Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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)

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Ah but Stewart, there is nothing like a good old bolster debate.

All the best

[Stewart P Evans]

The Victim Photographs

Just a few observations on some of the comments passed above.

These album photographs have been available to researchers since 1988, they are nothing new. The full length Eddowes photograph, showing the feet, has been available since the 1960s and first appeared publicly in Farson's 1972 book.

The full Kelly images have been published many times in the past and the only difference in the album page shots in the Harrison book is that they are shown still mounted on the album pages.

The 'stripes' on the album page image reproduced here are due to scanning from a book image and are not on the original photograph. (Examination will show that here they extend beyond the actual photograph).

As this should not develop into another nonsensical 'bolster debate' I shall leave it to others to see what they think.

[Midnyte]

Hi all:
Thank you to Jonathan for posting those wonderful pictures from the album. The Eddowes shot seldom showed the whole body so that we can see the condition of the feet and legs.

I also can see more of the top of Mary's hair and head, and what looks like a bottle shape or candle in the farthest right edge of that shot.

By looking at the original MJK 3 shot, I can now see the origin of the much debated "stripes" that have been attributed to being part of a print on a fabric, however , we can now see that the stripes are over the whole area of the photo, and are from the condition of the photo, not actually being on the surface of one area.

I have been examining the MJK photos minutely, even microscopically, for many years. I was the first, and only, poster who believed that the large object on the table was the saddle of flesh taken from Mary, and posed upon the table. Other than moral support from Dan Norder on that matter, the subject became one of ridicule and was dismissed out of hand by everyone.

I can match every cut on the body with one on the flesh, and incidentally, I have also picked out a pattern on the table of a crocheted doily or table runner that starts in the center of the table and to the right, slightly bunched up.

Never, in any newspaper report, police report, or corner's findings, has the word "bolster" been used or alluded to.
This word first came up as a description of the roll of material on the bed, not on the table. This took off into flights of fancy about bolsters on the table, what they looked like, what they were used for etc.etc.

To miss the vulgar posing of the thighs and genitals, (including the calf muscle) that Jack left for all to see, is to miss the whole point of his exercise and considerable work. His point is lost on us because we refuse to see.

Like Richard Nunweek, with his morning murder theory, I have my convictions about the flesh posing as the climax of Jack's night.

SO , thanks again, JM, and I hope to contribute more soon, if they are not too hard on me!
All the best,
Midnyte (Joan O'Liari)

[Suzi]

Hi John-
Thanks for that- quite an album 'eh- not a single one of me,Mum and Dad on the beach at Sandbanks ,My first snowman in 1955 (!!!!!!!!!!!)which mine seem to contain. (Sadly I've lost those- but still have the Poly photos!!!)

Seriously an amazing album isn't it - I'd love to get my mitts on that for just 5 mins for a look

Suz xx

See you on Sat

[Brenda]

Nemo, I think Chris Scott has researched every variation of Mary Jane Kelly that anyone has been able to dream up! And I know others have done their own research too. Unless some new information is found, I don't think we'll ever find her.

[Simon Wood]

And Abberline preferred Jeneatte.

Check out his handwritten 12th November report.

Regards,

Simon

[Supe]

At the time of the Mary Jane Kelly murder at least one newspaprer ran a map of the murders that identified the Mitre Square victim as Kelly, doubtless because of the pawn ticket. They just couldn't be bothered to update the woodcut.

As for the Hanbury Street message, at the same time the Manchester Guardian and Irish Times were reporting that "Five! 15 more and I give myself up" was written on a fence the Pall Mall Gazette and Daily Telegraph were reporting the story was a hoax.

And Nemo, she preferred Marie Jeanette Kelly, but no one called her that save Barnett--or even seemingly heard of that affectation. But if Barnett is right she liked that and he used it then it would seem just another bit of evidence that the couple had their tender moments.

Don.

[Nemo]

Hi all

Doesn't it say Mary JANNETTE Kelly on the photo?

If this was her real name it would be acceptable for her to be known as Mary Jane. Has she been searched for genealogically under this variation?

[jmenges]

Great to see those pics 'in situ ' Jon- I'm tantalised to know where the rest of that album went.....

Hi Suzi,

Of course, Mary wasn't returned alone...




Rush on out an' buy yourself a copy of The Diary of Jack the Ripper by Shirley Harrison, as these are scans from that.

But yes, a nice album. I wonder how many were made? And how many pages were there?

PS- Thanks Stewart! That's what I thought.

JM