Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[DJA]

The medical knowledge here is at the best, humerus

[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.

[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.

[Harry D]

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

[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).

[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]

They could even trace the path on phone software paint tools.

If you think I'm going to fiddle around on my phone in response to your jibes, you've got another thing coming.

If they can post here, they can do it, but won't.

That's untrue. I did so on the 28th October, albeit using a rough drawing I'd made some ten years back.

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=461313&postcount=520

[Batman]

If you think I'm going to fiddle around on my phone in response to your jibes, you've got another thing coming.
That's untrue. I did so on the 28th October, albeit using a rough drawing I'd made some ten years back.

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....&postcount=520

Is that what you asked for Harry?

I think not... and you won't be getting it either it seems.

I asked probably ten times already for Sam to even reference the tool/math he is using in his drawing in that link because it just looks like page 1 of Euclids geometry and nothing else. It doesn't even have a focal length. Looks nothing like an optics explanation. A bit of one maybe, at best, but nothing forthcoming there either, just himself referencing... himself.

[Sam Flynn]

Is that what you asked for Harry?

I think not... and you won't be getting it either it seems.

I asked probably ten times already for Sam to even reference the tool/math he is using in his drawing in that link because it just looks like page 1 of Euclids geometry and nothing else. It doesn't even have a focal length. Looks nothing like an optics explanation. A bit of one maybe, at best, but nothing forthcoming there either, just himself referencing... himself.

More mockery? Your attitude stinks.

[Sam Flynn]

Having worked out how to get around my "no attachments" problem, here's something from page 2 of Euclid's geometry (and, yes, this is a geometric problem - not a pathological one, nor an "optical" one either). The red line indicates the rightmost edge of the MJK3 photograph, taking into account some of the other "landmarks" in both photographs: namely the visible portion of the right calf, the visible portion of the pelvic girdle, the visible part of the flesh and viscera on the bedside table.

And guess what falls approximately half-way along that red line? That's correct - it's the puffed-up bolt of cloth between Kelly's left hand and her knee, which appears precisely where that bolt of cloth appears in relation to the left hand in both MJK1 and MJK3.

Not only is the left knee outside the frame but, because it's barely raised above the mattress and projecting out towards us in MJK1, the left knee is even more out of shot than we think it is.

[Batman]

There are ZERO references in the scientific literature which support the claim that image analysis doesn't use the applied math of optics.

Euclid's Optics IS geometry. He did an entire book on it.

Newtonian Optics developed upon it.

History of perspective in mathematics

EYE = LENS

Even Euclid understood the eye is a lens and this means... optics need to be considered.

[Sam Flynn]

Never mind optics, have some visuals.

In MJK3, the "garter", the apex of the "mystery object" and the front part of the viscera on the table line up perfectly well, and this alignment is preserved in MJK1, as shown by the red line in the sepia image below, where the "mystery object" is clearly revealed as that bolt of puffed-up cloth.

However, if one connects the garter to the left knee in MJK1, the resultant (blue) line not only doesn't cut through the viscera, it completely misses the table by a considerable margin. If MJK3 contained the left knee, we should be able to see the entire front of the table and all of the viscera piled on it, but we don't.

Unless there was an intervening mini black hole that gravitationally lensed the light from the knee into shot, the MJK3 photograph could not possibly have included Kelly's left knee.

[Batman]

Never mind optics, have some visuals.

Optics involve visuals.

Also, we have visuals in 3D, which falsified whatever analysis you have tried to do in 2D (without optics). It shows your 2D claim was wrong. Like, say DNA showing the forensic scientist got it wrong with their pre-DNA hair analysis.

Your lines omit focal lengths and therefore can't incorporate perspective. That makes any analysis attempt weaker than one that incorporates perspective.

Also your claim is linear because you only have lines.

Unless there was an intervening mini black hole that gravitationally lensed the light from the knee into shot, the MJK3 photograph could not possibly have included Kelly's left knee.

Here we have more evidence that you don't understand that even Euclid had moved well beyond linear systems for image explanations like that captured by the eye or a drawing. Visual cones with lense curvatures producing curvilinear perspectives are what form on a picture, hence perspective.

https://i.imgur.com/QRlL94h.gif This demonstrates you are wrong. That model is anatomically correct. You haven't shown it is not anatomically correct by placing a model that is anatomically correct over it.

What is anatomically incorrect about the model in this exactly? https://i.imgur.com/QRlL94h.gif

You claim the above can't happen, but clearly, it is.

[Batman]

https://forum.casebook.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=18886&d=1540882928

This can't be right because the opening angle doesn't incorporate all her right leg to her ankle. According to these lines it should be in the image but it is.

The wider angle will cover her left knee.

[packers stem]

Gareth
You've made a somewhat schoolboy error with your geometric calculations I fear .
You seem to have forgotten that in order to place the camera and cameraman in a position to take MJK3 the bed and , as consequence , the table , had to be moved .
Comparisons between any assumed 'landmarks' are completely irrelevant