Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

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

[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.

[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?

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

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.