Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[Midnyte]

SPE; Thank you for your reply. In the Jack the Ripper Companion,and other publications, the Eddowes picture is not full length,which is why I was happy to have one here on Casebook to look at.

Likewise, the Mary Kelly photo is often cut off at the top of Mary's head, whereas in the album there is a tiny bit more of that area. After examining available pictures in such detail, even that eighth of an inch can reveal more information.

Are you saying that the stripe effect is from the scanning process, and not on the actual picture? Doesn't this mean that the case for the item being fabric simply because it was striped has no merit?

There may be others who agree, or are at least open minded about the subject, but who will not post because of the dismissive attitude of the others.

It is not fair to pass the verdict before hearing some more evidence, or letting others present their case. I have not posted for several years due to this attitude of "We think it's this and you are wasting your time here".
However, I have been busy over those years doing my homework too.

So, if anyone is interested, I would encourage them to post on the appropriate board, as a continuation of this thread about high-res photos.
There can be discussions of "for" or "against", without the ridicule please.

This may encourage some fresh observations, rather than the stale status quo that this investigation has settled into.

Thanks again,
Joan (Midnyte)

[Ally]

Two things:

1. I find it interesting that Midnyte claims that there was no mention of a bolster on the table in the police reports to be definitive proof that there was indeed no bolster on the table. This dismissive claim is made despite the fact that in the preceding paragraph, she claims to see a bunched up doily or table runner on the table. Now where precisely was this table runner mentioned in the police reports??

2. The striping that I believe Stewart is referring to is NOT the same striping that people are referring to when discussing the pattern of the fabric.

[Christine]

There are at least four sets of stripes in these pictures.

The first set is on the bolster, or "crocodile" as seen in the upper left of MJK3. These stripes follow the folds of the fabric, and most people believe the object is a bolster or coverlet or something similar. These stripes are much clearer in the hi-res photo, and are not an artifact of the scan.

The second set is on the table in the upper middle of MJK3, which look like a striped tablecloth, and do appear to extend over the edge of the table. But they might be something else, including the boards of the table itself.

The third set is on the leg in foreground, which to some people looks like the pattern of a stocking. That contradicts the police report, but it's not impossible that the police report left them out. These are most likely some sort of artifact, either of the photographic or reproduction process. You can see them close up in post #39 above, and they don't look regular enough to be a stocking to me.

The four set is in post #234 above, and these are more or less vertical stripes that cover the entire album page. These are some sort of artifact of the scanning and/or book reproduction. This is the only place you can see those stripes. These are the stripes Stewart was talking about.

[Midnyte]

Ally; I stated that there was no mention of the word "bolster" in any report, because there isn't. This alone does not constitute proof that it wasn't there or was some other fabric item, but it doesn't mean that we can make up our own words to add to the evidence either.
The tablecloth is easily picked up on a close scan because it has a repeating pattern, one of small flowers and fine crochet diamonds in a linear pattern.
So don't put words in my mouth, I am prepared to back up what I say,with painstaking reconstruction of piece by piece matching of flesh to body.
If I was a crime photographer, what would I be trying to fit into this picture that is relevant?
Let's lose that "B" word for a while until we know what we are talking about.
Thanks
Midnyte

[Christine]

There's been a tremendous amount of discussion as to whether this thing that looks exactly like a bolster, pillow, or coverlet is in fact a bolster, pillow, or coverlet or something more interesting. If you haven't looked at these already, I recommend these threads:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1977&highlight=bolster

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=100&highlight=bolster

I'll just point out that in the higher quality reproductions that have become available it looks much more like striped mattress ticking stuffed with something soft and less like flesh than ever.

[Sam Flynn]

The third set is on the leg in foreground, which to some people looks like the pattern of a stocking. That contradicts the police report, but it's not impossible that the police report left them out.

The latter, if anything, Chris. If the reports had said "she was NOT wearing a stocking", then that would be a contradiction. As it is, it may well be a simple omission - presumably because the reports aren't exhaustive inventories. For example, Bond's report doesn't tell us the fate of Kelly's pancreas or (urinary) bladder.

[JSchmidt]

Has there ever been an answer to where the flesh from the thigh ended up? It seems to have been a very big chunk. What makes it really hard to distinguish details are the many different shapes in the dark parts of the photographs. I really have a problem to differentiate between the body of the victim and blooddrenched fabric.

[Christine]

Hi Sam.

I can't "see" the stockings myself. If anything it looks like she is wearing the remnants of drawers that end just below the knees. But the consensus seems to be that this is an illusion caused by the garter or blood drip that looks like a garter. My feeling is that the stockings are an illusion also, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

On the other hand, I can easily see the stripes on the bolster in the hi-res versions, and it will take a lot of convincing for me to believe that the thing is anything except some sort of stuffed fabric object. It might be a coat with a heavy lining, which would be interesting, but it looks very much like a bolster to me, which doesn't give much helpful information. She may just have gone to bed without it, or if she went to bed with it, the killer may have moved it, or maybe she was "working," in which case, it would have been in the way, so she threw it on the table herself.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Christine,

I wasn't intending to open up another stocking/bolster (etc) discussion - God forbid! - just pointing out that the surviving reports of the Kelly murder scene aren't exhaustive.

[Midnyte]

Hi all; I agree with Jane Coram's observation that there is a knit/purl design on the right leg, and perhaps the black line is simply a stripe knitted into the pattern.
In between the right foot, partly covered, and the liver mass, there is an inverted "V" shaped item, that I think may be the other stocking, as it seems to be thin and long, and starts under the bare foot, under the liver and up into the V shape.
The cleanest thing that Mary owned was supposed to be her white apron, and I think that we are seeing the apron fanned out under the right calf , flowing down from the rolled up coat, as though she had taken off her outerwear and apron as soon as coming home for the night. This would mean that the coat or whatever was already there for the mutilation, or her leg would not be on top of it.
Any thoughts?
Midnyte (Joan)

[Brenda]

As someone pointed out above, what happened to all that flesh that was cut away? And why would the photographer move the bed and basically zoom right over MJK's body so he could get a great shot of a bolster?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Brenda,

As someone pointed out above, what happened to all that flesh that was cut away?

The flesh is on the table (in front of the "bolster"), as far as I can see - most of it (but not quite all) is visible in this shot, partially circled in green:



The area of that part of the table could easily have covered a couple of square feet. Think how much belly-pork a butcher could get onto a tray of that size, especially if it were heaped up.

And why would the photographer move the bed and basically zoom right over MJK's body so he could get a great shot of a bolster?

(a) It's not known for certain that the photographer moved the bed; besides (b) the focus of the shot seems strongest in the region of the pelvic mutilations, as shown by the red "X" in the image above. The table, its contents, and the background seem to be over-exposed in comparison.

[jmenges]

And as has been said many times, these are only two of what was very likely a set of 4 or 5 photos, all taken from multiple angles. It's just that the shot across including the bolster in the background is the only alternate view to surface. No special importance should be given this angle over others that were probably photographed.

JM

[Supe]

Jonathan,

Not sure I quite agree with you above. It would nice to think that we might someday stumble upon several more shots from different angles, but considering the exposure time and cumbrous equipment I would guess there may only have been one additional picture (and I do hope I'm wrong).

But, these were not SOC photographers working to provide forensic evidence, so one wonders how many more shots they would have considered. Pethaps one of her and upper torso and head? I don't know.

The problem, however, is that these were available light shots that would have required exposure times measured in minutes. Ideally, the photographer would have wanted to take three exposures from each angle--one under his guess and one over--but may have been satisfied with just two.

But, again, bering in mind the equipment available and the critical nature of the focusing for such cameras, I think Sam is quite right that because the open absominal passage is in such sharp focus then that is why--for reasons known only to them--the shot was arranged as it was.

As I said earlier, I hope I am wrong and there are a dozen more plates out there only awaiting discovery.

But in the meantime, what jolly fun we have had arguing about the bolster in the background.

Don.

[perrymason]

If I'm not mistaken Don, on the matter of images, the slides that were preserved and we have seen were numbered...of a total of 6 I believe. Im not sure whether MJK1 is actually 1 of 6, and MJK3 is #3 of 6, but I do recall at some point reading about the numbering. Anyone else?

To my mind they captured the left side, and an angle across the right, ...so a shot down the bed and one up the bed would I think be obvious choices as well. If it was 6, Im not sure what the 2 extra would be.... maybe they were table contents specific.

Best regards