me & Mary Kelly.
Your'e average Joe Public may not even know what an ulna is.

[packers stem]

First point Nick, I don't have a facebook account, and the second point is, the responders you expect to hear from are presumably not doctors, or nurses?

What is the point in gathering opinions from people who have no anatomical knowledge?
Put your question on a medical website, then you will get a true reply. The same one I gave you.

I may just look for a medical site that I could put it on Jon .I'm entirely confident the answer will be the same as mine.
Incidentally ,a jury is across the board ..... that's why i suggested Joe public .... They are not limited to Ripperologists or medics
If you wish to do so then please post the results .
By the way you are really missing out by not being on Facebook to discuss these things .
There are many, many JTR groups now and it makes discussions easier , quicker and we can post photos far more easily .
I've found it really difficult to make photo file size small enough to post here , makes it more difficult to state my case

[Wickerman]

Sorry Jon
It's not
The physical impossibility here is a little finger taking on that form .It just can not have that curvature .
Put it to the test .
Create a poll on your Facebook wall and don't lead people with the question .
Just put up a zoomed photo and ask if little finger or thumb .
See what the responses are .
8 out of 12 will give me a majority verdict and I know it won't be anywhere near that close
Ripperology has been desperately trying to make excuses for it since it was spotted .... it's nonsense
And it's not the only flaw with the photo but I guess there'll be an alternative explanation for everything
Ripperology eh

First point Nick, I don't have a facebook account, and the second point is, the responders you expect to hear from are presumably not doctors, or nurses?

What is the point in gathering opinions from people who have no anatomical knowledge?
Put your question on a medical website, then you will get a true reply. The same one I gave you.

[Wickerman]

edit post

[packers stem]

Those aren't brush strokes, perhaps some scratches on the plate if anything, and that's a genuine crime scene photograph not a painting. The detail in the mutilated pelvic region alone, to say nothing of the (left) hand and the bedside table, should tell us that.

I will repeat myself ..... yes , its a photograph .
I have never suggested it's a painting but it's been helped with a brush on the legs. I thought this was common knowledge .
It's been discussed plenty of times in the past .

Your feeling is that it's a crime scene .
I moved on from there a good while ago .
The detail in the pelvic region ?
The 'rings' you mean ?

[Sam Flynn]

Those aren't brush strokes, perhaps some scratches on the plate if anything, and that's a genuine crime scene photograph not a painting. The detail in the mutilated pelvic region alone, to say nothing of the (left) hand and the bedside table, should tell us that.