Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[Jane Coram]

Hi Julian,

This has been dealt with before, but I don't think it was on this forum, so I'll post what the conclusions were.

If you look closely you'll see that it's actually an optical illusion caused by small pieces and slithers of flesh lying over the bone, making it look like a break. It's quite hard to see on some of the copies of the photo, but if you look at the high resolution copy, it is quite clear. It really does give the impression of a break though, so I can see why anyone would point it out.

Hi Tenth Bell,

I think that we really have to stick to the doctors reports when dealing with all of the victims, although of course there is some conflicting testimony here and there which makes interpretation difficult and open to discussion.

In this case though, Bond was quite clear that the heart was absent and nowhere near the body - so I'm afraid it is an optical illusion. There are so many imperfections in the photo that it's almost impossible to differentiate objects and shapes in the dark areas. The most likely option is that the killer took it away with him.

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

[blackfingernail]

I know its a bit late to add my twopennies worth but i have been archiving the past threads and catching up on previous posts, me being a newcomer to the forum.

Just want to add that I worked in the art dept of a newspaper in the 1980's and 1990s and many of the older mono prints from the library were retouched by hand with white and black watered down ink/gouache to give more contrast on the old black and white litho presses. As the apple mac came in we did it digitally, but when you see the original prints they can be quite crude, of course the old mono pictures in the newspapers from before the 1980's were pretty crappy with i think only a resolution of about 70 dpi.

The white lines on MJK right look exactly how a retoucher would try and give some substance to pretty murky image, of course some were better than others and this may be a case of poor craftsmanship.

[Stephen Thomas]

I worked in the art dept of a newspaper in the 1980's and 1990s and many of the older mono prints from the library were retouched by hand with white and black watered down ink/gouache to give more contrast on the old black and white litho presses. As the apple mac came in we did it digitally, but when you see the original prints they can be quite crude, of course the old mono pictures in the newspapers from before the 1980's were pretty crappy with i think only a resolution of about 70 dpi.

The white lines on MJK right look exactly how a retoucher would try and give some substance to pretty murky image, of course some were better than others and this may be a case of poor craftsmanship.

Thanks for sharing that, Nail, and welcome.

As far as I can see the full body MJK photo has been modified only slightly around the left leg area whereas the reverse angle photo has been tampered with something rotten due to the near elements being out of focus on the original negative.

[ghoulstonstreet]

Where Are Her Eyes?

In the many books written on the subject there arestatements saying that Mary Kelly could be identified only by her eyes. I'd like to know if anybody feels confident that they can in fact see her eyes. I've never been able to, turning the picture sideways and everything. Can you point them out or forward a photo with arrows on it? Thanks

[DVV]

Hi Ghoulstonstreet,

from Barnett (inquest) :

"I identify her by the ear and the eyes."

Perhaps of help are Dew's memoirs also :

"All this was horrifying enough, but the mental picture of that sight which remains most vividly with me is the poor woman's eyes. They were wide open, and seemed to be staring straight at me with a look of terror."

Amitiés,
David

[Hunter]

Dew's memoirs:
"All this was horrifying enough, but the mental picture of that sight which remains most vividly with me is the poor woman's eyes. They were wide open, and seemed to be staring straight at me with a look of terror."

As we speculate and debate about Mary Kelly's death, indeed, all of them, let us keep that quote in mind.

God be with them. No one else was.

[ghoulstonstreet]

Eyes?

As we speculate and debate about Mary Kelly's death, indeed, all of them, let us keep that quote in mind.

God be with them. No one else was.

That's just it. I don't see any eyes, wide open or otherwise. Can anybody else?

[ghoulstonstreet]

The Eyes Have it?

That's just it. I don't see any eyes, wide open or otherwise. Can anybody else?

Seriously Folks, I can't see any eyes on this poor battered head. Does anybody see eyes, wide open with terror or otherwise? I've been turning and twisting the photo for 25 years.

[LongLiz]

Thanks Chris, even though it's really sad...

[Madam Red]

Still no joy, but check out this from the Casebook Archive. The first post on that thread contains some superb reconstructions by David Shields, which are pretty much spot on as far as I'm concerned.

Whoa. Thanks for linking us to this.

[ghoulstonstreet]

Where are Mary's eyes?

Seriously Folks, I can't see any eyes on this poor battered head. Does anybody see eyes, wide open with terror or otherwise? I've been turning and twisting the photo for 25 years.

Please, if anybody who has the computer ability to add arrows, point out where Mary's eyes are. It is said her eyes were open. But where are they? It is said that she could be identified by her eyes, but where are they? Thanks

[gary]

In the many books written on the subject there arestatements saying that Mary Kelly could be identified only by her eyes. I'd like to know if anybody feels confident that they can in fact see her eyes. I've never been able to, turning the picture sideways and everything. Can you point them out or forward a photo with arrows on it? Thanks

Hi all,
Don't quite get why the fuss over the assertion that Mary was recognised
only by her eyes, though the eyes could not be seen because of overhanging
flesh.
All it would take is to use a finger/implement to pull up anything obscuring
them to reveal the eyeballs, which I guess is what they were referring to.
After all, flesh covering the eyes looks pretty much the same on everyone.
Doesn't it?
Gary.

[jason_c]

Hi all,
Don't quite get why the fuss over the assertion that Mary was recognised
only by her eyes, though the eyes could not be seen because of overhanging
flesh.
All it would take is to use a finger/implement to pull up anything obscuring
them to reveal the eyeballs, which I guess is what they were referring to.
After all, flesh covering the eyes looks pretty much the same on everyone.
Doesn't it?
Gary.

Thats far too sensible and obvious to satisfy some on here.

[Slimsid2000]

This is somewhat colourized and may help make it a little clearer still.

[Tenth Bell]

la chemise...

Someone said recently, on another JTR forum, that despite the Bond report indicating the decedent was 'lying naked on the bed' - Mary was indeed not naked (by today's standards, or at least my definition on 'naked') but instead, it was suggested that the term be taken in context, having been penned by a Victorian Gentleman - a Doctor, a medico - that by 'naked' it was really meant that the female parts were exposed and that Mary's gown was "pushed up and out of the way."
It was also stated on the same thread, that her chemise was almost completely off except for a portion which was pushed up onto her shoulders.
Well, I am looking for "2nd opinions" on this forum - but have a look at MJK1 below: - Mary's chemise (albeit, maybe also bedsheets in some areas) is well-visualized in or on areas of the victim other than just her shoulders. If I have to have a coloring session a little later this evening - I will.

I would also like some of you to picture in your mind MJK3, and how the thick fabric which made up some of Mary's garments (?was this still the chemise?) can be seen (for lack of better words, clearly) saturated in her blood and probably containing dissected viscera, over her LEFT THIGH and BENT KNEE, and also in portions between her legs and muddled, bloodsoaked, onto the abdominopelvic region of her body. In the photo, much of this material, of course, appears dark - or black - as it is soaked with blood. But I contend that some portions of the chemise can be seen clearly in areas other than over the shoulders. And how could we possibly know whether or not Mary, in addition to her typical bedtime clothing, possibly went to bed in a heavy skirt or two - as it was November, and the air would have been quite chilly - and some have said that she went to bed without lighting the fire (because, the reasoning says, the fire would have been readily visible from across the court, where a straight sightline would have been viewing the the windows of #13 at an obtuse angle, straight ahead at the fire...
I welcome your thoughts
Nice to be here, everyone!
Chris