Did Jack leave his fingerprints on Mary Jane Kelly?

[packers stem]

We know he was throwing clothes on the fire. A fact. So if clothing is missing what do you think may have happened to them? Well it isn't a bad bet they are vaporized.

Did they go out for a ciggie break maybe? Spook Hutchinson by running around the court?

I'd say he was just throwing them from the bed to the fire which explains why they were half in, half out.

We don't actually know what was missing .
We have a few reports regarding the clothes that Maria Harvey claimed to have left there .
There is no itinery of the contents of the room

[Batman]

We don't actually know what was missing .
We have a few reports regarding the clothes that Maria Harvey claimed to have left there .
There is no itinery of the contents of the room

I am not saying we are certain. I am just saying that if clothing like missing stockings is used to cast doubt on what could be a garter piece we should be reminded that Jack was burning up clothes and therefore this has explanatory power over where the 'missing' stocking went.

[packers stem]

I am not saying we are certain. I am just saying that if clothing like missing stockings is used to cast doubt on what could be a garter piece we should be reminded that Jack was burning up clothes and therefore this has explanatory power over where the 'missing' stocking went.

But there is no evidence it is a garter !
Its supposition based upon more supposition of a missing stocking.

You could say she had a full lingerie set , nice dressing gown and slippers .
Doesn't make it fact

[Batman]

But there is no evidence it is a garter !
Its supposition based upon more supposition of a missing stocking.

You could say she had a full lingerie set , nice dressing gown and slippers .
Doesn't make it fact

Photographs are a type of evidence. There are two photographs from different angles and it is not an artifact. The position of the structure closely resembles that of a garter. No wound was described in this area which would be strange if it was a wound because it is somewhat unique and very obvious. Therefore in all likelihood we are looking at a garter piece. So there is some evidence for it being a garter piece.

[packers stem]

Photographs are a type of evidence. There are two photographs from different angles and it is not an artifact. The position of the structure closely resembles that of a garter. No wound was described in this area which would be strange if it was a wound because it is somewhat unique and very obvious. Therefore in all likelihood we are looking at a garter piece. So there is some evidence for it being a garter piece.

Yes , photography is evidence .
Now look again and think what else it could be other than a piece of string.
Far too much 'convenient presumption' in ripperology.
You say no wound was described .
Neither was any item of clothing as ,of course , she was 'quite naked'
As you point out the photograph is evidence .
Well does the face look to you like partially severed eyebrows , nose , ears and cheeks etc blanched and cut lips ?
We have the advantage of being able to zoom now .
Using that a little more can get every one a little closer to the truth ...... if they have the desire to get to the truth

[Batman]

Yes , photography is evidence .
Now look again and think what else it could be other than a piece of string.
Far too much 'convenient presumption' in ripperology.
You say no wound was described .
Neither was any item of clothing as ,of course , she was 'quite naked'
As you point out the photograph is evidence .
Well does the face look to you like partially severed eyebrows , nose , ears and cheeks etc blanched and cut lips ?
We have the advantage of being able to zoom now .
Using that a little more can get every one a little closer to the truth ...... if they have the desire to get to the truth

String makeshifting a garter works for me.

Yeah she was naked. If she had socks on she would be quiet naked too.

[packers stem]

String makeshifting a garter works for me.

Yeah she was naked. If she had socks on she would be quiet naked too.

No she wouldn't .
She'd have been wearing socks ...... clearly
Naked isn't determined by which or how much clothing .
That would be 'almost naked'

[Batman]

No she wouldn't .
She'd have been wearing socks ...... clearly
Naked isn't determined by which or how much clothing .
That would be 'almost naked'

It's naked enough to get arrested looking like that.

"No your Honour I was not naked. I had my socks on. Clearly naked isn't determined by which or how much clothing."

"Case dismissed. You'll be the next Johnny Cocran."

[packers stem]

"No your Honour I was not naked. I had my socks on. Clearly naked isn't determined by which or how much clothing."

That statement would still be accurate .
That may be there is no crime of nudity
It's indecent exposure ..... quite different .

Time would be better served looking at other aspects of the photos as you're never going to move away from the garter now , despite the very obvious indentation at the top .
Try the left thigh bone and how the leg managed to become elevated for MJK3 ��

[Batman]

Right now I am focusing on JtR's prints in relation to the developmental biology paper I referenced, but sure, go find something new and interesting to work on.

[Sam Flynn]

String makeshifting a garter works for me.

Yeah she was naked. If she had socks on she would be quiet naked too.

Agreed.