Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Sam Flynn]

So for what purpose did the photographer 'pose' the left leg in MJK3 do we think ?
It's clearly elevated for that photo

The position of the leg doesn't change between the photographs.

[packers stem]

The position of the leg doesn't change between the photographs.

Just the way it was 'painted' then ?
Clearly elevated in my view .
I'm guessing you're in the small minority who believe you're looking at a little finger of a left hand ..... because that's what should be there

[Batman]

Mary Kelly's left leg has clearly been elevated by the investigators to get a better view of the wounds on that side. That second photo demonstrates they disturbed the crime scene. They were discovering pieces of her body under her. Probably looking around to see what could have been removed from her and taken away.

[Wickerman]

Just coincidence then that Eddowes and Kelly's right legs are bent much more at the knee than their left legs?

Flip a coin, if you gets heads twice in a row, is there a conspiracy?

[Batman]

Flip a coin, if you gets heads twice in a row, is there a conspiracy?

Rolling snake eyes is a 2.77% probability. No conspiracy there, but hardly likely to throw a snake eyes. 97 times in a 100 you will not get it right.

Kathreen Eddowes head was also turned on her left cheek, like Kelly. Nearly 180 degrees of possibilities but let's say left or right are the only options and not facing up. So 50/50 left or right. Let's say you have a 50/50 model for the legs.

Okay so both Kelly and Eddows have their legs and heads in roughly the same position. 50/50 chance for each position. What are the chances of them both having the same postures of heads and legs?

50/100 = 1/2 = 50%
The answer is 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 = 25% chance. 3 times out of 4 will likely be different.

It's bad, not very bad, but bad. The lower probability.

Let's say the head was resting in both cases looking upwards. So 33.3% of left, right or upwards.

33.3/100 x 50/100 = 16.5% chance of random coincidence.

Basically what this tells us is that random unrelated events are less likely to account for their positions being similar. So non-random would have to explain it which seems to indicate that a common hand is responsible, although I would accept other mechanisms can account for non-random factors other than the same hand, but those would need to be explained.

[Sam Flynn]

Just the way it was 'painted' then ?

It's a photo, not a painting.

I'm guessing you're in the small minority who believe you're looking at a little finger of a left hand ..... because that's what should be there

No. I've compared MJK1 and MJK3, and every point in the latter photograph maps onto its equivalent point in the former.

[packers stem]

It's a photo, not a painting.
No. I've compared MJK1 and MJK3, and every point in the latter photograph maps onto its equivalent point in the former.

In your opinion .....
Feel free to post the close up of what you believe to be a little finger on a non JTR related site and ask the simple question
Little finger of left hand or thumb of right ....
Without leading anybody .
I've done it on my Facebook page previously
If you get 10% supporting the view that it's a little finger I would be stunned.
Only in the bizarre world of ripperology is that not a thumb of a right hand


Yes it is a photo but with added brush strokes

[Batman]

It is obvious they didn't control the crime scene. They were even throwing a pipe into the fire. I doubt they could get a camera into that corner for the second photograph without moving some things. These cameras needs to be mounted and a timed shutter or else they will blur.

In the second photograph you can see above the left side of her hip, the tip of the sheet that is in the first photograph in the same place. In the second photograph, her knee is considerably higher than the tip of the sheet. It is so much higher than you can now see the sheets of the bed running under them.

[Sam Flynn]

You don't see the knee in the second photograph; it's way off to the right and well outside the frame. That's where people go wrong.

[packers stem]

You don't see the knee in the second photograph; it's way off to the right and well outside the frame. That's where people go wrong.

I'm talking about the left knee not the right

[Sam Flynn]

I'm talking about the left knee not the right

So am I. You can't see the left knee in MJK3; it's away to the right of the shot and well outside the frame.

[Sam Flynn]

In your opinion .....
Feel free to post the close up of what you believe to be a little finger on a non JTR related site and ask the simple question
Little finger of left hand or thumb of right ....
Without leading anybody .
I've done it on my Facebook page previously
If you get 10% supporting the view that it's a little finger I would be stunned.
Only in the bizarre world of ripperology is that not a thumb of a right hand

How does a right hand end up on the left side of the body? Answer: it doesn't. What we're looking at is the little finger of Kelly's left hand - the same left hand we see draped across what remains of her abdomen in MJK1.

[Batman]

So am I. You can't see the left knee in MJK3; it's away to the right of the shot and well outside the frame.

This picture. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rime_scene.jpg [Warning Graphic]. This picture? Her left knee is out frame?

Sam, look at how there is a piece of material on her left hip in both shots. Do you see it? Some people mistake this for her flesh in the first shot. It isn't. You can also see it in the second picture under her left arm and above her left leg.

Just using that reference alone, there is no way her knee is out of the picture.

Both her femur bones are virtually exposed. The femur is somewhat visible on both her legs in the second picture. That's her knee which has been raised up for the photo.

If it's not her knee, what part of the human body do you think it is?

[Sam Flynn]

If it's not her knee, what part of the human body do you think it is?

It's not necessarily part of the body, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that it's not her left knee.

[Batman]

It's not necessarily part of the body, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that it's not her left knee.

It's not a part of her body? It's mutilated!

You can tell me with 100% certainty that it's not her left knee? Demonstrate that 100%.

What is it then and where is it in the first photograph?

If it's not in the first photograph then the scene has been moved, correct?