Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[Sam Flynn]

MJK3 also appears to have been plagued by scratches - you can see some of them on the left "knee" (as it probably is). There's also some rucked-up and stained undersheeting, which confuses the picture somewhat - I can't tell whether we're looking at parts of the leg or parts of her bed-clothes in some areas.

[perrymason]

MJK3 also appears to have been plagued by scratches - you can see some of them on the left "knee" (as it probably is). There's also some rucked-up and stained undersheeting, which confuses the picture somewhat - I can't tell whether we're looking at parts of the leg or parts of her bed-clothes in some areas.

Very fair points Gareth, despite the excellent enhancements, no-on can make a silk purse from a sows ear. Its almost impossible to gain proper referencing and perspectives when she literally is strewn about the bed....and table. Shape gets lost in puddles and stains, scratches on the print become slices,...

I believe the complete scene though can tell us some things, which is what you tried to spin off...(I apologized there for sidetracking it)...I dont think we can get any where trying to be "granular" with a print that isnt clear enough to do so. Again, no fault on the enhancements at all in my opinion.

Best regards all.

[perrymason]

Ill try this one aspect, I dont think its too granular to deal with,....but it is debatable.

On her forehead, the left side, has the skin been taken off in a patch like wound? I know the wounds were described as slashes, but he does denude both legs of skin and flesh to some degree.

I wonder what this particular aspect might have been substituted with in early kills, if they were all just restricted due to time. Surely this is interesting to him....so what interested him in earlier kills I wonder....things that were not just to kill, or extract organs.

Best regards.

[Blackkat]

I read that some people question the two photos because in Mjk1 it appears that she has more skin on her left leg, than in mjk3 - where you can see that it looks as if from mid-thigh (direct center) into the inner thigh there is no skin. That would make it appear that one of the photos isn't legitimate - how can the first photo show skin well onto the inner thigh but the other it's vanished.

My opinion: I think the first photo taken or at least before the "full body" or window shot was taken was mjk3. I think the body had NOT been moved in that photo. If you look you can clearly see (in mjk3) that the skin on her left leg is barely visible - the very lightest color on the top of the thigh is her skin, which abruptly ends direct center. The rest has been skinned away.

I think after this shot was taken they had to move the body for whatever reason. That means taking out bed linens or whatever was holding the leg up in Mjk3 - and when you do that, the leg would come to rest on the bed. Left side of the left thigh down. When you do this, skin is going to move back towards the inner thigh area. Why? There isn't anything to keep it from moving over. No more skin there, or fat or muscle. Thus the skin will "sloth" over toward the inner thigh.

The reason I think mjk3 was taken first and not after the window shot? Well if we reverse moving the body and we then prop it up AFTER the way it was positioned in mjk1 the skin would not go directly down the center of thigh, knee, chin. Yes the skin would move, but not as significantly-
I think she was positioned / left as she was seen in mjk3 They later moved the leg.

....now I sure hope I got the picture names correct. I'm gathering mjk1 is from the window and mjk3 is from the room, looking towards the table. The only reason I came up with this opinion is the years I spent in school when I was studying to be an M.E. and seeing many bodies - accidents, murders etc. JMO

Here is a picture of how the skin would have moved back toward the inner thigh providing that the first picture taken was actually mjk3. (Some say the window was the first picture taken, but how do we know the "window" picture we see now and have is the FIRST window picture taken? Was there more than one shot through the window?


Picture shows how skin would have moved if the leg had been propped up and then lowered down to the bed.

[perrymason]

I read that some people question the two photos because in Mjk1 it appears that she has more skin on her left leg, than in mjk3 - where you can see that it looks as if from midthigh (direct center) into the inner thigh there is no skin. That would make it appear that one of the photos isn't legitimate - how can the first photo show skin well onto the inner thigh but the other it's vanished.

My opinion: I think the first photo taken or at least before the "full body" or window shot was taken was mjk3. I think the body had NOT been moved in that photo. If you look you can clearly see (in mjk3) that the skin on her left leg is barely visable - the very lightest color on the top of the thigh is her skin, which abruptly ends direct center. The rest has been skinned away.

I think after this shot was taken they had to move the body for whatever reason. That means taking out bed linens or whatever was holding the leg up in Mjk3 - and when you do that, the leg would come to rest on the bed. Left side of the left thigh down. When you do this, skin is going to move back towards the inner thigh area. Why? There isn't anything to keep it from moving over. No more skin there, or fat or muscle. Thsu the skin will "sloth" over toward the inner thigh.

The reason I think mjk3 was taken first and not after the window shot? Well if we reverse moving the body and we then prop it up AFTER it's been laying on the left side of the thigh the mjk3 picture wouldn't have the skin going directly down the center of thigh, knee, chin. Yes the skin would move thus showing more of the "missing" inner thigh, but I don't believe that's how the body would have been left when the killer was done. I think she was positioned as she was in mjk3 They moved the leg, and they may have placed some linens near the wall to take the picture.

....now I sure hope I got the picture names correct. I'm gathering mjk1 is from the window and mjk3 is from the room, looking towards the table. The only reason I came up with this opinion is the years I spent in school when I was studying to be an M.E. JMO

Hi BK,

Nice to see ya, liked the part I put in bold above,....we have to figure some things were done due to the space and the technology available, its just a matter of sorting out what.

edit...and youre correct, MJK1 from the window angle, MJK3, from the partition wall.

Cheers BlackKat

[Sam Flynn]

I read that some people question the two photos because in Mjk1 it appears that she has more skin on her left leg, than in mjk3 - where you can see that it looks as if from midthigh (direct center) into the inner thigh there is no skin.

That's because all you can see of her left leg in MJK1 is from foot to knee, Kat. Her left thigh points away from us into the plane of the photograph, is hugely foreshortened and partly occluded from our view.

[perrymason]

Popping out for a bit....Id appreciate anyone weighing in on the issue of her left forehead injury.

Catch up in a bit....ciao.

[Sam Flynn]

On her forehead, the left side, has the skin been taken off in a patch like wound?

The right side, I think you mean, Mike - the convention is that orientation is relative to the body, not the viewer's perspective.

If that's the side you mean, then the answer is "yes". Bond records that Kelly's eyebrows were partly removed, and that patch you can see appears to have been a slice through the skin in the region of her right eyebrow, peeling up a flap of skin. That flap then seems to have fallen more-or-less downwards across her face, and probably covers most - if not all - of her right eye.

I wonder what this particular aspect might have been substituted with in early kills... Surely this is interesting to him....

...it's just slash-and-hack-work in the main, Mike. Kelly's face ended up looking like an ice-rink after a novice skater had finished with it.

[Blackkat]

That's because all you can see of her left leg in MJK1 is from foot to knee, Kat. Her left thigh points away from us into the plane of the photograph, is hugely foreshortened and partly occluded from our view.

The she had extremely LONG legs.

What I was referring to as to top of thigh and inner thigh. Just suggesting that the skin may have moved back toward the inner thigh after being repositioned- seeing where her knee and top /center of thigh is.

[Blackkat]

Heya Michael.

Thank you for the heads up for a surety on the picture names. I would have hated to go through that post and redo it! LOL

Hi BK,

Nice to see ya, liked the part I put in bold above,....we have to figure some things were done due to the space and the technology available, its just a matter of sorting out what.

edit...and youre correct, MJK1 from the window angle, MJK3, from the partition wall.

Cheers BlackKat

[Sam Flynn]

What I was referring to as to top of thigh and inner thigh.

The "top of thigh" you have there is Kelly's left knee-cap, Kat, and the "inner thigh" is actually part of the left calf. It looks so misshapen because her left calf sustained a particularly severe wound. Dr Bond: "The left calf showed a long gash through skin and tissues to the deep muscles, reaching from the knee to 5 inches above the ankle"

[Blackkat]

Sam,

Take a look at her other leg, where the knee is, you can see all the way down to her ankle. Judge the distance. Go from her ankle up on her left leg. Same distance. If her knee was up that far, then her femur had to be massively broken because of where the bend is.

You can't see the gash from knee to ankle in the picture. That just means that someone got sliced in that area. How does that factor in where her knee is located in the picture? A long gash is anything over 5 inches - which we can't see - so you'll have to explain to me how that has anything to do with the length of her legs. I understand that camera angle can have a lot to do with what our eyes can and can't see thus making things look mishapen, but using her other leg to judge distance and clearly seeing a kneecap, cinches it for me.

Unless maybe she was one of those people that had a knee cap in the wrong place, thus the case it solved an italian murdered MJK "Break the knee caps"

[Sam Flynn]

Take a look at her other leg, where the knee is, you can see all the way down to her ankle. Judge the distance.

Kat - you have to account for perspective and the lens used.

If her knee was up that far, then her femur had to be massively broken because of where the bend is.

Her femur wasn't broken, but her left thigh was at a crazy angle in relation to her body. Dr Bond: "The legs were wide apart, the left thigh at right angles to the trunk". Because we're looking at the body practically at a right angle in MJK1, the left thigh is extending away from us into the plane of the photograph, and practically invisible from our POV.

[Sam Flynn]

Kat - you have to account for perspective and the lens used.

By way of illustration, the green line goes from kneecap to kneecap...



If you look at the rest of both lower legs, you'll see that they're fully in proportion - once perspective is taken into account.

[perrymason]

Thanks for weighing in Sam, and I see where you mean...but I suppose I should have said more towards the centre of her forehead actually, the shaded wound.

The fascination with whats underneath flesh is evident here, so that may have been purposeful too...who knows.

The suggested metaphor?....he strips Mary Kelly of all of her surface charms, takes her "love" away, her warmth and kindness in the form of her heart, and leaves only the raw meat that he felt this woman now was to him. That can be seen by the way he uses a breast, a surface charm, as a pedestal for her head.

Thoughts?

Cheers Sam, all.