Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[Jane Coram]

Thanks for posting that Chris,

I think that the reason we might be getting different views here of the same area on the photograph is that we are looking at two versions of the print that are differing in quality and seem to show different things.

It is possible that one of the enlarged sections of knee came from Don Rumblelow's print and one from the Evans/Skinner archive, or just that one is a better copy of the same print. If we put the two side by side though, I think it makes a vast difference to how we interpret what we are seeing there.

It does show though, how hard it is to interpret things from the photos as we are so reliant on the versions we have.

Bestest

Jane

xxxxx

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Janey,

To my eyes, at least, those marks might just be scratches on the plate - rather than the weave of a fabric. I say that, because some of them appear to continue off the leg and seem to "hang" in mid-air.

[Blackkat]

I can certainly see how looking at the photo on the left would cause someone to say she had hairy legs because it does look like little black hairs to me. Did the women even shave their legs then? I didn't think they did.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Sam,

I do think you're right and some of them are scratches (especially the lower ones as some of them are at a different angle).

I think that the lines are far too symmetrical to be scratches though.......the likliehood of scratches accidentally following the curve of the leg, spaced equally apart, seems unlikely, and I really do think that the stitches are visible there, especially towards the top left of the image.

Of course, we all have to admit that anything we think we can see on these pictures has to be purely subjective, because of the quality and age of the images, so we can only say what we think we see, but knitted stitches are a bit more banal than horned demons.

Also if we look at the version on the left, the contrast is considerably greater, than the one on the right. The black areas on the shot are very intense on the left hand image, and I think that any scratches on the print would be be more visible rather than less pronounced wouldn't they? (Haven't got a clue if that's right or not, just taking a wild guess there. ) It just seems to me that the image on the right is just showing far more detail than the one on the left.

Logically though, if she is wearing a stocking on the leg -- and I think we both feel that is the case -- then it would be reasonable to be able to see the texture on the fabric.

I just wish we could get a really clear shot of that area, but I suspect that this is the best we will get.

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The thing to remember about the right leg in MJK3 is that it's been painted onto the photograph.



This is approximately where the camera would have been that took MJK3.

The two pics don't jive.



Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Simon,

The image might have been "touched up", or altered/damaged in some way, but I don't think that the entire leg was painted in.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Simon,

I have to agree with Sam here. It may well have been retouched in places, or damaged in part, but there is an enormous difference between original photographic image and any painted image, no matter how well it is done. I really think that most of that leg is the real McCoy, stocking or no stocking, pattern or no pattern, what's there is mainly original photograph, although there could have been some retouching of course.

I do agree though that there does seem to be a discrepancy between the position of the legs in the various photos, which seems inexplicable, but I don't want to open that can of worms again!

Bestest

Jane

xxxxx

PS, that looks like a very good copy of MJK3 you have there!

[Simon Wood]

Hi all,

The other thing we have to explain is why Senor Crocodile [or Mr. Bolster] is not visible in MJK 1.



Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Posts still appear to be out of order, so in reply to questions asked before my last post here is Senor Crocodile or Mister Bolster in all his glory.

He is a commanding presence in MJK 3, with his snout nuzzling MJK's left elbow.



Now look at MJK1.



Where is he?

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Thomas]

I spy with my little eye a trowel (!) just to the right of the garter.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stephen,

Hoe, hoe, hoe!

Regards,

Simon

[Mike Covell]

It's a crocodile's head? I thought it was a horse!

Perhaps Robert D'Onston Stephenson left it there after one of his African jaunts!! He has obviously made it invisible on the other images!

[Sam Flynn]

Where is Mr Crocodile in MJK1, Simon? Out of shot, I'd say.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Out of shot? Where out of shot?

In MJK3 Senor Crocodile's nose is between the victim's left elbow and the bedside table.

In MJK1 he and his nose are nowhere to be seen.

That's quite a disappearing trick.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

Out of shot? Where out of shot?

In MJK3 Senor Crocodile's nose is between the victim's left elbow and the bedside table.

...but MJK3 only shows the hindmost part of the pile of viscera on the table, Simon. Almost the entire pile is visible in MJK1, but that only accommodates the pile of flesh to its rightmost edge. Mr Crocodile is firmly at the rear of the pile of flesh, and located some distance off the right hand side of MJK1.

It's all about the angle of the shots, Simon, and possibly the lens(es) used. Here's a very crude extension of MJK1, based on the (conservative) assumption that the bedside table was rather small, showing the rough angle of the shot in green:



There's easily enough space on the "missing" part of the table on which Mr Crocodile can lurk. The table was quite possibly even longer than that, in which case our reptilian/bolster friend would've had plenty of breathing room.