Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Batman]

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.That was a mere slip; I've forgotten more about the Eddowes case than you'll ever learn.You can see hardly any of her left leg in the second photo, if you can see any part of it at all.

FOV doesn't give you perspective.

And just WOW at the rest of what you said.

[packers stem]

How does a right hand end up on the left side of the body?.

This is precisely what we should be asking .
Unfortunately you seem to be basing your answer on what you believe should be there .
I'm not that easily pleased .
You don't have to be an anatomical genius to recognise it's a thumb .
We need to work out why .....

[Wickerman]

This is precisely what we should be asking .
Unfortunately you seem to be basing your answer on what you believe should be there .
I'm not that easily pleased .
You don't have to be an anatomical genius to recognise it's a thumb .
We need to work out why .....

When you look at that wrist we can see a high point at the right side as we look at it.
That is the ulna. Everybody's ulna is higher than the radius joint. Your's is the same, slightly bend your left wrist as in the photo and your ulna will be higher than the radius joint.

It's her left hand, and her little finger - visible, is not the thumb.

If you bend your right wrist, as you think it should be in the photo, that joint would be the radius, but your radius is not higher than your ulna. Which means you cannot replicate that position by bending your right hand.

It's physically impossible.

[packers stem]

When you look at that wrist we can see a high point at the right side as we look at it.
That is the ulna. Everybody's ulna is higher than the radius joint. Your's is the same, slightly bend your left wrist as in the photo and your ulna will be higher than the radius joint.

It's her left hand, and her little finger - visible, is not the thumb.

If you bend your right wrist, as you think it should be in the photo, that joint would be the radius, but your radius is not higher than your ulna. Which means you cannot replicate that position by bending your right hand.

It's physically impossible.

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

[packers stem]

Look close enough on an enhanced image and you can even make out the nail lol

And I've not even started on the rings or the saw yet .... for another day

[Sam Flynn]

When you look at that wrist we can see a high point at the right side as we look at it.
That is the ulna. Everybody's ulna is higher than the radius joint. Your's is the same, slightly bend your left wrist as in the photo and your ulna will be higher than the radius joint.

It's her left hand, and her little finger - visible, is not the thumb.

If you bend your right wrist, as you think it should be in the photo, that joint would be the radius, but your radius is not higher than your ulna. Which means you cannot replicate that position by bending your right hand.

It's physically impossible.

Quite right, Jon. On all counts.

[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.

[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]

So your entire point is based upon belief ?

No, it's based on science and logic.

[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.)

[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]

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]

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

[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

[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.