MJK1 and MJK3

[richardh]

Phil
I posted a extreme close-up of the left hand on this thread when you requested. It's on this thread several posts back.

Hello Trevor,

I hate to state the obvious here, but seeing as Bond specifically referred to cuts and abrasions on the right hand- one would have thought he would state similar injuries to the LEFT hand no?

Excuse my pointing it out for the 2nd time- and I have asked for a close up of richardh, of the VERY CLEAR triangle on the left hand. I have done my own close up but want to see it through richardh's excellently clear shot.

Because that will tell you all what you need to know about that photograph.

Or was Bond negligent yet again? Talk about the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing!

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed, as Bagster Phillips was the Divisional Surgeon for H division, not Bond, the onus was on him to compile the post-mortem report.

Something Trevor, as ex 'on the job', should be aware of.

Monty

And something you should be aware of to, is that there would have been no need for Phillips to prepare a PM report, Bond was brought in to do the post mortem and the subsequent PM report and the report to Anderson.

[Trevor Marriott]

The day I listen to you Marriott shall be the day I take you seriously. You still remain an amusement rather than an education to me.

As Debs points out, you are tediously repeating.

As Robs point, in case it has passed over that 'just for men' lacquered cranium of yours is the one cannot form a conclusion based on incomplete information, merely form an opinion, which is no different from anyone else.

So, apologies for pi$$ing on your parade, but you do not have the answers, therefore you are not repairing old damages. You are merely presenting a sensationalist response full of the obscure and ill informed.

How's that for 'zipping' it?

Monty

You are not pissing on my parade old chap I am presenting the facts as they are not as you and others perceive them to be, or want them to be.

If you cant handle the truth, then take yourself off. You know where the door is, don't slam it on the way out !

[Monty]

Whatever, but it doesn't excuse the constant use of the term errors and omissions by highly qualified and well educated persons as an excuse by some so as not to accept the obvious.

Now if you haven't anything constructive to add to this topic then I would suggest you zip it. There is enough clowns in this circus as it is without you joining. Of course perhaps changing your name to Co Co might be more apt in your case!

The day I listen to you Marriott shall be the day I take you seriously. You still remain an amusement rather than an education to me.

As Debs points out, you are tediously repeating.

As Robs point, in case it has passed over that 'just for men' lacquered cranium of yours is the one cannot form a conclusion based on incomplete information, merely form an opinion, which is no different from anyone else.

So, apologies for pi$$ing on your parade, but you do not have the answers, therefore you are not repairing old damages. You are merely presenting a sensationalist response full of the obscure and ill informed.

How's that for 'zipping' it?

Monty

[Phil Carter]

G'day Phil

I'll try please understand I don't claim to be an expert however once made a buck with a Camera and taught photography so have studied a bit of photographic history, so no guarantees and and happy with anyone has more accurate information.

I presume we are talking about the old plate camera's, rather than the new fangled device that Mr Eastman released in, from memory, June 1888.



There were generally two types of tripods in use, one a fixed tripod with no height adjustment, the other was a bit like wooden crutch if that helps. Basically each leg had two pieces of timber with a third [with a slot cut in it] between them, the three were sandwiched together with wing nut(s) holding the three pieces together, by loosening the nuts you could slide the middle piece up and down to adjust the length. Total height adjustment was probably only about 1 foot (30cm)



How longs a piece of string, it really depended on construction material, plate size and lens, but yes heavy as ... I have never actually weighed one but have handled quite a few and would guess about 10-15 kg or say 20-35 lbs.



Cameras that could be hand held were available, but where very much a rarity. This really only started to change with the introduction of film [as we knew it before digital, and some of us still use it]. Mr Eastman's Kodak company only released the first "Mass Market" camera as I said in '88. That came pre-loaded with, from memory about 100 shots and then the whole thing had to be sent back to the factory for processing. It was only in 1900 that "The Brownie (or box Brownie)" was released. Realistically photography only became available to the working man with WW I.



Yes they would carry a number of plates and had boxes to carry them in. There were two types of plates, wet and dry. Dry only improved to the extent that it could be considered a genuine alternate to wet, in terms of quality in the 1870's. One real disadvantage of wet plate was that it needed to be processed pretty much on the spot, where as dry you could take the exposed plates with you and develop them at a later time.

I might mention here that prints were, almost without exception, made be contact print that is the plate would be placed directly on the paper and then exposed, so the print was the same size as the plate probably 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 or 6 1/2 x 4 1/4 [I think they are the right measurements but if I'm out it's close], remember those photos you might have in a shoe box or album they are probably 5x3 or 6x4.




I hope that was some help, but yell f you want more and I'll actually pull some books out.

Hello GUT,

Many thanks for the extremely useful information you have supplied via this post and since. It is most appreciated. Also thank you to Monty for providing very useful pics of old cameras.

May I follow up with a question relating?

Would it, in your valued opinion, have been possible to have used a glass plate camera, hand held, at the low angle assumed used on MJK3?..or would one have to have used the 1ft tripod type of stand?Because I am not sure if the shorter FIXED tripod, with camera upon it, would have been sufficiently high for the photo we see.

Many thanks again GUT


best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed, as Bagster Phillips was the Divisional Surgeon for H division, not Bond, the onus was on him to compile the post-mortem report.

Something Trevor, as ex 'on the job', should be aware of.

Monty

Whatever, but it doesn't excuse the constant use of the term errors and omissions by highly qualified and well educated persons as an excuse by some so as not to accept the obvious.

Now if you haven't anything constructive to add to this topic then I would suggest you zip it. There is enough clowns in this circus as it is without you joining. Of course perhaps changing your name to Co Co might be more apt in your case!

[Monty]

Trevor,

I am presuming a full post-mortem report by Doctor Phillips would answer all the questions and cross the T's and dot the I's. Unfortunately one hasn't survived and we can only speculate whether it did or did not.
I am fairly certain Bonds report is not as complete as it should be by my reading of it.

Rob

Indeed, as Bagster Phillips was the Divisional Surgeon for H division, not Bond, the onus was on him to compile the post-mortem report.

Something Trevor, as ex 'on the job', should be aware of.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Rob
Even if the post mortem report is incomplete and having read it I find it hard to accept that fact, not forgetting Dr Hibbert was scribing for him.

Then he has come up short again with the report to Anderson. Could this really be so in such a high profile murder forming part of such a high profile series of murders ?

Would you not have not thought that they would have ensured that every I was dotted and evert t crossed?
As I have said before when holes are exposed out come the repair men and women !

Trevor,

I am presuming a full post-mortem report by Doctor Phillips would answer all the questions and cross the T's and dot the I's. Unfortunately one hasn't survived and we can only speculate whether it did or did not.
I am fairly certain Bonds report is not as complete as it should be by my reading of it.

Rob

[Monty]

"As I have said before when holes are exposed out come the repair men and women ! "

Yep, the Cowboys are out.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Off the top of my head. Bonds report is not a full post-mortem report but just notes. I would expect a post-mortem report to be a lot more detailed like the ones we have for Mckenzie and the Pinchin Street Torso.

Rob

Rob
Even if the post mortem report is incomplete and having read it I find it hard to accept that fact, not forgetting Dr Hibbert was scribing for him.

Then he has come up short again with the report to Anderson. Could this really be so in such a high profile murder forming part of such a high profile series of murders ?

Would you not have not thought that they would have ensured that every I was dotted and evert t crossed?

As I have said before when holes are exposed out come the repair men and women !

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

The hand in MJK3 that is visible is supposed to be her left hand. The right hand thumb issue is suggesting that it's not her hand at all.
In both photographs the right hand is not visible, but in the postmortem report it was stated that the arm was lying away from the body, on the mattress with her fist clenched. Those injuries cannot be seen in that photograph.
I agree, I cannot see anything human like in MJK3, the femur looks like a pair of long tongs to me. If it was bone, where's the marrow? There is no obvious ball or socket.
I can''t imagine JtR sawing and cutting bone and digging out marrow as well as everything else he did, without creating quite a bit of noise. Neither would it have been easy to do all that while the bone was still attached to the body, but what do I know?

Regards

Amanda

Hi Amanda
As I said in a previous post to me it looks like a right hand based on the table being a bed and the body being removed from the bed and placed by the side. If the body was removed then that photograph would not be consistent with the report showing the position of the body in any event would it ?

The flesh on the right thigh was removed right down to the bone so right hand right thigh ?

[Rob Clack]

Off the top of my head. Bonds report is not a full post-mortem report but just notes. I would expect a post-mortem report to be a lot more detailed like the ones we have for Mckenzie and the Pinchin Street Torso.

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

I hate to state the obvious here, but seeing as Bond specifically referred to cuts and abrasions on the right hand- one would have thought he would state similar injuries to the LEFT hand no?

Excuse my pointing it out for the 2nd time- and I have asked for a close up of richardh, of the VERY CLEAR triangle on the left hand. I have done my own close up but want to see it through richardh's excellently clear shot.

Because that will tell you all what you need to know about that photograph.

Or was Bond negligent yet again? Talk about the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing!

Phil

[Jon Guy]

If a femur was split, and according to some, with a hatchet, it would have been mentioned in the postmortem report.
The heart was missing, according to that report, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Many people wrote a lot of things about what went on in that room, but Bond's report was taken at the scene and at the time he inspected the body. I think he was fairly thorough in his observations, but of course not as thorough as modern reporting is today
He stated that only a knife blade was used. He mentioned no other weapons at the time, and I think he would have done, had he thought so.

Hi Amanda
Yes, I agree with you on both counts. The heart was missing and unaccountable, and the femur was not split.
Although, I believe Bond noted that the body was naked, when we can all see a chemise in the photo.

But regarding the femur, it is worth thinking about Nick Warren`s comments, as he knows his stuff and is of course, a surgeon. Just as Trevor Marriott is a Police Detective and we should heed his words .... wait a minute ... (only kidding Trev!!)

[Amanda Sumner]

Thank you I try to be when people will allow me to be so

As to Nick Warren, and what he sees. He clearly had good eyes sight must have gone to specsavers, because I cant see anything resembling a specific human body part. Certainly not a split femur. Had there been such an injury Dr Bond would have noted it in his report.

I should also mention that in determining the finger or thumb in MJK 3 the deciding factor comes from Dr Bonds PM report

"The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition"

Are any of these injuries shown in MJK 3 ?

Hello Trevor,

The hand in MJK3 that is visible is supposed to be her left hand. The right hand thumb issue is suggesting that it's not her hand at all.
In both photographs the right hand is not visible, but in the postmortem report it was stated that the arm was lying away from the body, on the mattress with her fist clenched. Those injuries cannot be seen in that photograph.
I agree, I cannot see anything human like in MJK3, the femur looks like a pair of long tongs to me. If it was bone, where's the marrow? There is no obvious ball or socket.
I can''t imagine JtR sawing and cutting bone and digging out marrow as well as everything else he did, without creating quite a bit of noise. Neither would it have been easy to do all that while the bone was still attached to the body, but what do I know?

Regards

Amanda