#st henry’s bloodstains

[aemiron-main]

THE BIG ANALYSIS OF HENRY'S JUMPSUIT BLOODSTAINS DURING THE MASSACRE: what the hell is up with the blood stains on henry during the 1979 massacre? why do they keep moving and changing and vanishing? there’s multiple henries.

So, this post has been in my drafts for MONTHS, ever since I discovered that his bloodstains change, and now it's finally ready to post! I’m also going to make another post about how the bloodstains on the wall and floor change too, and how Brenner and El’s bloodstains change, but for now, let’s focus on Henry himself and the blood on him, because it constantly disappears and reappears and changes patterns.

So, take a look at Henry’s face when El first comes into the room/the first time we see him during the massacre:

There’s no blood on his face except for his nose. Even long after Two has hit the floor, his face is clean, so the blood definitely didn’t come from Two’s eyes exploding or something.

But now look at these shots:

The blood just. Shows up. On Henry’s face. He turns around and suddenly it’s there, with no explanation. His hair is also slightly different between the no blood vs blood shots- it’s similar in both shots, being pushed back in both, but the bloodless shots have it pushed back a bit more neatly and slightly more sideswept, whereas the shots with blood lack the extra bit of sidesweeping and his hair seems to be messier.

And after the blood shows up on Henry’s face? It disappears entirely in the next shot (the one where he’s behind El when she opens the door) Not just from his face, but his clothes, too:

Look at that shot of Henry behind the door vs the shot that happens immediately after that- there SHOULD be visible blood across the front of Henry’s shirt during the scene with the doors, but there isn’t. It’s just gone. This is the first time this happens, but it will not be the last.

And now, let’s take a look at the blood on Henry’s neck. Look at the splotch on the skin on Henry’s left side of his neck and how it disappears and reappears:

Looking at those two above images, those are the same side of Henry/Edward's body even though he's on two different sides of the screen (this is because the second image is meant to be in the "mirror world"/mirrored), and yet, that splotch of blood on his neck in the second image is NOT present in the first image. Much like the face blood mentioned earlier, it just shows up. And as shown in the infographic, it's not the side with soteria either. So, we have blood randomly showing up at the same time as we're in the "mirror world," which is very interesting considering that the movie "Mirrors," about peoples' violent reflection twins in the mirror world is on the S4 inspo board. (and that movie is something I'm going to talk about at length in another analysis because it has signficant Henry and Edward and Creel family implications).

Now, moving onto the jumpsuits, here’s all of the different jumpsuit blood patterns side by side:

Now, let’s take a look at each pattern individually and which shots it shows up in.

How Many Different Jumpsuits/Different Henries?

So, how many different Henries are there/different bloody jumpsuits/jumpsuits that appear during the massacre? Right now, I'm seeing five different jumpsuits in the rainbow room.

I’ve named them all with a combination of “j” (for jumpsuit) and another letter. Let’s take a look at how many jumpsuits there are, which jumpsuits are which, and when they appear. We have:

1.) JA

Here’s a closeup of JA’s pattern and all the shots where JA appears:

2.) JB

Here’s a closeup of JB’s pattern (JB is bloodless) and all the shots where JB appears:

3.) JC

Here’s a closeup of JC’s pattern and all the shots where JC appears:

4.) JD

Here’s a closeup of JD’s pattern and all of the shots where JD appears:

5.) JE

Here’s a closeup of JE’s pattern (JE is mirrored/supposed to be from the view "inside" of the mirror/in the mirror world) and all the shots that have JE in them:

Comparing Each Suit

And again, here’s all of the different jumpsuits together, except this time, I’m going through and pointing out the differences incase you didn’t see them!

JA vs JB

JA vs JC

JA vs JD

JA vs JE (JE is mirrored in the show hence why it seems like a diff side)

JB vs JC

JB vs JD

JB vs JE (JE is mirrored in the show hence why it seems like a diff side)

JC vs JD

JC vs JE (JE is mirrored in the show hence why it seems like a diff side)

JD vs JE (JE is mirrored in the show hence why it seems like a diff side)

BTS and Deleted/Unreleased Footage Suits

Now, in addition to what we see in the show, let's look at some BTS and deleted/unreleased footage pictures and identify the different suits in the BTS and deleted/unreleased footage pictures. We've got JB/bloodless Henry in this "deleted"/unreleased footage:

We've got what seems to be JA having some blood splatters added to him with an eyedropper:

And we've got what seems to be JC with Jamie looking at a jar:

The Face Blood and The Hair

001/Henry/Edward's hair also changes, and, as mentioned in the beginning, the blood on his face also changes. Unfortunately, I've hit the image limit, so those are going to be a separate posts, and then I'm going to make a big post comparing the jumpsuit blood changes to the face blood changes to the hair changes.

It’s Not Just 001

But this all gets even weirder because 001 isn’t the only person with blood on his face and clothes that changes and vanishes between shots- Brenner has it too. I don’t have room for that in this post, but I’m going to make another full analysis of Brenner’s changing bloodstains and El’s changing bloodstains, and compare them to 001’s/find the pattern between them, and same with the changing bloodstains on the walls and floor of the rainbow room.

The Production Error Allegations So, I've already talked about the idea of production errors in the context of 001 during the massacre here, here, and here, however, let's go through it again.

As mentioned in this post, some of the jumpsuits even fit differently- look at how much bigger/looser. They're different jumpsuits. They aren't even tailored the same way. And we KNOW that the ST costuming team put bigger shirts on Will to make him seem smaller, so I don't doubt that they'd do the same for one of the Henries/Edwards.

And the focal length of the camera changes too (look at how different his face looks in each of the above shots- that's very very likely due to a focal length change which distorts his features, and caused by a focal length change or not, the change is THERE) And his hair changes (the first shot has his hair pushed backwards, more from the middle, the second shot has his hair pusehd backwards and to screen left). And the colour grading changes. (the first shot is much darker than the second shot AND than the shots before and after it, and there is a greenish colour grading present, and I've talked about HNL, NINA, and the green colour grading here.) All of these changes are happening at the same time. It's not just the blood, it's the blood AND the fit of the jumpsuit AND the hair AND the focal length AND the lighting and colour grading. And they gave us those two very similar shots (similar in the sense of him being in the same area of the rainbow room in the same sort of position doing the same sort of stare) so that we would contrast them and notice that things are different between them. Not only is the ST production team extremely meticulous about replicating stain patterns, they also don't just "accidentally" make multiple jumpsuits, and they don't just "accidentally" have multiple other aspects (hair, face blood, focal length, colour grading etc) change at the same time as the bloodstains and fit of the jumpsuit change.

They have specific guidelines for the age of the blood, and yet I'm supposed to believe that they can't replicate blood patterns properly?

They replicated El's milkshake stains PERFECTLY, and yet, supposedly they can't replicate Henry's bloodstains?

And to top it all off, El's bloodstains had to be PERSONALLY APPROVED BY THE DUFFERS, and they DRAGGED AMY PARRIS THROUGH PUDDLES OF BLOOD THE SAME WAY THAT 001 DRAGGED EL ACROSS THE RAINBOW ROOM SO THAT THE BLOODSTAINS WOULD BE PERFECT.

And, as mentioned earlier, this BTS pic has the costuming/makeup team adding blood to a jumpsuit with an eyedropper- why would they need to add extra blood to it if the jumpsuit was already made/bloodied? Oh, right, because they're intentionally adding multiple jumpsuits to the show. They did the same for the lab kids' gowns, too. It's all done extremely meticulously.

Honestly, the whole "it's a production error" argument makes zero sense and there's constant evidence to contradict it. Just because you don't think the show would do something doesn't mean they aren't doing it. It doesn't matter whether you or I thinks something would be good or bad in the show. What matters is the evidence we have. And there's no evidence to support the idea of these being production errors, but there's an absolute TON of evidence to support multiple Henries/Edwards during NINA.

So, yeah! There you go! The other blood analyses that I mentioned are incoming soon!

[http-byler]

don’t leave me.

[henrysglock]

Something about Vecna's Left Hand 🤔

This post centers around the patterns of handedness in the NINA sequence and Creel flashbacks as it relates to Henward's bloodstains.

Honest to God, though, I'm trying my damnedest to find a good way to organize all the pictures I've annotated about this guy. I decided it was best to just go by jumpsuit, so I'm using Em's current naming system (JA-JE) for cohesion between sources. I also decided to try to narrow the main shots down to ones that include hand use, since that's what I really care about in this post (even though some others will be included for speculation purposes). I'm not diving into injuries or bodies, even if there are annotations about those topics, because those aren't super applicable in regard to this analysis.

Also, Em just posted his big jumpsuit bloodstain comparison analysis:

HERE!!!

You can find all the details about this stuff on that post.

Here are the background posts for this analysis:

Changing Vecnas

Comparison Of MF And Vecna Suits

Comparison Of Vecna/MF Suits To The 5 Known Massacre Suits

Lefty and Righty vs Henry Creel

First, a TL;DR recap:

Righty (Henry):

Righty (Suspected Henry):

Lefty (Suspected Edward):

Good? Okay, let's get started.

JA.

He's not the Vecna we see in the transformation sequence from 4.07, nor is he the one we see in the Mindflayer shaping sequence.

He's a lefty, though:

JA is associated with El's initial eye blood pattern:

But not with her second eye blood pattern:

He also seems to be the gauntest of our Henwards, especially in comparison to JC:

Which...lots to think about there, considering this:

I won't rule out the possibility of him being a Vecna, of course. He's just not the thicker one we're shown concretely by the transformation sequence in 4.07.

Anyway. Moving on.

JC.

This is our guy. This is the jumpsuit that we're told goes with our main Vecna via the transformation sequence in 4.07.

He's a lefty.

JC is also the only bloody Henward we see doing hands-free moves, interestingly enough.

His Jumpsuit matches Vec-Ward's, as seen here:

JD.

JD's only appearance is at the very end. He does not appear before El slams him through the mirror.

He isn't shown using his hands, but his jumpsuit matches the guy who shaped the Mindflayer (as seen here):

Which means we can say he is also a lefty:

JD is associated only with El's second eye blood pattern:

A Quick Recap:

JA, JC, and JD are all lefties. We have seen no right-handed Massacre-Henwards so far.

The only bloody Henward I have questions about is JE, and that is solely because his sequence is shot through a mirror, presenting a lefty as a righty.

He's holding her chin in his left hand, but the camera choice presents it as his right hand. I can't, of course, rule anything out (especially given all the "mirror/holding up a mirror" stuff with him).

At the end of the day...it is meant to be recognized as his left hand, otherwise they wouldn't show us the mirror at all. They would just cut to him using his right hand normally. So, unless I have reason to think otherwise, I'm assigning him working-lefty.

I also can't concretely assign the bloodless JB suit.

This is because his only move is the hands-free one that we see JC do in the previous shot:

For now, though, I'm also assigning him working-lefty. This is based on the direction of his head tilt, which is the same as our other known lefty:

In conclusion:

Concrete Lefties: 3

Working-Lefties: 2

Concrete Righties: 0

I won't say that we don't have Henries in this sequence, because of course I can't say that. If he is shown on screen, though...he's either JB or JE, one of our two inconclusive lefties.

However: As it stands, we do not have any concrete righties, which would be an indisputable indicator of Henry's status as a mass murderer. If they wanted it to be indisputable, they would have made it that way.

[aemiron-main]

Yeah, that’s uh. very much part of it. Maybe next time you want to shittalk, try spending 2 seconds actually looking at the analysis, please. (and maybe just tag me next time LMAO like seriously so much confusion could be resolved if people were just direct instead of vaguing like this).

It’s a little frustrating to get a bad reputation when I’ve genuinely spent a lot of time laying out exactly what’s happening & why i don’t think Henry’s responsible- i didn’t start making the analysis because i liked him, I started liking him BECAUSE I did the analysis and realized he wasn’t the one responsible. Never ONCE have I ever said “oh it’s okay that Henry killed those kids and kidnapped Will”- instead, what I HAVE said is that HENRY ISN’T THE ONE WHO DID IT! That Henry isn’t Vecna, and instead, that Edward Creel is, and that’s why Eddie Munson (who exists to deliver Edward Creel subtext) has so many references to the lab (shaved head and tattoos etc), and also why he’s LITERALLY VECNA in the DND game (Eddie Munson is Vecna in DND whereas Edward Creel is actually Vecna). Eddie Munson’s whole character makes a lot more sense with the context of Edward Creel.

 And the other thing that makes sense with the context of Edward Creel is the fact that the Vecna name fuckery still isn’t resolved. We still don’t have a firm name for him. Supposedly the twist was “Henry is Vecna,” but in reality, the twist is presented as “One” is Vecna, and Edward is 001 and therefore Vecna. 

This is why Mike still refers to him as One when talking with Will, instead of calling him Henry, this is why the “who is Vecna” thing still isn’t fully resolved, this is why Vecna didn’t have a particular response to being called “Henry”- because he isn’t Henry. It’s just like what Hopper said in Season 1- we’ve been going after the wrong kid. Henry isn’t the one responsible for this. It’s also like I said in this post, where I talk about how Robin straight up says that they were all WRONG when trying to decide between Vecna/Henry/001 because NONE of those names are right.

I’ve got a whole list of Edward Creel posts here. He’s mentioned in the show, we see his name on-screen, with details about his life, and the name “Edward” is even bolded on the S4 movie board. I especially recommend this post about shadow selves and Edward vs Henry vs Vecna, and this post about Eddie Munson being Vecna in the DND game and this post for a general Edward/Edward timeline overview (considering that there’s definitely multiple timelines in ST which also ties into all of this) and this post showing an example of when we see two different timelines with the characters ONSCREEN and not just in the newspapers and this post about Will’s birthday being on the same date as the day that the Creel murders happened in Edward’s timeline (which, they happened on a totally different day in Henry’s timeline, and so again, Will and Edward are connected, not Will and Henry). I’ve also got a list about all of the multiple timelines weirdness (not counting the nina stuff because that all gets its own post/list) here. I also have a ton of posts specifically demonstrating that Henry wasn’t the one who did all of this and how much weirdness there is with the 1979 massacre (bodies moving and changing positions before our very eyes and Brenner showing up in shots with completely new hair and completely new bloodstains  that correspond with the childrens’ changing bloodstains on their bodies and on the floor, and how the bloodstains on Henry/Edward change and how some of the bodies are ADULTS so Henry/Edward may have killed ORDERLIES/adult patients like Terry who may have attacked first etc etc etc). And that’s all barely scraping the surface. We literally see multiple different 001s with different bloodstains and different FACES and hair ON SCREEN in front of our very eyes. Again, here’s a link to that post list. I also recommend this post from James about the evidence of some sort of creature attack at HNL in 1979. I recommend ALL of James’ posts.

And regarding Henry supposedly murdering his family: a.) how did he supposedly murder Alice if he was busy trancing Victor? We’ve seen nothing to indicate that he’s able to do both at once and we also don’t see Alice die. Don’t you think that they would’ve shown that to us if they really wanted to hammer home the idea that Henry brutally killed her? They’ve never hesitated to show us gore or dead children before, so why not show us now?

b.) Killing Virginia was justified. If you had to choose between spending the rest of your life imprisoned with Martin Brenner (whom Henry seems to have already met prior to the murders and therefore has reasonable cause to fear him & understand what he’s capable of) as a lab experiment OR murdering your mother who despised you and who was the person choosing to send you to Brenner without even trying to TALK to you, which would you choose?

c.) that’s assuming that  Henry even KILLED Virginia, as there’s significant evidence to support the idea that Hawkins Lab was involved with the Creel murders, and especially considering the new context from the leaked The First Shadow auditions about a “radio wave that kills people” versus Virginia Creel dying immediately after the radio starts going haywire, and Henry looks confused when the lights start flickering/when the radio starts messing around, which doesn’t make any sense if he was the one doing it. You can find some of my other posts about the lab’s involvement in the Creel murders here, here, here, here and here, and here's a link to the full creel murders analysis post list and that’s just a very tiny handful of them. Victor was literally arrested by the same state troopers who were working with the lab to facilitate and cover up Will’s death in S1 and then was found wandering alongside the road that leads to Hawkins Lab. And the fact that we have those random newspaper pictures of blood all over the Creel house and smeared on the walls that we never actually see in the show, which just SCREAMS Hawkins Lab, especially since Victor’s initials were supposedly written on the wall in blood.

And if you just believe that murder is inherently evil, then I think you should go and take a look at El’s killcount and apply the same standards to her.

The idea of Henry being born evil is ridiculous considering that this is the show that gave us Dart, a literal maneating interdimensional beast, and showed us that he wasn’t born evil and instead was a product of his environment. Why on earth would Henry, a literal human child, be any different? Seriously, do you think that Children Are Just Born Evil Sometimes is the message that ST is trying to send?

Anyway, I don’t have enough energy right now to argue over every little detail of this (although I’m up for just like. genuine discussion) but personally I’d rather be batshit crazy than be unwilling to even try to grasp even the most basic concepts of this show (such as Children Not Being Born Evil).

You don’t have to like him! You don’t have to compare him to kittens! You don’t have to agree with me, or believe me, or even read my posts (although it does seem a little silly to criticize me without even reading them) but maybe, when you’re watching The Show That Tells You to Look Below The Surface/Curtain every five minutes, and then get to a sequence that’s compared to a play (see: murray’s curtain line vs 001′s silly, terrible play line), where the dead bodies are turning into adults and completely changing mid-shot (which is intentional because all of the bodies have hyperrealistic digital 3d model doubles  so it’s not just a matter of standins for the actors), you should consider Looking Behind The Curtain and not just taking everything at face value. Try considering what you’re being SHOWN, not just what you’re being TOLD (especially considering the emphasis that ST puts on show over tell).

Hell, there’s even substantial evidence to support the idea that Henry didn’t even kill the rabbit (see this post and this post), and instead, broke the rabbit’s leg to free it from the snare it was caught in, JUST like how Hopper broke his own foot to free himself in Russia. Which explains why a.) we never see the rabbit die, just like how we never see Alice die and b.) why the rabbit’s dead body is NEVER found where Henry supposed killed it (the dead body is shown in two places- in the show, it’s near the slide, and in the Creel family trailer, which has scenes that aren’t in the show, it’s shown right in front of the house, with a BROKEN LEG NO LESS, which is odd considering that Henry supposedly killed it around the side of the house). So yeah! Everything’s organized in my pinned post if you want more. Everything I’ve put in here is barely scraping the surface, especially considering the analysis that James @henrysglock​ has also done on the subject. I’m not even like, mad, just a little annoyed and hurt that there has to be this constant vagueing (not just from you, from multiple people) before people have even given my analysis a fair shot or a single glance. What’s the harm in even reading it before jumping to shittalking? It’s one thing to have genuine criticism, it’s another to not even be willing to take a moment and look at what you’re criticizing.

Seriously, what’s more likely A.) everything I’ve analyzed and listed is all a massive string of EXTREMELY convenient production errors in the biggest show out there, despite me proving over and over with BTS photos and interviews that these things are confirmed to be intentional and not production errors. or

B.) The show with constant references to multiple timelines and “the wrong kid” and with themes of people being wrongfully ostracized and that’s constantly telling us that Nobody Is Born Evil and that’s constantly telling people to Look Deeper wants people to Look Deeper is, in fact, using multiple timelines, and telling us that we had the wrong kid, and that Nobody Is Born Evil and that Henry was wrongfully ostracized not just in the show/by the characters, but in fandom too.

people here who call henry creel pookie and compare him to kittens and shit are batshit crazy. did you forget he murdered his whole family.

[minervacasterly]

Henry VIII & Katherine of Aragon not-so-private affair in the bedroom:

Kings and Queens rarely could be afforded some privacy, including in the bedroom. When they married, a few witnesses would stay behind to make sure that the marriage was consummated. Some chose to stay outside and would not enter until the following morning to check on the couple and find any proof of consummation.Katharine’s parents took this a step further, parading their bloodstained sheets around town, proudly noting Ferdinand’s virility and Isabella’s commitment to her union.Years later, people would try to do the same regarding her daughter’s first marriage to Prince Arthur but with the sheets long gone, they could not prove that they had truly been man and wife.It’s become very common today to hear about our favorite celebrities or politicians’ infidelities. They are public figures after all, and what they wear, who they screw around with, or marry becomes everyone’s business. This was not so different in the Tudor age when Kings and Queens RARELY had any privacy. Take Katharine of Aragon’s parents for example. 

Did you think they enjoyed parading their bloodstained sheets before the entire town to prove that their marriage was consummated?Some of you will say ‘hell, yeah. Ferdinand was a cad and Isabella was an arrogant fanatic who were all about the fan fare’ and you wouldn’t be wrong but you wouldn’t be 100% right either. TCK loved the fan-fare but this act was more to give the middle finger to her half-brother and his wife, than to show off. This act demonstrated that whereas Enrique IV and Juana’s marriage had been cold and uneventful -leading Juana to cheat behind his back and some speculating that their daughter wasn’t really his- Isabella and Ferdinand’s was full of love and commitment.Enrique IV was also called the “Impotente” (the impotent) so this act must have also seemed like an attack on his sexual persona.Years later, people would try to do the same regarding her daughter’s first marriage to Prince Arthur but with the sheets long gone, they could not prove that they had truly been man and wife.During the time that she was married to Henry VIII though, their first years were uneventful as far as it came to their sex-life. It was what people expected from their king and queen. Separate chambers, a few visits at night, prayers in the mornings, outdoor activities, and more pillow talk being resumed when it wasn’t on religious days.The only thing out of place is that Henry VIII and Katharine seemed to enjoy more time together than any other royal couple at the time. Both of them were young, handsome and equally matched in intellect and by the next example given below by Fraser, genuinely in love.

“There was of course no privacy about such a way of life nor did the architecture of the time envisage it. But the mere use of the word in the modern sense implies a concept which would have been quite alien to a sixteenth-century king or queen, let alone their subjects. Even the King’s natural functions were not performed in private: the role of Groom of the Stool, responsible for the maintenance of the royal close-stool (as well as the King’s linen and goods when he travelled) became in consequence one of the most important posts at court, because it involved the ultimate proximity to the King’s person. When King Henry VIII decided to make love to his wife, the curtains of his bed were drawn back, his night-robe (or dressing-gown) was sent for, and he was assisted to put it on, and an escort of pages and Grooms of the Bedchamber was summoned to accompany him with torches down the passage to the Queen’s chamber (hopefully the passage was not in too filthy a state but one feels the language of the Eltham Ordinances reflects some distasteful royal experiences in this area). In no way was this an inhibiting process: it was the manner in which Henry’s ancestors – kings – had behaved, and the way the kings who came after him would behave too. The evidence indicates that King Henry took that conjugal route with great regularity. He was young and healthy: in the tradition of St Augustine Erasmus declared that the purpose of marriage was not to gratify ‘lusts’ but to procreate children - but who was to prevent a man doing both at the same time? The King needed heirs; he thus had every reason to make love to his wife with assiduity. (As all monarchs were expected to do, if humanly possible, during this period; it was the exception, when the King did not ���go unto his wife’, which was noted.) In Henry VIII’s case, given his original affection for Catherine, and the fact that she was neither old, ugly nor charmless, it was a duty of state, but it was also an agreeable one.” (Antonia Fraser, The Wives of Henry VIII)

Even after Katharine’s role in government became non-existent, Henry VIII continued to visit her chambers.

For additional info on this, I recommend the following books and documentaries: Medieval Lives by Helen Castor, Catherine of Aragon and Six Wives and the Many Mistresses of Henry VIII by Amy Licence, Henry VIII: King and his Court by Alison Weir, and Sister Queens by Julia Fox.

[mary-tudor]

“"The two Kings' armies met in the field at Barnet. It was a hard fought battle and marked a decisive victory for the Yorkists. Margaret wrote to Isabelle that her brother had an army of 12,000 men and contemporaries put the casualties at between 1,000 and 4,000, one of whom was Warwick.

It was widely rumoured that he had been taken alive and then killed on Edward's orders. In her letters to Isabelle, Margaret endeavoured to clear her brother of all blame for his cousin's death. 

She claimed that Warwick had indeed been taken alive and that, as he was being led towards Edward, another group of soldiers arrived on the scene, recognized him and killed him. Edward had arrived too late to rescue his cousin and was full of sorrow. 

As well as absolving Edward from all responsibility for Warwick's death, Margaret also had to explain to Isabelle, who was very interested in her Neville cousins, why Edward had the bodies of both Warwick and his younger brother Montague exposed to public gaze at St Paul's. It was, she wrote:

'because my lord the King and brother had heard that nobody in the city believed that Warwick and his brother were dead so he had their bodies brought to St Paul's where they were laid out and uncovered from the chest upwards in the sight of everybody.'

After the battle of Barnet, Edward once more regained possession of the unhappy King Henry. Margaret's description of the meeting between the two Kings was also designed to show her brother in the best light possible and would throw doubt on the later rumours that Edward had ordered Henry's death in the tower. 

She told Isabelle that Edward and Henry had come together in the presence of the Archbishop of York and that:

'my lord and brother offered him his hand but King Henry came and embraced him saying: 'my cousin you are very welcome, I know that my life will be in no danger in your hands' and my lord and brother replied that he should have no worries and should be of good cheer.'

Margaret's propaganda on behalf of her brother may have served some useful purpose at the Burgundian court but there does seem to be a certain futility in her efforts to purify the actions of her bloodstained brothers."

From: “Margaret of York, the diabolical Duchess”. Weightman, Christine. 2009. pp 101, 102.

[victorianwhitechapel]

Pinchin Street torso

Birth date: (1849~1859) Killed and found (age): Ca. September 8th 1889, September 10th 1889 (30~40)

Complexion: Dark  Eyes colour: ?  Hair colour:  Brown dark Height: 5’3” (160 cm) Occupation: Factory worker, prostitute 

Clothes at the time of murder/discovery: Old chemise ?

Resting place: East London Cemetery, Grange park, Plaistow, Essex.

***

On Wednesday 10 September 1889, at 5:15am, Police Constable William Pennett found the headless and legless torso of an unidentified woman under a railway arch at Pinchin Street, Whitechapel. The body, heavily decomposed, was covered by an old chemise that was 37in. in length, common material, and stitched, but certainly not by an experienced needlewoman. It had evidently been home-made by a poor person.

Immediately, the PC summoned assistance and when Inspector Charles Pinhorn, H Division, arrived shortly after 5:30am two constables were already there.

As an instance of the organisation of the police in the district since the recent Whitechapel murders, a special telegraphic signal had been arranged by which the fact of such a crime as the present one could be promptly conveyed to other police-stations. Shortly before six o'clock on Tuesday morning Scotland-yard received this message: "Whitechapel again"; and in the space of a few minutes they were able to telegraph all over the metropolitan police district the following message: "At 5.40 a.m. trunk of a woman found under the arches in Pinchin-street, E. Age about 40. Height, 5 ft. 3 in.; hair dark brown. No clothing, except chemise very much torn and bloodstained. Both elbows discoloured, as if from habitual leaning on them. Post-mortem marks around waist, apparently caused by a rope." Immediately upon the circulation of this telegram, the Thames Police, under Detective-Inspector Regan, and Chief-Inspector Henry Moore, displayed the utmost vigilance. Assisted by Sergeants Moore, Francis, Howard, Davis, and Scott, these officers at once got their various craft on the river and boarded all the vessels at the mouth of the Thames and in the Docks. The operation of searching these vessels had not concluded until a late hour in the evening, and so far as the investigation had gone the captains of the various vessels were able to give satisfactory accounts as to their crews.

A little before 6:00 am, Doctor Percy John Clark (or Clarke) was summoned. In this presence, the body was lifted on to an ambulance and taken to the St. George's mortuary by constables. He there re-examined the body: it was “that of a woman of stoutish build, dark complexion, about 5ft. 3in. in height, and between 30 and 40 years of age”. Both legs had been skilfully separated, and none of the abdominal organs were missing. He also thought that “the body had been dead at least 24 hours” but could had also been taken place some four days previously. Doctor George Bagster Phillips, the Divisional Surgeon, first examined the body at 6:00am the day the remains were found.

In the meantime communications, giving full particulars, were sent to Scotland-yard, and the Chief Commissioner James Monro, the Chief Constable of the district Colonel Bolton James Alfred Monsell, Superintendent Donald Sutherland Swanson, Detective Inspector Miller, Superintendent Thomas Arnold of the H Division, and local Inspector Edmund John James Reid all visited the scene of the discovery and made inquiries as to the matter. Later investigations by Sergeants William Thick and Stephen White along with Sergeant George Godley came across some bloodstained clothing in Batty Street (just off Commercial Street in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets), but little or nothing was made of it.

Later in the day Detective Inspector John Bennett Tonbridge, who had charge of Elizabeth Jackson’s case a short time ago, went to the mortuary and saw the remains. Mr. Clarke, the City Police surgeon Dr. Gordon Brown, and two other medical gentlemen who have had experience in previous cases of this nature shortly after made a more careful examination of the remains. It was noticed that the trunk displayed green patches; the flesh otherwise was white. The doctors, from their investigations, concluded that the cuts and wounds had been inflicted in a left-hand manner. The cut severing the head from the body was skilfully done, there being no hacking or clumsy dissection noticeable. Furthermore, a saw had been used to sever the bones in such a way as to leave no doubt that the person responsible for the dismemberment possessed a good knowledge of anatomy. There were no signs about the hands which would indicate that the woman had been used to hard work, and so far as could be seen there had been no attempt to obliterate a mark on one of the fingers, apparently caused by a ring. It was believed from certain indications that the deceased had never been a mother, but she might have been pregnant. The body was well-nourished and cared for.

In consequence of the similarity of the mode of dismemberment pursued in this case and those of the recent Elizabeth Jackson and Rainham mysteries; the officers engaged in those cases were consulted, and their general opinion was that the resemblance in the cases were very remarkable.

The next morning, Friday 11 September 1889, Dr. Phillips further examined the body in the presence of Dr. Brown and Dr. Charles A. Hibberd (or Hebbert). Dr Phillips was particularly reticent, even to the police authorities, as to the precise result of his examination of the trunk, but it was stated that the cause of death had not yet been thoroughly established. Both Dr Clark, Dr Phillips assistant, and Dr. Hibberd gave the height of the Pinchin victim as 5ft 3in (160 cm).

Three men were arrested, including Michael Keating and Richard Hawke, who were found sleeping under nearby arches. They were later cleared of the crime.

The estimated date of death was given as September 8, 1889, the one-year anniversary of Annie Chapman's murder; a fact which did not escape Chief Commissioner Monro's seven page report that was forwarded to the Home Office. Monro then went on to explain that, "...This street is close to Berner Street which was the scene of one of the previous Whitechapel murders [that of Elizabeth Stride]. It is not a very narrow street, but is lonely at night, & is patrolled every half hour by a constable on beat. The arch where the body was found abuts on the pavement. The constable discovered the body some what after 20 minutes past five on the morning of Tuesday [10th September 1889]...He is positive that when he passed the spot about five the body was not there...It may therefore be assumed that the body was placed where it was found some time between 5 & 5.30 am...Although the body was placed in the arch on Tuesday morning, the murder - (and although there is not yet before me proof of the cause of death, I assume that there has been a murder) was not committed there nor then. There was almost no blood in the arch, and the state of the body itself showed that death took place about 36 hours or more previously. This, then enables me to say that the woman was made away with probably on Sunday night, the 8th September. This was the date on which one of the previous Whitechapel murders [that of Annie Chapman] was committed ...". Monro entered into a detailed comparison of this murder with the previous Whitechapel atrocities in the case of the Pinchin Street victim, there was nothing to show that death was caused by the throat having been cut., in this latest case there was no mutilation "other than dismemberment". Previous victims had suffered evisceration, but the Pinchin Street victim most certainly hadn't. In several of the previous cases there had been removal of certain parts of the body, whereas with the Pinchin Street victim "There is no removal of any portion of the organs of generation or intestines..." . The killing of the Pinchin Street victim had may committed indoors, "...probably in the lodging of the murderer...", Monro went on to stress that "...there is no sign of frenzied mutilation of the body [as in Mary Jane Kelly's case, also committed indoors], but of deliberate & skilful dismemberment with a view to removal...". Monro then went on to point out that "These are all very striking departures from the practice of the Whitechapel murderer, and if the body had been found elsewhere that in Whitechapel the supposition that death had been caused by the Ripper would probably not have been entertained..." In conclusion, Monro stated that, " I am inclined to the belief that, taking one thing with another, this is not the work of the Whitechapel murderer...".

An interesting extract from the London edition of the ‘New York Herald' claimed that a man named John Cleary informed the night editor on the night of September 7 that there was a murder in Back Church Lane (from which runs Pinchin Street). Later, a statement was taken from a John Arnold, a newsvendor of Charing Cross, saying he was John Cleary. He continued to say that after leaving the King Lud pub, he had been told by a soldier in Fleet Street, "Hurry up with your papers. Another horrible murder in Backchurch Lane." He then went to the Herald to share his findings. The soldier he described as between 35 and 36 years of age, 5ft 6ins, fair complexion and moustache, and he carried a parcel. No one by this description was ever taken into custody concerning the murder.

Several names soon arose in the press as the identity of the woman, but they found later being alive and the identity of the body was never identified.

On Wednesday morning September 11th 1889, the Inquest was opened at the St. George's Vestry Hall, Cable-street, St-George's-in-the-East, Mr. Wynne Edwin Baxter opened the inquiry. Detective-Inspector Reid and Inspector Moore, of the Criminal Investigation Department, watched the case on behalf of the Chief Commissioner of Police.

The ‘Northern Daily Telegraph', on Monday, September 16th, 1889, published: “What may prove an important discovery in connection with the recent murder in Whitechapel was made on Saturday night. A fireman named Etherden was standing on a floating fire-station near Charing Cross, when he noticed something floating by. On reaching, he found that it was a brown paper parcel, which contained a chemise covered with blood. The parcel was handed over to the police at Scotland Yard...”.

The second and last day of the Inquest was Tuesday, September 24th, 1889. The jury at once returned the now familiar verdict of "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."

On 5th October 1889 the remains were laid to rest in the East London Cemetery, Grange park, Plaistow, Essex, in the public grave no. 16185 – 45 square, received from the St. George Mortuary. The remains were sealed in a tin container and preserved in spirits. The tin container was then enclosed in a black wooden box. The metal plate that adorned the case in which they were interred carried the simple inscription, "This case contains the body of a woman (unknown) found in Pinchin Street St Georges-in-the-East 10th Septr./89". This public grave had later been re-used and is not longer extant.

***

TO KNOW MORE:

Wikipedia

Casebook website – Casebook forums – Casebook press report – Inquest (from Casebook)

JTR Forums – JTR Forums – possible identity

Jack The Ripper 1888

The Jack the Ripper Tour

The Jack the Ripper Walk

Jack The Ripper Tour - Murder morning in Whitechapel  – Jack the Ripper Tour - Is there a Murder gang? – Jack the Ripper Tour - The Whitechapel Murderer: A Discovery

Whitechapel Jack

BEGG, Paul (2013): Jack The Ripper. The Facts.

BEGG, Paul; FIDO, Martin & SKINNER, Keith (1996): The Jack The Ripper A – Z.

BELL, Neil R. A. (2014): Capturing Jack the Ripper: In the Boots if a Bobby in Victorian England.

CLAK, Robert (2015): The Pinchin Street Torso, in Ripperologist NUM 143, April.

EDDLESTON, John J. (2001): Jack the Ripper: An Encyclopedia.

EVANS, Stewart P. & RUMBELOW, Donald (2006). Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates.

GORDON, R. Michael (2015): The Thames Torso Murders of Victorian London.

MACNAGHTEN, Sir Melville L. (1914): Days of My Years.

SKINNER Keith & EVANS, Stewart (2013). The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook.

TROW, Meirion James (2011): The Thames Torso Murders. 

[damajority]

DaMajority Fresh Article https://www.damajority.com/saint-lucian-executive-caribbean-association-forensic-sciences/

Saint Lucian on Executive of Caribbean Association of Forensic Sciences

  GOVERNMENT OF SAINT LUCIA

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, JUSTICE AND NATIONAL SECURITY

  Department of Home Affairs and National Security

18/12/2017

  Saint Lucian on Executive of Caribbean Association of Forensic Sciences

  Director of Forensic Science Services – Saint Lucia Forensic Science Laboratory, Ms. Fernanda Henry is among the new crop of forensic professionals who are hoping to make a noteworthy contribution as the new executive of the Caribbean Association of Forensic Sciences (CAFS).  The CAFS is the only forensic science association in the Caribbean.

  Ms. Henry explains that the Association is fairly young; it was the brain-child of Dr. Alfredo Walker five years ago, but was eventually founded in 2015. She says the new executive is very ambitious and quite driven to succeed in executing its mandate.

  “We aim to promote professionalism, integrity, competence and the application of evidence-based, best practices; to invoke rigorous quality control; to encourage collaboration amongst the Forensic Science disciplines, the Criminal Justice System and to foster and support opportunities for original research, professional networking and continuing professional development,” she noted.

  She added that the current membership is very broad-based and diverse.

  “Our Association represents a variety of forensic disciplines including: Fingerprint Examination, Bloodstain Pattern Analysis, Firearms Examination, Forensic Photography, Forensic Laboratory Analysis, Questioned Documents, Firearms and Tool mark Examination, Digital Evidence, Crime Scene Investigation, Forensic Biology, Forensic Chemistry and Toxicology, Forensic Anthropology, Forensic Nursing, Forensic Odontology, Forensic Accounting, Forensic Pathology, Forensic Psychology, Criminology and General Forensics.”

  The new executive comprises:

  President: Insp.Gregory Williams (Forensic Scientist, Antigua and Barbuda; Adjunct Lecturer – MSc Forensic Sciences, UWI Mona) 1 st Vice President: Prof Wayne McLaughlin (Director of CARIGEN and Programme Director, UWI Mona MSc Forensic sciences Jamaica) 2nd Vice President: Miss Fernanda Henry (Director of St. Lucia Forensic Science Laboratory, St. Lucia) Secretary: Ms Hillary Mullings (Forensic Scientist, Institute of Forensic Science and Legal Medicine, Adjunct Lecturer, UWI, Mona Campus, Jamaica) Asst. Secretary: Ms. Krystal James (Forensic Scientist, Trinidad and Tobago) Treasurer: Dr. Christine Walters (Lecturer & Health Research Scientist, UWI Mona Jamaica) PR Officer: Ms. Tanesha Fagan (Forensic Examiner, Independent Commission, Jamaica) Trustees: Mrs. Dionne Cruickshank (Attorney-at-Law, Lecturer, UWI, Mona, Jamaica ) Mrs. Karen Seymour-Johnson (Attorney-at-Law, Tutor, Norman Manley Law School, Mona, Jamaica)

  Ms. Henry encourages young and seasoned professionals to join the association to advance regional efforts in forensic science. She can be contacted on membership at cafsvp2@gmail.com.

  END

[londontheatre]

Rory Mullarkey’s new play Saint George & The Dragon starts appropriately with the mythical battle itself. The fight, however, is shown not on stage, but rather left to our imagination, with commentary provided by the onlooking neighbourhood assembled on stage. The Dragon, shown solely in its human form whilst on stage, is commendably portrayed with facetiousness & satire by Julian Bleach.

The Dragon’s aid Henry, the excellent Richard Goulding, proudly waxes lyrical on the fighting prowess of the Dragon. He is humorous in his faux assurance as the Dragon loses two of its three heads, which crash down from high up behind you to dramatically land on the stage in a cloud of smoke and sparks. When the battle is won, and the Dragon ‘destroyed’, the previously sheepish and rejected George is once again hailed a hero, summoned back to the Brotherhood of Knights to fight the other Dragons that remain.

Before he goes, he dares the neighbourhood to dream and prosper in his absence, putting up his bloodstained battle garments as a flag for the community: St George’s Flag. Thus starts the accelerated progression of ‘England’. Each year George returns from his travails, the town has advanced considerably – at first the Industrial Revolution, followed by modernity in all its glory.

The production’s set is simple at first in its appearance, a medieval neighbourhood with small huts and cottages, but rapidly ameliorates in tandem with the progression of the isle itself to ultimately portray modern London on an impressive scale. The floor slopes up into a mountain dotted with houses, towering over the town, and perfectly symbolising the constant striving of its inhabitants. It is relatively narrow for the infamously vast Olivier stage, but it works nicely in compressing the action for the audience and feels more intimate.

The Company is as a whole excellent, and Mullarkey distributes his work expertly, each character forming its own identity and changing with the times. Amaka Okafor’s Elsa, the female lead, has a particularly rewarding character arc, morphing from damsel in distress to tireless teacher, and outgrowing the need for her betrothed St George. Okafor is a standout performer, along with notable performances from Gawn Grainger, who exudes wisdom with a light touch as her father, and an impressively industrious Lewin Lloyd as ‘Boy’, the orphan of the village.

The Company of Saint George and the Dragon (c) Johan Persson

However, whilst the company collectively enrich their characters admirably, they are the vehicle for the play to work its magic, rather than the other way around. St George & The Dragon is a vast philosophical metaphor of a play; symbolising the perils of progression, patriotism, heroism, idealism & individualism. It uses the old fairytale ingeniously to reiterate time and again the problems with the idealism we are all guilty of in dreaming of a ‘better future’. It is a fiercely intelligent representation of this evil, and how it manifests itself within us.

St George himself, played with aplomb by John Heffernan, is an arrogant, charming & ultimately naive hero – essentially the archetypal English hero. He foolishly believes in his ability, and his ability alone, to vanquish all terror with one swipe of his sword, granting total prosperity. He represents the patriarchal follies of not only English culture but one that has swept the world over. He is the old-fashioned hero, unfit and out of touch with modern times. The play fundamentally revolves around the Lao Tzu principal that “if you want to eliminate the suffering in the world, then eliminate all that is dark and negative in yourself”. Thus, it is not the external heroes that save us from our ‘dragons’, but rigorous introspection.

Review by Wilfred Laurence

A folk tale for an uneasy nation. A village. A dragon. A damsel in distress.

Into the story walks George: wandering knight, freedom fighter, enemy of tyrants the world over. One epic battle later and a nation is born.

As the village grows into a town, and the town into a city, the myth of Saint George which once brought a people together, threatens to divide them.

Saint George and the Dragon at the Olivier Theatre, National Theatre Age Restrictions: Suitable for 13+. Show Opened: 4th October 2017 Booking Until: 2nd December 2017

http://ift.tt/2vLwi7j LondonTheatre1.com

[aemiron-main]

look me in the eyes and tell me again that henry’s changing and magically appearing bloodstains are just an accidental fuckup because they couldnt be bothered to pay attention to details

i’m not saying that mistakes don’t happen. i’m saying that this isn’t a mistake. i’m saying that the st costuming and makeup teams are extremely detail-oriented and if they needed an exact extra copy of the jumpsuit for some reason (which, why would they?), then they are more than capable of copying it without the “errors”. and also, the blood randomly appearing on henry’s face isn’t a mistake. do we really think that the same makeup team/makeup lead (it IS the same exact people) who took the time to dye will’s tongue so that it would be authentic are also just. forgetting to add blood to one of the main characters’ faces in a scene that centers around the blood on him? the same makeup team that has patterns drawn out/painted out for every single one of the lab kids’ eye blood so that they can get it exact every time? i don’t buy it.

[aemiron-main]

Where is it. Where’s the blood on Henry/Edward?

We go from this shot:

To this shot:

And where’s the blood?

Especially considering these bloodless Henry “deleted footage” shots:

[aemiron-main]

I’m trying to finish the big “henry’s jumpsuit bloodstains” analysis that’s been sitting in my drafts for MONTHS, but for now, take the current different jumpsuits (so far, I’ve counted five, including JB, which is the bloodless one, and these are just samples pf each bc they all show up in multiple shots). His face blood and hair changes constantly too and it makes me insane. And of course the changing/moving corpses and the bloodstains on the walls and floor.

[aemiron-main]

look me in the eyes and tell me these are the same jumpsuit. theyre not.

[aemiron-main]

Brenner’s Changing Bloodstains and The Moving Bodies During NINA: Is There A Version of the Massacre that El Did Commit?

I’ve posted about it Brenner’s changing bloodstains during NINA before here and here, but I wanted to talk today about how his bloodstains AND the moving/changing bodies in the rainbow room change, and how those two things are linked.

And I also talked about the moving bodies during NINA here, here and here (and here’s the full post list), incase you’re not sure what I’m talking about

So, we see this brenner, who has blood across both sides of his face:

And he’s shown with this dead body (who is now an adult with his eyes not gouged out, just closed and bleeding, see this post for the comparison of how his body changes throughout the massacre):

Like, here’s what the fully gouged out eyes look like in comparison:

But then we get this Brenner, who only has blood on one side of his face (see how there’s no blood on his screen right cheek?):

We get a closeup & we don’t get to see the room or what bodies are around this Brenner at ALL during this scene, but we DO see them in another scene, which I’ll come back to later.

And what’s interesting to me is that as I mentioned, the dead body that we see when the first Brenner comes in the room just has his eyes closed & bleeding, just like how Connie and the other agents died in S1:

Connie and the other agents still had their eyes- El was just telekinetically squeezing their brains so hard that their eyes started to bleed. Unlike Vecna, who gouges out the eyes/explodes the eyes. It’s two different styles of killing. Which is interesting, because Owens specifically draws attention to 001’s style of killing- and also, interestingly enough, the implies that the version of the bodies/massacre that Owens may have seen back in 1979 would’ve had Vecna-style gouged out eyes. But we don’t know if he really saw the bodies or just saw some pictures or if he saw Virginia’s body or what point of reference for the eyes made him realize that the killings were done by 001:

And part of me wonders if that version of the massacre with the first brenner/the brenner who only has blood on one side of his face/the one where the eyes arent gouged out is a version of the massacre that El did commit. After all, the style of killing is exactly the same as El’s, with the bleeding but not gouged out eyes and the lack of broken bones on that body.

And again, the Brenner who asks “what have you done,” is not the same Brenner, and the camera angle that we get is a.) very closeup but also b.) very tall. Taller than El for sure. But the perfect height to be Henry… Especially considering that NINA is supposed to be based on memories and camera footage, and this definitely isn’t camera footage, so then whose memory is it?

But also, remember how I said that we DO see the bodies with the second Brenner during another scene? Yeah, it’s during a non-NINA scene, it’s during the S4 EP1 sequence of Brenner on the day of the massacre.

Brenner looks down and sees this body:

Which is not the same as this one:

But bizarrely enough, IS exactly the same shot as what El supposedly saw during NINA (which is what the shot below is, that's from El's nina sequence) (and I’m working on a full analysis of all those closeup body shots)- why the hell was El seeing Brenner’s memories?

And this Brenner, from NINA? The scene of a Brenner, with blood on both sides of his face? walking into the room like this? It doesn’t happen at all during that S4 EP1 sequence.

And where this gets even MORE interesting is when we look at the bodies.

See 002 here during Brenner’s S4 EP1 sequence? And how he’s posed?

Okay, so then why is his pose AND his body shape/size COMPLETELY different during the NINA massacre scenes? Even the little red blocks im front of him disappear, and his legs are much smaller and less bruised during Brenner’s S4 EP1 sequence, and his arm completely changes positions AND there’s NO BLOOD on the chair in Brenner’s S4 EP1 memories.

And see the other kid laying on the ground and how they’re posed?

Yeah, they’re ALSO different in El’s NINA memories vs Brenner’s S4 EP1 memories- the position of the body stays the same this time (even though it does move around/change during other shots/memories), but EL’S position relative to the body changes & the position of furniture changes:

What the hell is going ON???

[aemiron-main]

“those are the same guy at the same time!!”

have you been to an optometrist recently? just wondering no reason just curious always good to get a yearly checkup.

(seriously though his face/likely the focal length changed, his hair changed, the blood splatters changed his body type changed (look at the way he fills out the first jumpsuit vs the second one hanging off of him). that’s not the same guy at the same time and it’s also not a one-off production error)

[aemiron-main]

no bc like. where did the blood on the back of his shirt go??