Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[Paddy Goose]

The fascination with whats underneath flesh... ...leaves only the raw meat... ... he uses a breast, a surface charm, as a pedestal for her head.

Thoughts?

Yes I think I'm gonna urp again.

You can't aim vommit. I tried. Was naseous in public so I aimed at a trash can. The can had one of those swinging lids on top, so I started it swinging and let er' fly. Some urp made it into the receptacle as planned, some only stuck to the lid. And some ended up on me.

Pads

[Suzi]

Hi all-
Have been following this with some interest- I must agree with Sam as to the position of the kneecaps and feet (Actually I've only just registered that foot closest to the camera ,having looked at this photograph more times than is good for a girl!-and it's strangely disturbing in it's natural,unsullied look)- and as to the length of leg from knee to foot- I've just measured mine (Hubby said 'What the hell are you doing!) and it's 50 cm !!!..........and I'm not THAT deformed!!! (am I ??)

Carry on chaps

Suzi xx

[Victor]

If her kneecap is where you are saying it is, then she has to have at least 3ft long calves. If an average person of 5'7" height (170.2 cm) then an "average" leg length is going to be around 32-36in (81 to 91cm). For her knee and below to be 36 inches, she would have no upper thigh. (Or seriously deformed.)

Hi Blackkat,

I think you've got her foot in the wrong place. I think the knee is where Sam says it is with his green line.

There is a second foot like shape, which distorts perspective and suggests that the knee is where the ankle\foot actually is. Try drawing a second line parallel and to the left of Sam's and you'll be able to line the ankles or feet up too.

KR,
Vic.

[Sam Flynn]

When a Dr. says left, they are talking about the persons right.

No - they're talking about the person's left, Kat. That's the convention.

It's from their perspective, not the victims.

No - it's from the person's perspective, not the doctor's.

So her right leg was at a 90 degree angle to her trunk.

No - her left leg was at a 90 degree angle to her trunk, like Dr Bond said. Her left leg is the one we see in the foreground of the picture - or more precisely, her lower left leg from kneecap to foot.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Blackkat!

I think most of us agree, that based on the photo MJK had relatively long arms.

In that case, I find it possible, that she had relatively long legs too!

All the best
Jukka

[Blackkat]

Sam,

If her kneecap is where you are saying it is, then she has to have at least 3ft long calves. If an average person of 5'7" height (170.2 cm) then an "average" leg length is going to be around 32-36in (81 to 91cm). For her knee and below to be 36 inches, she would have no upper thigh. (Or seriously deformed.)

The angle and lens:
To get a complete upper thigh covered by knee, then the camera would have had to have been positioned at the precise angle her leg was away from her body. And, taking into account the height of her bed, and her lying on it, and the height of a camera tripod for that time, it would have been almost impossible to not see her upper thigh. Her leg was not resting on anything by the time that photo was taken (mjk1), her leg was flat against the mattress.

Autopsy reports:
When a Dr. says left, they are talking about the persons right. It's from their perspective, not the victims. So her right leg was at a 90 degree angle to her trunk.

From what I see with mjk1 is that it was taken at about a 25-30 degree angle in relation to the body, not dead across the room from her stomach area. Think of the cameraman standing closer to her ankles and shooting towards her head area. That picture is not 90 degrees perpendicular to her body. When mjk1 was taken her left leg is lying on the mattress, it is not at any right angle away from her body, you can see her upper thigh, where it really looks like her leg is bent (closest to the camera) is actually skin that has settled onto the mattress, making the angle more defined, but is definately her knee. Not invisible, completely visible. the camera is above her body enough, and her leg not propped on anything, or bent wildly, the photo isn't hiding any part of her leg besides the inner part that is away from our pov.

JMHO

Thanks for weighing in Sam, and I see where you mean...but I suppose I should have said more towards the centre of her forehead actually, the shaded wound.

The fascination with whats underneath flesh is evident here, so that may have been purposeful too...who knows.

The suggested metaphor?....he strips Mary Kelly of all of her surface charms, takes her "love" away, her warmth and kindness in the form of her heart, and leaves only the raw meat that he felt this woman now was to him. That can be seen by the way he uses a breast, a surface charm, as a pedestal for her head.

Thoughts?

Cheers Sam, all.

[Sam Flynn]

Kat - you have to account for perspective and the lens used.

By way of illustration, the green line goes from kneecap to kneecap...



If you look at the rest of both lower legs, you'll see that they're fully in proportion - once perspective is taken into account.

[Sam Flynn]

Take a look at her other leg, where the knee is, you can see all the way down to her ankle. Judge the distance.

Kat - you have to account for perspective and the lens used.

If her knee was up that far, then her femur had to be massively broken because of where the bend is.

Her femur wasn't broken, but her left thigh was at a crazy angle in relation to her body. Dr Bond: "The legs were wide apart, the left thigh at right angles to the trunk". Because we're looking at the body practically at a right angle in MJK1, the left thigh is extending away from us into the plane of the photograph, and practically invisible from our POV.

[Blackkat]

Sam,

Take a look at her other leg, where the knee is, you can see all the way down to her ankle. Judge the distance. Go from her ankle up on her left leg. Same distance. If her knee was up that far, then her femur had to be massively broken because of where the bend is.

You can't see the gash from knee to ankle in the picture. That just means that someone got sliced in that area. How does that factor in where her knee is located in the picture? A long gash is anything over 5 inches - which we can't see - so you'll have to explain to me how that has anything to do with the length of her legs. I understand that camera angle can have a lot to do with what our eyes can and can't see thus making things look mishapen, but using her other leg to judge distance and clearly seeing a kneecap, cinches it for me.

Unless maybe she was one of those people that had a knee cap in the wrong place, thus the case it solved an italian murdered MJK "Break the knee caps"

[Sam Flynn]

What I was referring to as to top of thigh and inner thigh.

The "top of thigh" you have there is Kelly's left knee-cap, Kat, and the "inner thigh" is actually part of the left calf. It looks so misshapen because her left calf sustained a particularly severe wound. Dr Bond: "The left calf showed a long gash through skin and tissues to the deep muscles, reaching from the knee to 5 inches above the ankle"

[Blackkat]

Heya Michael.

Thank you for the heads up for a surety on the picture names. I would have hated to go through that post and redo it! LOL

Hi BK,

Nice to see ya, liked the part I put in bold above,....we have to figure some things were done due to the space and the technology available, its just a matter of sorting out what.

edit...and youre correct, MJK1 from the window angle, MJK3, from the partition wall.

Cheers BlackKat

[Blackkat]

That's because all you can see of her left leg in MJK1 is from foot to knee, Kat. Her left thigh points away from us into the plane of the photograph, is hugely foreshortened and partly occluded from our view.

The she had extremely LONG legs.

What I was referring to as to top of thigh and inner thigh. Just suggesting that the skin may have moved back toward the inner thigh after being repositioned- seeing where her knee and top /center of thigh is.

[Sam Flynn]

On her forehead, the left side, has the skin been taken off in a patch like wound?

The right side, I think you mean, Mike - the convention is that orientation is relative to the body, not the viewer's perspective.

If that's the side you mean, then the answer is "yes". Bond records that Kelly's eyebrows were partly removed, and that patch you can see appears to have been a slice through the skin in the region of her right eyebrow, peeling up a flap of skin. That flap then seems to have fallen more-or-less downwards across her face, and probably covers most - if not all - of her right eye.

I wonder what this particular aspect might have been substituted with in early kills... Surely this is interesting to him....

...it's just slash-and-hack-work in the main, Mike. Kelly's face ended up looking like an ice-rink after a novice skater had finished with it.

Popping out for a bit....Id appreciate anyone weighing in on the issue of her left forehead injury.

Catch up in a bit....ciao.