Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[Jane Coram]

Hi Blakkat,

From what we think we can see there, it is very consistent with knitted stockings/overknee socks during the Victorian period. They haven't actually changed much in their history......bit like crocodiles. Lol.

Great that you are getting some pictures of them to post -- I think they will be very helpful, if they don't come through I've got some pics somewhere that I can put up, but I'm sure theirs will be better and I don't know where I've put mine!

I think (if my memory serves me) that when this was being discussed before that several posters suggested that the garter was possibly a make shift one, and that it might well have started higher up the leg, but ended by rolling itself down the leg to below the knee at some time during the course of the night. This would probably have been more likely if hyperthetically Mary was trying to get it off, but was too drunk/ tired to manage it.

I have to say, that if it is a garter then it slipping down over a period is a distinct possibility. Many moons ago, in the 1960's I used to wear over the knee knitted sock/stockings, almost identical to the one I believe we are seeing in the photo, and used an elastic band to keep them up as I had such skinny legs and the bloody things were always ending up round my ankles! Normally though, you are right, it would have been worn above the knee.

Just as an aside, some of the posters that thought that Mary did have a sock/stocking on her right leg, suggested that the other stocking was draped over the rolled up bedding behind Mary's right leg. Looking at the photo, I can see why that has been suggested, and can't disagree with it.


I still do feel quite strongly that she is wearing a stocking on her right leg....not only because the knitted stitches are clearly visible, especially over what would be the knee area......and because just above the knee in the larger photo, (MJK2) you can see the shredded remnants of the stocking at the top, dangling down underneath the denuded femur. That can't be skin, as skin doesn't fold and shred like that when cut. Whatever it is, it's fabric.

I'm sure that some of the other posters will remember the discussion better than me and be able to refresh our memories.

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[Jane Coram]

Blow up of knee of MJK2?

Hi Chris,

I don't know if it's possible, but you couldn't put an enhanced close up of the knee area in MJK2 up could you?

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[perrymason]

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

We have some shirts unaccounted for, left by Maria, and I believe some other odds and ends including the Pilot Jacket, isnt it more likely that anything folded was done so, or left as such, when Maria was there that afternoon?

It doesnt seem to me like she was very wide awake when undressing, and I suppose ritual habits or something of the sort might have her folding things mechanically...but I think with whats left on her person it doesnt indicate she completed undressing....so she was either halted, or fell asleep.

Best regards all.

[Blackkat]

Jane,
Heya good points, but if the makeshift garter would have come down sometime during the night it wouldn't have stayed in the place where some think it may be in the photo. Thus is would have not held up a stocking or sock that well. Also to have it in the place on the leg shown in the photo it would have had to have been tied way too tight for comfort.

There is no color difference between her skin and what is suppose to be a sock or stocking. One leg is bare and matches in colour the other leg. If there is a sock of any kind why isn't there a difference in heigth (being that it may have been wool and a thicker sock)between what might be something tied around her leg and where the sock is at? I can look at my socks that are dress socks for slacks and there is still a difference between my leg and where the sock begins.

Now I'm not saying you aren't correct - heck no, because I just would like to know is there one or not, I'm not trying to discredit you, I'm just going back and forth with all the theories to try and find out. I rather like the idea that there is a difference of opinion it helps us think.

[claire]

Difficult working from photos like this, but in both the enhanced and unenhanced versions (or copies of copies of versions) that I have seen, the edges of that black hoop around the right leg seem too poorly defined for it to be a garter, makeshift or otherwise. It doesn't look like it stands in any relief to the surface below it, which one would expect (particularly if it was a bootlace or similar, which it would most likely be, given the width of it...)

I'm also, with due respect, not convinced that there is a pattern from wool there along the lower leg: those striations look like they could be an artefact of the print or copy quality. There doesn't seem to be a gradation in colouring between lower leg and the knee that one might expect to find if she was wearing socks/stockings. The smears that were mooted to be consistent with those we might expect to find on fabric are also evident in type with those on the wall...I think they could, more readily, be consistent with smearing on a smooth surface.

To my mind, it just looks like a long drip of blood that could have found its way there through a number of means (ante- or perimortem severing of the femoral artery; splashes from a moving knife; large open area immediately to the rear of it). Wasn't this proposed on another thread a few months ago?

Fantastic work on the enhancements here; I'm very impressed (if a little unsettled).

[Blackkat]

where the arrow is above, is skin. It's ripped, there isn't any fat beneath it to hold the shape. The dark coloring is consistent with the dark bloodied area around the femur bone. The light area is still the same color as her skin. The dangling skin has the appearance of being ripped or shredded actually. This is the top layer of skin without muscle or fat attached to it underneath which is the reason it just hangs. For a sock, even a wool one, the depth of skin dangling is too thick for even a sock. It's tissue. One reason I say this is due to a accident I had and how my skin layered and looked once cut.

I do tend to look at the colouring of both legs and there isn't a difference. Does this mean that if some say it's a sock or stocking that the stocking cuts off, where her skin ends and the mutilation begins? (where you see her femur)then the top part of the stocking that would be cut or torn by her thigh (upper area above her knee) would be tattered or shredded and that's not the case.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Jane
As requested...
Chris

[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

[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.

[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.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Simon!

Maybe it's because of the Freemasons conspiracy!

All the best
Jukka

[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

[perrymason]

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.

[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

[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.