Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[packers stem]

It's quite obviously her little finger curled up under her hand. Makes zero sense for it to be her thumb.

Your dummy shows zero fingers so I can't see the point in it .
You are suggesting it's a little finger because you have faith in what you are seeing is a photo of a dead body .
I mean Sam doesn't even believe it's supposed to be the left knee we're looking at .
There are many disagreements ..... why do you think that is ?
It's because it's BS
Try the thumb on those outside of ripperology and see how many would agree
Your overlay shows the rings that some claim to be arteries the size of drainpipes . ...... on the arm !

[Harry D]

Sod the left leg, I've long wondered wtf's going on with the right one?

[Sam Flynn]

It's quite obviously her little finger curled up under her hand. Makes zero sense for it to be her thumb.

Yes, but it's not her left thigh and knee that we see.

[Harry D]

It's quite obviously her little finger curled up under her hand. Makes zero sense for it to be her thumb.

[packers stem]

I personally don't understand how anyone can claim it's not her left hand.

Perspective ?
For it to be half a little finger that size the camera would have to be right on top of it .
You wouldn't have anything on the near side of the bed .
The finger clearly 'ends' so would have had to have been amputated previously and the curvature displayed would be impossible .
You only have to look at your own little finger to realise this .

Your belief is because you are under the impression you are looking at photos of a body , your logic is telling you it has to be a little finger .
The idea that it isn't means we are looking at a mock up .... and that's where I stand

[Sam Flynn]

Optics is physics. It is a science. Poor understanding is a fact of someone who doesn't understand some part of science. For example, young earth creationists have a poor understanding of evolution and a complete inability to scientifically establish their claims.

I subscribed to the Lancet from my early teens, became a keen amateur astronomer, obtained good "A" Levels in Physics, Biology and Chemistry, and have a BSc from University College London. Science was my first love, I remain a scientist by instinct, and I am fully capable of dealing with scientific concepts, methods and data.

That pen-picture ought to tell you that I cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared to a Young Earth Creationist, nor someone "who doesn't understand some part of science".

You haven't demonstrated you understand optics.

This has nothing to do with optics, but everything to do with anatomy, and in comparing what appears in both the MJK1 and MJK3 photographs and how they map one onto the other.

You can't even draw where her left leg is in your rebuttal. You can't illustrate it.

How on earth can I draw the left leg, when it doesn't even appear in the MJK3 photograph?

As for civil - you have a short memory of things you were saying about me here just a page ago...

Saying that I possess more knowledge of some aspect of the case than you isn't uncivil in the slightest. Baseless accusations of "poor understanding" and "complete inability", on the other hand, are frankly rude.

[Kattrup]

RichardH and his splendid work here , his model shows an exact overlay between the photos. Check out his other 3D stuff on Miller's Court, at www.jtr3d.com

I personally don't understand how anyone can claim it's not her left hand.

[packers stem]

As we can see from MJK1, the little finger of the left hand is curved, and it's partially obscured by shadow and/or intervening objects in MJK3, giving the crude appearance of a thumb, when in fact it's the knuckle and first phalanx of the pinky.

To get an idea of what we're looking at, here's a quick, but perfectly good, reconstruction by Debra Arif over on JTR Forums:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=229175&postcount=17

(I wanted to post only the image, but for some reason I can't add attachments at present.)

I like Debs , she's a fantastic researcher but there are points over which we will disagree .
This will be one .
If you look again at the pic the 'digit' comes to an end (complete with nail ) an enormous ,bent little finger doesn't cut it at all .
The little finger can not bend the way you want it to and there are no intervening objects

[Batman]

Not it isn't. It's a head-on view of that bolt of cloth. I don't have a "poor understanding" of physics, nor anatomy for that matter.

Accusations of "poor understanding" and "complete inability" are in themselves groundless, and border on the ad hominem. You need to be a bit more civil in how you phrase your posts.

Optics is physics. It is a science. Poor understanding is a fact of someone who doesn't understand some part of science. For example, young earth creationists have a poor understanding of evolution and a complete inability to scientifically establish their claims.

You haven't demonstrated you understand optics. You clearly showed this in your previous claims that drawing lines at angles is all you needed to do. You don't understand perspective or its inclusion. You even claimed skeletons would be warped like a mutant.

You can't even draw where her left leg is in your rebuttal. You can't illustrate it.

As for civil - you have a short memory of things you were saying about me here just a page ago...

I've forgotten more about the Eddowes case than you'll ever learn. - Sam Flynn

[Sam Flynn]

It's her knee

Not it isn't. It's a head-on view of that bolt of cloth. Her knee is completely out of the frame.

A poor understanding of the physics of optics and a complete inability to illustrate anything they are talking about.

I don't have a "poor understanding" of physics, nor anatomy for that matter.

Accusations of "poor understanding" and "complete inability" are in themselves groundless, and border on the ad hominem. You need to be a bit more civil in how you phrase your posts.

[Batman]

Optics is physics. It is a science.

There are massive perspective changes between wide-angle, telephoto and zoom.

Perspective is a type of distortion.

So claims that a person must have a warped structure to fit a picture can be dismissed because perspective expects some distortion.

In MJK's case the public arch, pubic symphysis and pubic tubercle can be lined up with a 3D pelvic girdle.

All you have to do is spread the legs up the 3D skeleton and then change the optical perspective and this is what you get... https://imgur.com/a/JXzspxV

There is nothing wrong with that image a few adjustments couldn't line up perfectly.

Also all the points in both photographs have been identified.

https://imgur.com/a/c1Vxvak

It's her knee, so we don't need any of those matched points running away between photographs. The detractors can't do any of that at all. It is such a bad contradictory mash of a rebuttal they can't even draw what they are talking about. Total obfuscation to try and resuscitate someone poor understanding of how any camera works.

Since detractors are unable to even draw how their skeleton fits or even a few lines on a picture to show us where her leg should be (did it fly away??), then we can call it out for what it is. A poor understanding of the physics of optics and a complete inability to illustrate anything they are talking about.

[Sam Flynn]

As we can see from MJK1, the little finger of the left hand is curved, and it's partially obscured by shadow and/or intervening objects in MJK3, giving the crude appearance of a thumb, when in fact it's the knuckle and first phalanx of the pinky.

To get an idea of what we're looking at, here's a quick, but perfectly good, reconstruction by Debra Arif over on JTR Forums:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=229175&postcount=17

(I wanted to post only the image, but for some reason I can't add attachments at present.)

[Sam Flynn]

So your entire point is based upon belief ?

No, it's based on science and logic.

[packers stem]

No. I'm basing it on the anatomy of the forearm (see Jon's accurate points about the ulna vs the radius), and furthermore I'm basing it on what appears in MJK1, i.e. the left hand draped across the upper part of the abdomen.

For that to be a thumb, it would have to be a right hand we see in MJK3, which is clearly absurd. The police didn't detach Kelly's right hand and plonk it onto MJK3 in the exact position that her left hand occupied in MJK1, nor - equally absurd - did they get another woman to crouch under the bed and replace Kelly's left hand with their own (right) hand. Therefore, it's obviously Kelly's left hand we see in both MJK1 and MJK3, and it's definitely her left little finger we see in the latter.

Shadows, obstructions and/or artefacts on the print may be confusing the issue, making the leftmost extremity of the snippet you posted look more thumb-like than it really is, but it's not a thumb at all.

So your entire point is based upon belief ?
You've been told that these are photographs of a dead body and therefore to make MJK3 'fit' you ignore that it's a thumb and convince yourself it must be a little finger .
That's hardly investigation is it ?
So even if she was holding an ipad in MJK3 and waving at the camera you still wouldn't question it

[Sam Flynn]

This is precisely what we should be asking .
Unfortunately you seem to be basing your answer on what you believe should be there

No. I'm basing it on the anatomy of the forearm (see Jon's accurate points about the ulna vs the radius), and furthermore I'm basing it on what appears in MJK1, i.e. the left hand draped across the upper part of the abdomen.

You don't have to be an anatomical genius to recognise it's a thumb.

For that to be a thumb, it would have to be a right hand we see in MJK3, which is clearly absurd. The police didn't detach Kelly's right hand and plonk it onto MJK3 in the exact position that her left hand occupied in MJK1, nor - equally absurd - did they get another woman to crouch under the bed and replace Kelly's left hand with their own (right) hand. Therefore, it's obviously Kelly's left hand we see in both MJK1 and MJK3, and it's definitely her left little finger we see in the latter.

Shadows, obstructions and/or artefacts on the print may be confusing the issue, making the leftmost extremity of the snippet you posted look more thumb-like than it really is, but it's not a thumb at all.