Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[Sam Flynn]

Your only winding me up because on the items on the table under the viscera, you are incorrect. Its as simple as that.

Would you or Anna mind pointing out exactly what you perceive is the "hand mirror", Mike? Photoshop, MS Paint, whatever... Until you show us precisely what you're seeing we're all rather in the dark.

I'm struggling to see anything there other than the human equivalent of belly-pork. Which is what the medical reports record as being there.

I have seen them, and Id appreciate it if youd check with my optometrist before declaring me blind.

I'm not declaring you blind - I'm suggesting that you possess a normal human brain. Brains have a habit of taking vague optical stimuli (which is what both you and I can see), and interpreting those vague stimuli as imaginary shapes or objects. Doesn't mean that those objects really are there, even if one can genuinely "see" them.

[perrymason]

Hi Sam,

I did attempt to do just that a few pages ago but found the file size was too large to upload. Ill tinker with it and see what I can do later after visiting the folks.

Ill tell you what I think it may be, not what it is, because Im not certain of anything other than it appears manmade, perhaps something with a handle like a hand mirror, or like a small grill, something Mary might make toast or cook with.

Look....youre a well respected poster here, with just cause I might add, and Im just a shmoe who has been seen loitering here , it would be nice if you leveled the playing field for the shmoes by suggesting, rather than declaring. People are impressionable, you know that, I think that Im speaking about that responsibility.

When Anna supported my statement, she did so after reviewing the photo under high magnification, not using sunglasses, so her opinion is of value...assuming her vision is in relatively good order.

When there are contrary positions on the table, like in our shed talks, I would like to debate with you...not be told what Im seeing or reading. Not saying I have to win....not at all, but Id like to feel that both sides opinions are respected...and lately I havent.

Ill see what I can do later about the image size.

Respectfully yours, as always.

[Sam Flynn]

Not saying I have to win....not at all, but Id like to feel that both sides opinions are respected...and lately I havent.

It's not a question of disrespect, Mike - I'm just pointing out some basic truths about the quality of the images we have to deal with, as well as the tendency of the mind to conjure objects when confronted by vague sensory stimuli. I've pored over these images for years, and I know how easy it is to imagine things that are simply not there, however if I'm wrong about that "mirror" then I'll be the first to congratulate you and Anna for pointing it out.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Blackkat!

Not true. Women painted their toenails as far back as 3000B.C. and Queen Nefertiti would pain her nails red. Also 19th century cookbooks contained directions for making nail paints. In the 19th and 20th century women still went for the polished rather than painted look, by messaging tinted powders and cremes into their nails. It really depended on which the woman liked best, but yes they did have nail paint in 1888, although color nail polish wasn't invented until later, the tint powders including Henna could be used to tint the nails.

I believe 20th century- one can research Graf’s Hyglo nail polish paste.
Other than that, colored nail lacquers have been around thousands of years.

Another reason her toenails look painted? They could be a bluish grey tint under the nail that follows death.

Yes, now I remember, that the question was about polished toenails meaning with the modern stuff.

Sorry!

All the best
Jukka

[Blackkat]

Jukka,

Heya you NEVER have to apologize to me. It's fine. I just wanted to help clear it up. No they didn't have the same kind of polish we do now. The stuff we have now was made in the 1920's from automobile paint. They did have cremes and powder tints available to purchase, and women could MAKE their own nail lacquer with color. It is something to think that people started painting their nails with reds, and blacks and purples way back over 3000 years ago. Here we always think we've invented something.

[Blackkat]

Sorry I didn't attach the image correctly... here it is, and once again I hope it is of some interest or help.

Ryan,
Thank you for this picture. You did a great job by the way. Don't worry about being distasteful, I agree that as long as you're not "Oh look at all the blood!" it's fine. This picture will help especially those people that may be new to casebook and haven't read all the posts pertaining to incisions and things of that nature. You've made it very clear on her arms and face.

Great Job

[Chris Scott]

Hi Gareth
Re. the ring on Kelly's leg near the camera on photo 2
Looking at this closely, (see below from original form of the photo) my immediate thought was that it looks as though some one has drawn this in pen on the photo, though why they might have wanted to highlight that area is not clear
Regards
Chris

[Blackkat]

Chris,
That's exactly what I thought. That after the photo was developed at some point - someone drew this on the photo - that's why I thought I saw the word Jack written inside of it. Maybe someone had done that for whatever reason. Then again looking at the photo you posted you can make out the word *Janet*

The only other thing I thought of was that IF MjK had a sock or some kind of clothing on, that she stitched in an extra reinforced area over the knee, but my first thought was someone circled that area on the photo - maybe to identify the photo? :shrugs:

[Sam Flynn]

...perhaps the photographer had what's called "a hair in the gate".

Worth noting that this particular area of the photograph seems to be covered in scratches. That doesn't inspire much confidence when trying to interpret what's there.

As to "Janet", Kat, the previous caveats still apply - particularly the one about the fine-nibbed pen. If the line describing that "circle" is only a millimetre or so thick, the nib that produced the "writing" would have to have been only microns wide. Personally, I see "GH" there...



...but I know that's just my eyes playing tricks on me.

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

What I find amazing is that you can actually see the stitches of the knitting quite clearly there. I don't know if there are any fellow knitters out there, (and that includes the men! ) but it looks like knit 2, purl 2 rib, at the top there, over where the knee is, changing to stocking stitch lower down, which is exactly what you would find in a knitted stocking of the time. (The ribbing is designed to make the top slightly more elastic to help keep it up.) If she wasn't wearing a stocking on that leg, (not the other one, which I think was bear) then she had very hairy legs.

I quite like the idea of the thickish 'black' line around it being a make shift garter of some kind, or as an alternative, it could be that her killer attempted to cut through the woollen stocking and found it was too much effort (knitted wool is notoriously hard to cut through with even a sharp knife) and decided to move further up the leg where it was an easier target.

The 'black' line there is consistent with a thin cut which would actually cut through the flesh underneath, but not cut through the thickness of the wool above. (Odd, I know, but have a go on an old wool sock and a piece of fruit! ) The blood from the wound below would seep into the wool above and look something like that.

I'd go for it being either that or a garter of some kind.

Sorry, I can't see any numbers or letters there. I suspect the circle might be a photographic artifact of some kind.

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[Robert]

"If she wasn't wearing a stocking on that leg, (not the other one, which I think was bear) then she had very hairy legs."

Indeed bears are generally hairy.

[Jane Coram]

I wondered who would be the first to spot that..... We're all allowed to have brain burps now and again and it was bearly noticeable. Lol. You do realise you've opened to way to a run of bare/ bear jokes don't you Robert? Hee hee

xxxxxx

My daughter just roared and said, 'You dozey cow.'

[Blackkat]

I'm certainly aware that it may be a hair or some artifact but still I stated what it "looked like" even though my eyes may be playing tricks on me. Then again the circle area did look like stitching a little too.

Hairy legs, that is funny. LOL - but ya know her other leg was bare so why not just off with that "other sock" too, if there was indeed another sock on her left leg. If that is hard to cut through, knicking vertebra is hard to do too, and the killer had enough rage and strength to do just that. I still don't see a sock because of the way the blood is smeared on the inside of her left calve. Now the black circular cut under the knee - I have no idea could be a makeshift garter - out of shoestring, I don't know, some say cut. It doesn't appear to me she had a sock on her left leg - could be wrong but that's just my visual impression.

It would be nice to see the original photo to see if the circle with "writing" in it, is on the original photo or if that's happened over time.

Oh hey Sam, I could see your "G H" too

[Sara]

No stockings: from the report of the attending doctor:

<< Dr. George Bagster Phillips was also present at the scene, and gave the following testimony at the inquest:

"The mutilated remains of a female were lying two-thirds over towards the edge of the bedstead nearest the door. She had only her chemise on, or some underlinen garment. I am sure that the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead that was nearest the wooden partition, because of the large quantity of blood under the bedstead and the saturated condition of the sheet and the palliasse at the corner nearest the partition.

The blood was produced by the severance of the cartoid artery, which was the cause of death. The injury was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead >>

It sounds as if she was lying on her right side facing the wall with her back to her visitor when she was attacked; let's hope it was mercifully quick.

Now I'll try to find the inventory of her possessions which I know I've read on here recently!

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
There appears to be dispute regarding was there /was there not a stocking apparently of woollen material on Kellys right leg.
surely one can see [especially the ladies] what Jane has described in her recent post as being clearly knitted fabric?
If one takes that on board, also the undisputed understanding that her left leg was bare, what does that imply?,their appears two explanations.
a] Kelly in a drunken stumour, undresses down to her chemise, removes one stocking her left, but passes out before getting round to removing the other
b] kelly is attacked in her room while undressing leaving just her right sock on, and a chemise.
Before plumping for either suggestion, one should take on board the bedroll which is shown rolled up on her bed, which appears to me that Mjk was killed in daylight hours, and she herself had already rolled back her bedclothes on awakening, and was undressing to either service a client or about to return to bed when attacked.
If she was killed by a intruder, surely she would have been in bed, with her bedroll not in the position found?
Of course another possibility is that she was undressing for Blotchy, or Astracan, and either one of them could not contain his excitement to allow kelly to remove her last two garments?
What are your views, taking into account the sock anf the positioning of the bedroll, not to mention her clothing /boots, and the weather conditions at 1130pm, 2am, and 8am, all these points are relevant, in investigating this crime scene.
Regards Richard.