Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is that MJK's leg bone in the crime scene photo?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • People have suggested that Phillips did a disservice to the investigations when he stated that "no meaningless cuts" were observed on Annie. I think he did us a great favour personally.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DJA View Post

      One reconstruction.

      Click image for larger version

Name:	MAK reconstruction.jpg
Views:	1448
Size:	21.4 KB
ID:	738298
      Oh wow I've never seen this before. Very interesting.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
        ... Where is her mouth for example? Which way is here face pointing even? Grim I know but as much as I look I just cant make anything out.
        I think people need to recognise that the marked incomprehensibiliy of the facial part of that horrific photo results from someone having attacked the photographic plate with some kind of stylus that has broken up and disrupted the emulsion -- with the consequence that this part of the image has been scored and fragmented, and the fragments moved around...

        I (almost) cannot believe that no-one has noticed this already. To me, it could not be more bleeding obvious...

        M.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Prosector View Post
          Yes - it appears to be the lower part of her right femur from which the quadriceps muscle has been cut away. If skeletal remains are ever recovered in an exhumation there should be knife marks on that bone and also, probably on the bodies of the 5th and 6th cervical vertebra which Thomas Bond's autopsy report noted as having been deeply notched when her throat was cut. There would also be knife marks on the maxillary bones of the skull from the excision of most of her face.

          Prosector
          Nicely stated. One cannot achieve such a clean exposure of the femur without cutting away the tissues from the tendon insertions along the femur and carving away any extraneous connective tissue. I had not paid attention to this photo as closely before.

          Richard

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TheTypeWriter View Post
            See it within the centre of this red circle? I'm sure I see an eye quite clearly. It's haunting.
            There has been some question about landmarks on her mutilated face. So, here goes. In the image, at approximately the 5:00 o'clock position, the red circle touches on the outer corner of her left eye. Her teeth appear to be exposed, although I admit, at what appears to be a strange angle if you continue to the left in this photograph and down slightly. The degree and extent of mutilation of the poor dear is, quite honestly, horrific.

            Richard

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DJA View Post

              If chloral hydrate was used, it would depend on how much she consumed and what tolerance she had.
              I agree. Chloral hydrate would have been a poor drug used alone or in combination to with alcohol as a sedating agent. First, it has a notably unpleasant taste, even when diluted in other beverages. Second, it can cause nausea or vomiting in a substantial number or patients. Third, time to onset, duration and depth of activity are highly variable. Fourth, the old concept of the "Mickey Finn" was more folkloric that fact at the time of the Ripper killings. Sadly, these days there are more potent drugs that can be administered surreptitiously in drinks for nefarious purposes.

              Richard

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                But it begs the question... why is the eggshell cracking that LOSMANDRIS pointed-out only localized to Mary Jane's face? The cracking doesn't extend into her hair or across her arm or along the femur or universally across the grainy photo; it is all contained on what might be considered the skin of her face.
                I repeat: the facial area on the photographic plate has been censored by way of vandalism with some kind of stylus. Essentially, the emulsion bearing that part of the image has been broken up and moved around by a great deal of scraping motion. What we see is not a hacked-about face. What we see is a hacked-about image that no longer allows us to see the hacked-about face.

                Yes, at some point -- perhaps when the plate was first developed and the emulsion was still wet -- someone with custody of the image decided that Mary Jane's ravaged face was something that the world would not be permitted to see, and the image was vandalised to prevent it being seen. It's not impossible that this was done preparatory to the image being released for first publication and in line with applicable obscenity laws; but if the very earliest published reproductions can be examined, there may be a small chance of the un-vandalised image having been used somewhere.

                As it is, the fragments of the disrupted facial image are now at wrong angles and in wrong places, whence we see, inter alia, a part of an intact eyeball in a place where an eyeball could not be sited.

                On the surface, this really could not be more visually obvious; what is preventing it being seen is social psychology: not only are people desperate to look upon the victim's destroyed face, but they have not been given permission by a psychologically suitable authority to see that it is not there. How long will this take?

                M.
                Last edited by Mark J D; 03-21-2022, 11:01 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                  I repeat: the facial area on the photographic plate has been censored by way of vandalism with some kind of stylus. Essentially, the emulsion bearing that part of the image has been broken up and moved around by a great deal of scraping motion. What we see is not a hacked-about face. What we see is a hacked-about image that no longer allows us to see the hacked-about face.

                  Yes, at some point -- perhaps when the plate was first developed and the emulsion was still wet -- someone with custody of the image decided that Mary Jane's ravaged face was something that the world would not be permitted to see, and the image was vandalised to prevent it being seen. It's not impossible that this was done preparatory to the image being released for first publication and in line with applicable obscenity laws; but if the very earliest published reproductions can be examined, there may be a small chance of the un-vandalised image having been used somewhere.

                  As it is, the fragments of the disrupted facial image are now at wrong angles and in wrong places, whence we see, inter alia, a part of an intact eyeball in a place where an eyeball could not be sited.

                  On the surface, this really could not be more visually obvious; what is preventing it being seen is social psychology: not only are people desperate to look upon the victim's destroyed face, but they have not been given permission by a psychologically suitable authority to see that it is not there. How long will this take?

                  M.
                  Hi Mark,

                  I had never thought of this before but makes a lot of sense. And is quite obvious, as you say, when you think about it. It is not as if the police needed the picture for the purposes of IDing MJK as they had Joseph Barrett for that. It was probably more to highlight the injuries the murderer inflicted for medical or police purposes. Hence why the face may have been blurred. A bit like how these days some parts of images are pixelated out. As said certainly makes sense. Thanks for point this out. I have spent ages trying to figure her face out, now I can see why I was never able to do that. It explains why the hairline is very clear and not the actual face.
                  Last edited by Losmandris; 03-21-2022, 12:54 PM.
                  Best Regards,

                  Tristan

                  Comment


                  • This would certainly explain why in the contemporary descriptions people have talked about her open and staring eyes. Surely this would be obvious in the picture if it had not been distorted. I would image the face would resemble that seen in the mortuary picture of Eddowes, though with more injuries. Any idea who would have done it? I wonder if it was the same with all the pictures taken? from all accounts more were, though they are probably lost or destroyed.
                    Best Regards,

                    Tristan

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
                      This would certainly explain why in the contemporary descriptions people have talked about her open and staring eyes. Surely this would be obvious in the picture if it had not been distorted. I would image the face would resemble that seen in the mortuary picture of Eddowes, though with more injuries. Any idea who would have done it? I wonder if it was the same with all the pictures taken? from all accounts more were, though they are probably lost or destroyed.
                      I have literally no information about this, nor has anyone other than you ever straightforwardly accepted my suggestion (admittedly, I've not mentioned it to every investigator I communicate with). I also can't find any trace of anyone else having said something similar: clearly, the photo is a literal icon of Ripperology, and as such must not be questioned or devalued.

                      Does anyone have access to the first published reproductions? I'd be surprised if an un-censored, un-vandalised photo had made its way into public print; but stranger things have happened...

                      You say: "I would image the face would resemble that seen in the mortuary picture of Eddowes, though with more injuries."
                      -- Myself, I would imagine the face was more like the stripped and opened head of one of the wax anatomical models Christer and others have pointed to. After all, that seems to have been the object of the exercise overall where Mary Jane's disassembly was concerned. The photo on the back cover of Christer's book is so much like the scene in Miller's Court that it makes one jump...

                      Bests,

                      M.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                        I have literally no information about this, nor has anyone other than you ever straightforwardly accepted my suggestion (admittedly, I've not mentioned it to every investigator I communicate with). I also can't find any trace of anyone else having said something similar: clearly, the photo is a literal icon of Ripperology, and as such must not be questioned or devalued.

                        Does anyone have access to the first published reproductions? I'd be surprised if an un-censored, un-vandalised photo had made its way into public print; but stranger things have happened...

                        You say: "I would image the face would resemble that seen in the mortuary picture of Eddowes, though with more injuries."
                        -- Myself, I would imagine the face was more like the stripped and opened head of one of the wax anatomical models Christer and others have pointed to. After all, that seems to have been the object of the exercise overall where Mary Jane's disassembly was concerned. The photo on the back cover of Christer's book is so much like the scene in Miller's Court that it makes one jump...

                        Bests,

                        M.
                        Have to say Mark. You have kind of blown my mind a bit here. The more I have been thinking about the more it makes total sense. I cannot 'un-see'. Would be great to start a new thread on this. Would love to hear what others think (It definitely warrants one, its big and could get lost in this one!)
                        Best Regards,

                        Tristan

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
                          Have to say Mark. You have kind of blown my mind a bit here. The more I have been thinking about the more it makes total sense. I cannot 'un-see'. Would be great to start a new thread on this. Would love to hear what others think (It definitely warrants one, its big and could get lost in this one!)
                          By all means start a dedicated thread (I don't seem to have permission). "MJK's photo censored/vandalised?", maybe? Or a better title, if you think of one...

                          Bests,

                          M.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                            By all means start a dedicated thread (I don't seem to have permission). "MJK's photo censored/vandalised?", maybe? Or a better title, if you think of one...

                            Bests,

                            M.
                            Thanks. Ok.

                            I will give it a whirl!
                            Best Regards,

                            Tristan

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X