Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Simon,

The image might have been "touched up", or altered/damaged in some way, but I don't think that the entire leg was painted in.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The thing to remember about the right leg in MJK3 is that it's been painted onto the photograph.



This is approximately where the camera would have been that took MJK3.

The two pics don't jive.



Regards,

Simon

[Jane Coram]

Hi Sam,

I do think you're right and some of them are scratches (especially the lower ones as some of them are at a different angle).

I think that the lines are far too symmetrical to be scratches though.......the likliehood of scratches accidentally following the curve of the leg, spaced equally apart, seems unlikely, and I really do think that the stitches are visible there, especially towards the top left of the image.

Of course, we all have to admit that anything we think we can see on these pictures has to be purely subjective, because of the quality and age of the images, so we can only say what we think we see, but knitted stitches are a bit more banal than horned demons.

Also if we look at the version on the left, the contrast is considerably greater, than the one on the right. The black areas on the shot are very intense on the left hand image, and I think that any scratches on the print would be be more visible rather than less pronounced wouldn't they? (Haven't got a clue if that's right or not, just taking a wild guess there. ) It just seems to me that the image on the right is just showing far more detail than the one on the left.

Logically though, if she is wearing a stocking on the leg -- and I think we both feel that is the case -- then it would be reasonable to be able to see the texture on the fabric.

I just wish we could get a really clear shot of that area, but I suspect that this is the best we will get.

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[Blackkat]

I can certainly see how looking at the photo on the left would cause someone to say she had hairy legs because it does look like little black hairs to me. Did the women even shave their legs then? I didn't think they did.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Janey,

To my eyes, at least, those marks might just be scratches on the plate - rather than the weave of a fabric. I say that, because some of them appear to continue off the leg and seem to "hang" in mid-air.

[Jane Coram]

Thanks for posting that Chris,

I think that the reason we might be getting different views here of the same area on the photograph is that we are looking at two versions of the print that are differing in quality and seem to show different things.

It is possible that one of the enlarged sections of knee came from Don Rumblelow's print and one from the Evans/Skinner archive, or just that one is a better copy of the same print. If we put the two side by side though, I think it makes a vast difference to how we interpret what we are seeing there.

It does show though, how hard it is to interpret things from the photos as we are so reliant on the versions we have.

Bestest

Jane

xxxxx

[Sam Flynn]

I really don't know why we are still arguing about stockings etc. The attending doctor clearly stated to the inquest that THE VICTIM WAS NAKED EXCEPT FOR HER CHEMISE.

...one of the attending doctors also omitted to mention where her pancreas and urinary bladder ended up, but they were assuredly removed, Sara. I doubt that Bagster Phillips would have bothered to add "...oh, and one knee-length stocking", especially as "nakedness" might arguably be considered relevant only from the genitals up.

[Sara]

I really don't know why we are still arguing about stockings etc. The attending doctor clearly stated to the inquest that THE VICTIM WAS NAKED EXCEPT FOR HER CHEMISE. Nothing in the images contradicts this, and all his evidence was very precise.

Imo the circle around the leg might have been JtRs first attempt at a cut into the flesh above the knee, before he changed his mind and decided to take off the flesh down the tibia instead. Wasn't the right arm detached? - maybe he was experimenting with taking off the lower leg, then decided against ti?

The little round mark (and it is little in real terms! - ie not blown up) is almost certainly contamination of the neg/print, either a small curled hair (it could be a beard hair) or the remains of a drop of water or developing fluid.

As I've said before I used to be a picture researcher and I had a lot of experience dealing with very old prints - I worked mainly on history books. You can't expect the kind of clean and clear images we are used to now - a lot of them got very contaminated in the development process, with dust, scratches and fluid ont hem. this is espcially true of 'copies of copies' - which many prints of the era are. Very few prints are/were 'vintage' ie made from the original glass negs

Ok.....so we know there are reports that say the window or windows were taken out at some point. I have no real opinion on one or the other, but I dont think MJK1 required that. Moving the larger sitting table might allow for enough room there. I also think that there must have been an MJK2, and an MJK4...at least....one from the foot of the bed, one looking down it. MJK3 seems overly ambitious artistry if it wasnt just one of 4 compulsory angles.

Best regards.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

I hope, that my posts aren't making tricks anymore!

So;
"Hello you all!

So far the following thing pointed out by perrymason is the most likely one, that really could have taken place; MJK put her left hand on front to protect her face!

But then; why did JtR almost cut off the right arm?!

With the dressing/undressing before things started, it's impossible to make any definite conclusions!"

All the best
Jukka

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Simon!

Maybe it's because of the Freemasons conspiracy!

All the best
Jukka

[diana]

Lets not forget what the weather was like and how poorly that room was heated. If I recall correctly it got down pretty close to freezing that night.

I lived 18 years in Wisconsin. It got extremely cold there in the winter and there was many a night when I wore socks to bed to keep my feet warm.

[Pippin Joan]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;56143]As I posted on the pre-crash boards, the "neatly folded clothes" story appears to have been a mid/late 20th century invention.
[QUOTE]

I agree with Sam on this. I think the story got mixed up with the presence of folded laundry from Kelly's friend, some of which was burned in the fireplace, e.g., the bonnet. Possibly Kelly's dress and underwear was draped on a chair, hence the idea of "folding" rather than just dropped on the floor. I can't see her going to too much trouble when she was so drunk, but she has been described as somewhat fastidious. Even drunk people have habits.

[Sam Flynn]

Do we have a reference that confirms that the "folded" clothes were indeed Marys?

I don't think we actually have a contemporary reference that says the clothes were folded at all, Mike. They were "by the side of the bed, as if they had been laid down in the ordinary manner", according to the Star. Then there's that (somewhat disputed) illustration in Reynolds' News, showing what appears to be a coat draped over a chair between the bed and the fire.

As I posted on the pre-crash boards, the "neatly folded clothes" story appears to have been a mid/late 20th century invention.


BTW, all - this is well beyond the topic of the MJK photos! If someone wants to spawn a "Kelly's Clothes" thread, be my guest

[Chris Scott]

Hi Jane
As requested...
Chris