Weapons used on Mary?

[Henry Flower]

I'm not completely certain, because it's so messy, but this is what I'm thinking...

Looking at MJK1/MJK2, starting with that loop of cloth above the knee, we have this sequence:

Sequence A: "loop of cloth" - "dark area a few inches in width" - "Mary's little finger".

Looking at MJK3, and starting with Mary's hand, the sequence goes:

Sequence B: "Mary's little finger" - "dark area a few inches in width" - "????"

If Sequence B is Sequence A in reverse, then ???? should equate to "loop of cloth". Notice that, in MJK1/MJK2, Mary's left thigh goes under the loop of cloth, with the knee jutting out beyond that. I think we can see Kelly's left thigh in MJK3, but it's mixed up and partly obscured by various bits of blood-soaked cloth.

I could be wrong, of course.

Ah. ok. I see where you're going. It makes sense. But if green is bedsheet, and purple is the big loop of cloth from MJK1, then where the hell is her leg? Where is her knee? Knees are fairly hard to miss usually.

I have a different take on it that occurred to me two minutes ago, and may well be entirely wrong.

Green is bedsheet. Purple is her knee. Red is the loop of cloth/chemise, and it has either fallen or been moved, either to allow more light to fall on the subject or accidentally whilst the bed was being moved to allow the photographer to get his camera into place.

I dunno. Another JtR insoluble....

[Sam Flynn]

But now you've thrown a spanner in the works and I'm more confused than ever. You're saying that these purples are the same thing?

I'm not completely certain, because it's so messy, but this is what I'm thinking...

Looking at MJK1/MJK2, starting with that loop of cloth above the knee, we have this sequence:

Sequence A: "loop of cloth" - "dark area a few inches in width" - "Mary's little finger".

Looking at MJK3, and starting with Mary's hand, the sequence goes:

Sequence B: "Mary's little finger" - "dark area a few inches in width" - "????"

If Sequence B is Sequence A in reverse, then ???? should equate to "loop of cloth". Notice that, in MJK1/MJK2, Mary's left thigh goes under the loop of cloth, with the knee jutting out beyond that. I think we can see Kelly's left thigh in MJK3, but it's mixed up and partly obscured by various bits of blood-soaked cloth.

I could be wrong, of course.

[Henry Flower]

I do think it's getting to the stage where this website could profitably have its own pareidolia section.

[Henry Flower]

So what is this that seems to be attached to the "bedding"? If you look at Henry's picture you can see the smaller square (orange in my picture) has a small "eye" in the middle of it. The orange square appears to have partially fallen out of the red square but looks like it fits perfectly inside of it. Not a body part or bedding in my opinion.

But Jerry, by the same token there's a tiny doll's or child's face in what remains of the poor victim's external genitalia:

[Henry Flower]

Glad we're on the same wavelength!

But now you've thrown a spanner in the works and I'm more confused than ever.

You're saying that these purples are the same thing?





Or have I misunderstood?

[jerryd]

R St D - there's no intrusion, the more the merrier!

So what is this that seems to be attached to the "bedding"? If you look at Henry's picture you can see the smaller square (orange in my picture) has a small "eye" in the middle of it. The orange square appears to have partially fallen out of the red square but looks like it fits perfectly inside of it. Not a body part or bedding in my opinion.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam you beat me to it

Glad we're on the same wavelength!

[Henry Flower]

Sam you beat me to it

[Henry Flower]

hope you dont mind the intrusion henry. i always interpreted the part in purple to be the inside of the pelvic bone, and the white scratches were made by the tip of his blade. ive been trying to line-up if that is where the inner muscles of the pelvis attached to the pelvic bone.

R St D - there's no intrusion, the more the merrier!

As it happens, what you describe is precisely what I thought for many years. I always read it as being the inner curve of the ilium of the pelvic bone.

The problem comes when you try to marry that idea up with what you see in the other photo.

And also, the ilium of the female pelvis tends to be much higher up than that. If that's her (huge!) ilium, where the heck is the rest of her pelvis? I think it must be the knee.

The ilium may be just visible. It might be the red area here:

[Sam Flynn]

hope you dont mind the intrusion henry. i always interpreted the part in purple to be the inside of the pelvic bone

That's not the pelvis, Robert. The region of Mary's gruesomely-exposed pubic arch is visible in the bottom left-hand corner of the image, and the pelvis would be located, in relation to it and allowing for perspective, just above it and to the left. If you look at MJK2, you'll see that her left hand is resting just above the pelvis in the region of the pelvic (iliac) crest, and you can just see the same hand in the same position in MJK3:



The bit with the purple scratches on Henry's snippet above seems to correspond to that loop of cloth (bedsheet?) that interposes between Kelly's left forearm and knee in the MJK1/MJK2 photos.

[Sam Flynn]

does anyone here know an experienced and qualified forensic pathologist!?!?!

Someone with a good grounding in anatomy would do just as well. I've long been interested in anatomy myself, and have studied it, almost as a "hobby", since I was a kid. Much later, as part of my degree, I took an examined module in neuroanatomy under the splendid Prof Bob Lieberman at UCL, albeit neuroanatomy is probably not going to help us much with the MJK photographs! That said, for a lay-person, I'm pretty good at telling apart my gluteus maximus from my humerus.

[Robert St Devil]

hope you dont mind the intrusion henry. i always interpreted the part in purple to be the inside of the pelvic bone, and the white scratches were made by the tip of his blade. ive been trying to line-up if that is where the inner muscles of the pelvis attached to the pelvic bone.

[Henry Flower]

Agreed on all points, Henry. There are bits of sheet, or possibly chemise - cloth, anyway - elsewhere in the frame, the folds in which have been misinterpreted as various body parts and tissues in the past.I always thought this was a scuffed part of the photographic plate.
I can't recall that they have, Henry.

There was, however, a brilliant sculpture/installation recreating the scene, which appeared in an exhibition amid some controversy a few years ago. Questions of taste aside, it was a superb piece of work which really helped in making sense of what's going on in those photographs. (I don't have any links, before anyone asks!)

Thanks for your assistance Sam.

Follow-up question: does anyone here know an experienced and qualified forensic pathologist!?!?!

[Sam Flynn]

The sheets, I assume, are the green. So you're saying that the orange is not a split femur, and therefore presumably not a femur at all.

Agreed on all points, Henry. There are bits of sheet, or possibly chemise - cloth, anyway - elsewhere in the frame, the folds in which have been misinterpreted as various body parts and tissues in the past.

And what exactly do you understand to be the purple? It looks almost as though light is coming through, or the photo has been damaged in some way, scuffed.

I always thought this was a scuffed part of the photographic plate.

Have good reproductions of the MJK photos been examined and annotated by an experienced and qualified forensic pathologist?

I can't recall that they have, Henry.

There was, however, a brilliant sculpture/installation recreating the scene, which appeared in an exhibition amid some controversy a few years ago. Questions of taste aside, it was a superb piece of work which really helped in making sense of what's going on in those photographs. (I don't have any links, before anyone asks!)

[Henry Flower]

This is the "vertically split femur" (not!) that spawned the axe/cleaver theory. We're not looking at a single, straightforward object, but a combination of elevated thigh (and possibly knee), mixed up with bits of bedding and wrinkled, blood-soaked sheets.

The sheets, I assume, are the green. So you're saying that the orange is not a split femur, and therefore presumably not a femur at all. And what exactly do you understand to be the purple? It looks almost as though light is coming through, or the photo has been damaged in some way, scuffed. I can't quite work it out.

Broader question: Have good reproductions of the MJK photos been examined and annotated by an experienced and qualified forensic pathologist?