Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[Stewart P Evans]

Bolsters

Looks like a bolster to me. Except that it's narrower towards the ends, and the bolsters I have seen are uniform in width and cylindrical. However I did a little research, and apparently bolsters then tended to be home-made. I can see Kelly grabbing some material, sewing it down one side and along the bottom, stuffing some old rags in and then sewing down the other two ends, so you'd get something that's narrower at the ends and full in the middle, as this seems to be. And also you'd get something that isn't particularly uniform in content, which would produce the kind of folds in the covering that this seems to have. As well, you'd be able to throw it on a table and it would be soft enough to lie like a crescent. A really well-made bolster wouldn't fold like that, it would be too stiff and it would fall off the table.

The bolsters I can remember using in the 50s were filled with feathers and would fold like that.

[Chava]

Looks like a bolster to me. Except that it's narrower towards the ends, and the bolsters I have seen are uniform in width and cylindrical. However I did a little research, and apparently bolsters then tended to be home-made. I can see Kelly grabbing some material, sewing it down one side and along the bottom, stuffing some old rags in and then sewing down the other two ends, so you'd get something that's narrower at the ends and full in the middle, as this seems to be. And also you'd get something that isn't particularly uniform in content, which would produce the kind of folds in the covering that this seems to have. As well, you'd be able to throw it on a table and it would be soft enough to lie like a crescent. A really well-made bolster wouldn't fold like that, it would be too stiff and it would fall off the table.

I know that there have been some studies on the light available in room 13, the courtyard as relates to times of day, and the photos themselves,.. Simon Wood has some of that in his dissertation here and I believe Sam Flynn has done some sun position in the window by time of day research. The first photos as per the records were'nt taken until after 1:30pm, so that would be around the time for the maximum light available that day being present, Im not sure how the court was aligned, so I dont know at what time the maximum light for the court would be.

Ive never had any issues with the item in question being a bedding accessory myself, so the lines never were a big deal for me personally.

Cheers all.

[Christine]

Hi Supe and Christine, Christine thank you for clarifying the source of some of the stripes in the crime scene photos. In the past I have suggested that the light coming in from the larger window, which had many panes, would cast shadows on the area as the sun was going lower in the sky.
As Supe mentions, the long exposure needed to capture the scene in the dark room would cause a double or triple shadow effect. The only thing moving in the room was the light, and the light will follow the line of the object, whereas fabric follows the line of the bias and bends sharply.
Do you think this could be a factor in the stripe appearance?

Joan

Hi Joan.

It would have to be a very, very long exposure for the sun to have moved enough to move the shadows a centimeter or so. None of the various photographic processes that might have been used would have called for more than about 30 seconds of exposure. And as the sun's motion would be smooth, you'd see gradient stripes--stripes that go from bright, to dim smoothly, then jump back to bright. It could have been some sort of artificial light that was knocked after 15 seconds. But even that would produce doubly lit/singly lit/unlit bands, as the image would be characterized by three different types of lighting.

On the other hand, it is possible to imagine some sort of lamp that would cast striped light. Some lanterns with shutters could do it. But surely then the stripes would extend to the table. I also see the stripes make a 90 degree turn in the hi-res version. I can make them out in the area just past the large fold or crease or turn behind the "crocodile head."

[Stewart P Evans]

Object

The object on the table -

[Midnyte]

Hi Supe and Christine, Christine thank you for clarifying the source of some of the stripes in the crime scene photos. In the past I have suggested that the light coming in from the larger window, which had many panes, would cast shadows on the area as the sun was going lower in the sky.
As Supe mentions, the long exposure needed to capture the scene in the dark room would cause a double or triple shadow effect. The only thing moving in the room was the light, and the light will follow the line of the object, whereas fabric follows the line of the bias and bends sharply.
Do you think this could be a factor in the stripe appearance?

Joan

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.