Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Sam Flynn]

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

It's a mutilated bedsheet, then. Look at MJK1: her left forearm and hand is immediately above, and running parallel to, a "ballooned" piece of cloth. (Sorry, can't think of any other word than "ballooned", but you'll see what I mean.) It's this piece of cloth that we see from the other side, almost head-on, in MJK3. It's this and other, more bloodied, folds of clothing/bed-sheets that people mistake for Kelly's "split" (not!) left femur and left knee.

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

It's anatomically impossible for her knee to have ended up in that position, without the photographer breaking her leg.

[Batman]

It's a mutilated bedsheet, then. Look at MJK1: her left forearm and hand is immediately above, and running parallel to, a "ballooned" piece of cloth. (Sorry, can't think of any other word than "ballooned", but you'll see what I mean.) It's this piece of cloth that we see from the other side, almost head-on, in MJK3. It's this and other, more bloodied, folds of clothing/bed-sheets that people mistake for Kelly's "split" (not!) left femur and left knee.It's anatomically impossible for her knee to have ended up in that position, without the photographer breaking her leg.

That's not the piece of the bedsheet.

That's also not the piece of cloth which I have been describing for several posts now.

That piece of the bedsheet is identified here in the yellow circle.[Warning graphic]

Hopefully, that image puts to rest this idea that it is her knee and not mutilated bedsheets.

[Batman]

What makes you think JtR worked on Eddowes left-hand side? Her left side has a piece of detached intestine on the ground where he was supposed to be kneeling in your version. In Chapman's case, he throws intestines away from himself, not towards himself. They were tossed over her shoulder. He threw Kelly's intestines away from himself also onto the bench for example.

Also, want to add this...
[Coroner] Would you expect to find much blood on the person inflicting these wounds? - No, I should not. I should say that the abdominal wounds were inflicted by a person kneeling at the right side of the body.

This shows he was operating on Eddowes right side, unlike on the left side of Kelly.

So this idea that the right leg bent up more than the left is just an artifact of working on one side is undermined here because he worked on different sides for Eddowes and Kelly.

[Sam Flynn]

For it to be her knee the photographer would have had to break her leg and/or shrink her thigh to less than a third its length.

In other words, it's NOT her knee.

Imagine how MJK1 would look from the reverse side, what that "balloon" of cloth would look like; where the cloth would it sit in relation to the left - yes, left - hand resting above Mary's abdominal cavity. Draw an imaginary line from the pieces of flesh on the bedside table through the "balloon" of cloth, all the way to the "garter" on Mary's right leg; then imagine what it would be like looking out from the wall across her "garter" to the bedside table.

You'll find all the answers in MJK3, because MJK3 is the reverse angle shot of MJK1. You'll find the flesh ont the bedside table, the "garter", her left hand and the "balloon" of cloth in precisely the same relation to, and alignment with, one another as you find in both photographs.

[Batman]

For it to be her knee the photographer would have had to break her leg and/or shrink her thigh to less than a third its length.

In other words, it's NOT her knee.

You don't seem to understand perspective.

I can line a 3D skeleton model up with the 2nd photo in approx 20 min with some tools I have here to show you that it's her knee.

Imagine how MJK1 would look from the reverse side, what that "balloon" of cloth would look like; where the cloth would it sit in relation to the left - yes, left - hand resting above Mary's abdominal cavity. Draw an imaginary line from the pieces of flesh on the bedside table through the "balloon" of cloth, all the way to the "garter" on Mary's right leg; then imagine what it would be like looking out from the wall across her "garter" to the bedside table.

You'll find all the answers in MJK3, because MJK3 is the reverse angle shot of MJK1. You'll find the flesh ont the bedside table, the "garter", her left hand and the "balloon" of cloth in precisely the same relation to, and alignment with, one another as you find in both photographs.

We don't have to imagine anything. We can see it. I just demonstrated in the photograph where each piece is in each circle. I even gave them different colours.

In your latest description, the yellow circle around the bed sheet part in the first photograph becomes the red circle in the second. Well as you can see, I have identified the yellow circle is on both photographs.

So what is the yellow circle in the second photograph then? and where is it in the first?

[Sam Flynn]

You don't seem to understand perspective.

I understand most things, perspective included.

That is NOT her knee. It's that bolt of cloth we see running almost parallel with her left forearm and hand in MJK1, which REMAINS in the same relation to her left hand and the (now invisible) line of her left forearm in MJK3. That piece of cloth also lines up with the "garter" on her right leg and the flaps of abdominal flesh we see on the bedside table in both photos. It all fits, believe me.

What you and others are doing is seeing a "bendy-looking thing" in MJK3 and, because knees are "bendy things" you assume that what's in the photograph must be a knee. Well, it isn't. I used to think it was, too, until I worked it out and realised my mistake.

[Batman]

I understand most things, perspective included.

That is NOT her knee. It's that bolt of cloth we see running almost parallel with her left forearm and hand in MJK1, which REMAINS in the same relation to her left hand and the (now invisible) line of her left forearm in MJK3. That piece of cloth also lines up with the "garter" on her right leg and the flaps of abdominal flesh we see on the bedside table in both photos. It all fits, believe me.

What you and others are doing is seeing a "bendy-looking thing" in MJK3 and, because knees are "bendy things" you assume that what's in the photograph must be a knee. Well, it isn't. I used to think it was, too, until I worked it out and realised my mistake.

Can you reference the coloured circles in my photo please in your model and in a moment I will upload the 3D composite for you.

[Batman]

Here is a 3D skeleton overlay I did.

It's a rush job, but basically, I just adjusted perspective and it lined up pretty well. If I spent longer on it I bet I could have it all perfectly aligned and tell you details like the focal length that was actually used.

[Sam Flynn]

Here is a 3D skeleton overlay I did.

It's a rush job, but basically, I just adjusted perspective and it lined up pretty well.

It doesn't really line up much at all, though. Her left femur is all wrong - either that, or she's deformed.

If I spent longer on it I bet I could have it all perfectly aligned and tell you details like the focal length that was actually used.

Save yourself some time. You couldn't get that perfectly aligned in a million years, because it's anatomically impossible.

[Sam Flynn]

We don't need 3D reconstructions; just look at all the objects that appear in one photo and work out how they would appear from the POV of the other photo.

Here's an old drawing I made which shows, superimposed in green lines on MJK1, the rough line of sight captured in MJK3: the mutilated abdomen; the left hand; the bolt of cloth; [part of] the intestines on the bedside table. Although cheap and cheerful, it should be clear that Mary's left knee lies well outside the green lines and thus well outside MJK3's field of view.



If I were to draw it now, the only thing I'd change would be to put the "camera" a bit higher and angle it slightly downwards. But that would be a small adjustment in the vertical plane only and I wouldn't change the horizontal alignment much at all - certainly not enough to include Mary Kelly's rather chunky left knee in the frame.

[Batman]

It doesn't really line up much at all, though. Her left femur is all wrong - either that, or she's deformed.
Save yourself some time. You couldn't get that perfectly aligned in a million years, because it's anatomically impossible.

No, your perspective is all out. She isn't deformed. That's a standard female skeleton in a spread eagle pose. All you need do is change the camera perspective and she lines up.

Draw us where her femur is then using paint. Draw her leg around it. Add in the sheets if you want. That is pretty simple to do but I suspect you won't because you know what you are describing isn't really there at all.

[Batman]

We don't need 3D reconstructions; just look at all the objects that appear in one photo and work out how they would appear from the POV of the other photo.

Here's an old drawing I made which shows, superimposed in green lines on MJK1, the rough line of sight captured in MJK3: the mutilated abdomen; the left hand; the bolt of cloth; [part of] the intestines on the bedside table. Although cheap and cheerful, it should be clear that Mary's left knee lies well outside the green lines and thus well outside MJK3's field of view.

[ATTACH]18874[/ATTACH]

If I were to draw it now, the only thing I'd change would be to put the "camera" a bit higher and angle it slightly downwards. But that would be a small adjustment in the vertical plane only and I wouldn't change the horizontal alignment much at all - certainly not enough to include Mary Kelly's rather chunky left knee in the frame.

3D is better and line of sight doesn't tell you perspective.

All I need to do was change perspective and it lined up.

[Sam Flynn]

No, your perspective is all out.

The very speed with which you responded demonstrates that you just didn't bother to even think about what I said, did you? You just dismissed it out of hand, because - here, as elsewhere on the boards - you always think that you've got the right answer. Well, you're in for a rude awakening, because...

THAT IS NOT HER KNEE!!!

[Batman]

The very speed with which you responded demonstrates that you just didn't bother to even think about what I said, did you? You just dismissed it out of hand, because - here, as elsewhere on the boards - you always think that you've got the right answer. Well, you're in for a rude awakening, because...

THAT IS NOT HER KNEE!!!

I have seen that image before and it doesn't tell you perspective which is why I was so quick. Your estimates are all over the place. Just like where you placed the ripper with Eddowes on her left side. He was on the right side.

All I had to do after taking a skeleton and posing it in the same position as the photo was change the perspective.

You can't even show us with MS Paint how your leg looks in that second photo.

[Sam Flynn]

Your estimates are all over the place.

They are not. And it's not an "estimate", but an extrapolation of the field of view of MJK3 onto MJK1, incorporating the analogous landmarks in either photograph, where the frame cuts off, etc.

Just like where you placed the ripper with Eddowes on her left side. He was on the right side.

That was a mere slip; I've forgotten more about the Eddowes case than you'll ever learn.

You can't even show us with MS Paint how your leg looks in that second photo.

You can see hardly any of her left leg in the second photo, if you can see any part of it at all.