Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

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]

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.

[George Hutchinson]

Ryan, that's quite some job there and pretty unsettling. Good work. People are always worried about being distasteful, as you say. However, it is all a matter of context. If doing this kind of work for the sake of clarity, as you have done, then bad taste should not even be a consideration. It's only if people back it up with 'cool - look at all that blood' we need to worry, and we don't really get that sort around here any more.

Interesting how you've put on stockings (erm... on MJK...). I wouldn't agree with that but it's a minor failing - if, indeed, you're wrong on that count at all.

PHILIP

[Ryan_Miller]

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

[Ryan_Miller]

I hope this isn't dis-tasteful, but I did my best with my knowledge (or lack thereof) of photoshop, to give the scene color. I found it easier to define shapes and areas of the image when they had varying colors, instead of just making due with all of the greys running together. Hopefully this can be of help to some.

[Sara]

Wasn't the main photo taken from outside the window? It would have been the only way given the width of the room to get the whole body in, surely.

I used to deal with a lot of old prints like this - ie age not subject - and all of them were blemished in some way. I think the circle 9green in Sam's post 53) is a result of drying fluid, left during the developing process. the black ring round the right leg does look like a garter, though it might also be a circular cut - the autopsy should say which it is. If someone could post the autopsy /police report here, or rather a link to it, it might save a lot of squabbling...

As for the matter of what was on the table - there is a precise inventory is there not, of exactly what was found in the room? - I'm sure I read it in this site only a few days ago. So there is no need to quarrel over what we can and can't see - we can look it up! (sorry I don't know my way around the site well enough yet to find it again right now)

The nails might well turn bluish after death; but most of these women would have been very dirty by our standards, esp their feet - there was no running water about in Whitechapel - and at least one of the coroner's reports remarks on it. Some of the local women in contemporary photos look really filthy

What strikes me apart form the utter horror of looking at these, is just how covered in blood JtR must have been after this one. How did he get away in that state, and how did he hope to without being seen? - must he not have had a bolt hole at least, very close by?

Im sure theres a few people out here who've used these photos to compare angles and lighting, whats the consensus on the angle of her left knee in MJK1 and MJK3...the same, or not?

It appears that backlight is visible through the tissue remaining on her left thigh in MJK3..I dont see the elevation in MJK1 offering that view. Once the camera is placed for MJK3, because no photographer could fit between the bed and the wall as it is seen in MJK1, it would have to be a remote shutter shot...or an outside chance on a viewfinder that is used from directly above the camera, rather than behind.

I think the bedding there is the platform for the camera for MJK3, but I dont see that translating precisely to the body angles as seen in MJK1.

Try comparing her left knee location in both shots as relates to the height of the table.

Best regards.

Sam,

Your only winding me up because on the items on the table under the viscera, you are incorrect. Its as simple as that. I have seen them, and Id appreciate it if youd check with my optometrist before declaring me blind. What they are is more difficult to be sure of, not that they are in fact there.

What do you think the killer did, cleaned off her night table to place viscera there, or plunk it on there regardless of what else might be on it? The woman had only two tables, and odds and ends on both of them.

Best regards.

[Blackkat]

Okay good deal, yes the green, thank you we were on the same page!

[Sam Flynn]

Also Sam = the circle just below her right knee - seen in the photo - how big would you say that was inch wise?

If you mean the one picked out in green...



...it's about 3 or so inches in diameter, give or take. However, the line itself (i.e. the circumference) is extremely fine; probably only a millimetre thick, in proportion. It's very unlikely that anything that thin on Mary's leg would have been captured by the camera, especially when you realise that the rest of her leg (including the "garter") is actually out of focus, whereas the circle is quite sharply defined. It's most likely a defect on the photographic plate, or a hair on the lens.

[Sam Flynn]

Mike - I did actually say that it might be a shoe-lace serving as a makeshift garter. This was a cheap slum room in Spitalfields 1888, remember, not Madame Za-Za's Fur'n'Frills Revue Bar in downtown Vegas. I wouldn't have expected Kelly to have been in a position to own a decent garter.

Secondly, there is almost certainly no hand-mirror on that table, just slabs of flesh - which is consistent with the medical evidence of the time.

Thirdly, I didn't write that stuff about this being an Nth generation compressed JPEG image of what was already an imperfect photograph for the fun of it. Neither were my observations that the processing would have introduced all manner of artefacts into the image, as well as enhance any blemishes that might have been there in the first place, just to wind you up.

I'm simply pointing out some facts, that's all.