Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Simon!

I hope you can tell then:

What is that thing inside the circle?!


All the best
Jukka

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Simon!

And the other one!

All the best
Jukka

[Sam Flynn]

I hope you can tell then:

What is that thing inside the circle?!

Several kilos of fatty flesh, Jukka... "The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table" (Dr Bond).

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Simon!

And the other one!

The same, from a different angle.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Sam!

Thanks a lot, though - in fact - the question was for Simon!

All the best
Jukka

(PS Simon; those are even clearer on Chris's copies!)

[Sam Flynn]

Aahhh! I see now where you were coming from, Jukka

[perrymason]

After seeing Chris' enhanced MJK1 I found myself quickly spellbound by all the comments that followed. I even, after putting my glasses on to have a good look at detail I must have missed before, but still couldn't see what others saw, went to hunt down the magnifying glass that I knew we had in the house, to see what everyone was posting back and forth about. I'm afraid I still can't see what others can see.

What I see (from the close up image of Mary Kelly's garter particularly) is something I saw when I was nursing. A cut made either by a serrated blade or by 'sawing', with blanching on either side of the wound. It's not something I've forgotten, so perhaps that's why I see a resemblance.

To explain, clinically, a couple of self-harmers I saw at the facility where I last worked, one had sliced her thigh with a bread knife, another had sawn back and forth on his arm with a carving knife. Same appearance. Similar blanching.

Yes, well. Apologies for the graphics.

I do disagree with Dr Philips now, however, because from what I can see in the enhanced photo, Mary Kelly had just a sheet around her.

The one thing that continues to strike me, though, no matter how many times I look at the Miller's Court crime scene (MJK1) and no matter how enhanced, my interpretation is that whoever the perpetrator was, they left Mary Kelly looking 'peaceful' -- not peaceful, but 'peaceful'. Does anyone else see that as well?

And I cannot see a crocodile! All I see is flesh in the foreground on the table beside the bed, and a bolster or wrapped up bedding behind it, given the particular photo.

Good post Lyn, and the bolster is the crocodile

The part of your post I took special note of are your comments on her pose,..because since we know he manipulated her body and limbs to some degree, and since we know her left arm was not there a little earlier, nor was her breast under her head, ...we have to conclude that in this case the killer created a scene for himself or for others. Since Mary's upper body is slightly tilted toward the windows, and her head is facing in that direction, I would think its for the killer while he left, or someone as they entered, or looked in.

If this was someone who was just trying to shock, they succeeded. And at this point in time any "shocking" murder without a known suspect would be Jack the Rippers by default. A man close to Mary might go unnoticed.

Cheers.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jukka,

The two mounds on the bedside table in MJK1 and MJK3 are not the same. But Sam Flynn, who knows everything about anything [he is the living embodiment of Wikipedia] and can condense the most words into the smallest idea, will undoubtedly draw you a complicated diagram to demonstrate that I am sorely mistaken and in need of Ripper rehabilitation.

Look carefully [I mean very carefully] at both pictures. Both bedside table mounds are made up of household detritus which bear no resemblance to parts of the human body. Also, a careful examination of MJK3 will reveal artifacts which have nothing to do with Baphomets, pixel aberrations or "pareidolia"—that most patronizing of reasons for why you can see things which more enlightened people know are not there.

Come to think of it, what is that thing between the legs in MJK1 which looks like the Maltese Falcon? Which human organ is that shape and size?

Cue Sam Flynn. He'll explain everything.

Regards,

Simon

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Simon!

Well, the bolster is a bolster!

The only definite household objects besides that one are the sink and a package of clothing under the bed! Even on the Chris's versions one can see ( at least this one! ) that the rest are pieces of meat. Though possibly the one beside the bolster might be covered with a sheet of some kind. But I wouldn't exclude the possibility of abdomen!

I don't mean to brag with my working life, but; after working even in meat industry one can probably make a pretty good difference with household objects and pieces cut from a body!

I don't remember if it was Sam, who said the "falcon" to be a liver. But that has been the suggestion, anyway!

All the best
Jukka

[j.r-ahde]

Hello perrymason!

I think, that the main purpose was to scare the first viewer. There has been talks about the ritual meanings, but I don't believe in anything like that anymore (Sweet dreams, you freemason members here! ).

How about this point; the left hand was there, because he possibly cut the face last?

All the best
Jukka

[Stephen Thomas]

Just out of interest here are the two photos side by side with MJK1 turned upside down and showing the same area as MJK2

[Remy.russell]

I'm so glad I have a strong stomach for these sorts of things. :|

I see a garder where someone saw blood. I dunno, it just looks more like a grament than a mutilation to me.

In MJK2, it looks like someone moved her and added clothing. Her arm looks like its higher up on her chest and in MJK1, her legs are bear.

[Stephen Thomas]

A question....

Why does Mary's left leg on MJK 1 appear to be untouched and smooth as a baby's bottom whereas on MJK 2 it appears stripped of flesh?

[Sam Flynn]

The two mounds on the bedside table in MJK1 and MJK3 are not the same.

To me they are - but the shots are taken from very different angles. I wouldn't expect a pile of flesh to look exactly the same from the front as it would from the back.

Come to think of it, what is that thing between the legs in MJK1 which looks like the Maltese Falcon?

Between the feet? The liver, like the doctors said.

[perrymason]

A question....

Why does Mary's left leg on MJK 1 appear to be untouched and smooth as a baby's bottom whereas on MJK 2 it appears stripped of flesh?

Hi Stephen,

For what its worth, the second shot back acros her empty midsection is called MJK3..we have reason to suspect that more shots missing accounts for the numbering conventions. I think I recall reading here that someone cited a note on some document that indicated how many pictures were taken, but perhaps only these two plates were developed.

Its because he only stripped the inside of her left thigh, down to past her knee, but left the outfacing part intact. Its quite something when you think of all the bizarre things that were done to that woman. You can see light cast through it, so likely only the flesh is left.

I think this puts the stocking/garter question in better focus, both legs were mutilated dramatically, how could a stocking remain around a leg that has no inside thigh flesh? It couldnt, unless it was rolled back onto the leg after he mutilated a portion of it.

Best regards