Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[claire]

Heheh, Jukka...ever the voice of reason, still, I see

[SaraCarter33]

that is a very good point and also the many post's here good points and intelligent answers on the subject.


As time goes by i am learning more and more about JTR thanks to everybody here.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

Well, he was already sick before the cutting of MJK!

All the best
Jukka

[SaraCarter33]

I just have always wondered about that though, I did'nt offend you with my post did i scott?



I just cannot believe how he was so evil.

[Scott Nelson]

Because Sara, his mind was on things other than being sick.

[SaraCarter33]

I have always wondered how jack the ripper did'nt sick while cutting mary jane kelly up like he did?

[Tenth Bell]

la chemise...

Someone said recently, on another JTR forum, that despite the Bond report indicating the decedent was 'lying naked on the bed' - Mary was indeed not naked (by today's standards, or at least my definition on 'naked') but instead, it was suggested that the term be taken in context, having been penned by a Victorian Gentleman - a Doctor, a medico - that by 'naked' it was really meant that the female parts were exposed and that Mary's gown was "pushed up and out of the way."
It was also stated on the same thread, that her chemise was almost completely off except for a portion which was pushed up onto her shoulders.
Well, I am looking for "2nd opinions" on this forum - but have a look at MJK1 below: - Mary's chemise (albeit, maybe also bedsheets in some areas) is well-visualized in or on areas of the victim other than just her shoulders. If I have to have a coloring session a little later this evening - I will.

I would also like some of you to picture in your mind MJK3, and how the thick fabric which made up some of Mary's garments (?was this still the chemise?) can be seen (for lack of better words, clearly) saturated in her blood and probably containing dissected viscera, over her LEFT THIGH and BENT KNEE, and also in portions between her legs and muddled, bloodsoaked, onto the abdominopelvic region of her body. In the photo, much of this material, of course, appears dark - or black - as it is soaked with blood. But I contend that some portions of the chemise can be seen clearly in areas other than over the shoulders. And how could we possibly know whether or not Mary, in addition to her typical bedtime clothing, possibly went to bed in a heavy skirt or two - as it was November, and the air would have been quite chilly - and some have said that she went to bed without lighting the fire (because, the reasoning says, the fire would have been readily visible from across the court, where a straight sightline would have been viewing the the windows of #13 at an obtuse angle, straight ahead at the fire...
I welcome your thoughts
Nice to be here, everyone!
Chris

[Slimsid2000]

This is somewhat colourized and may help make it a little clearer still.

[jason_c]

Hi all,
Don't quite get why the fuss over the assertion that Mary was recognised
only by her eyes, though the eyes could not be seen because of overhanging
flesh.
All it would take is to use a finger/implement to pull up anything obscuring
them to reveal the eyeballs, which I guess is what they were referring to.
After all, flesh covering the eyes looks pretty much the same on everyone.
Doesn't it?
Gary.

Thats far too sensible and obvious to satisfy some on here.

[gary]

In the many books written on the subject there arestatements saying that Mary Kelly could be identified only by her eyes. I'd like to know if anybody feels confident that they can in fact see her eyes. I've never been able to, turning the picture sideways and everything. Can you point them out or forward a photo with arrows on it? Thanks

Hi all,
Don't quite get why the fuss over the assertion that Mary was recognised
only by her eyes, though the eyes could not be seen because of overhanging
flesh.
All it would take is to use a finger/implement to pull up anything obscuring
them to reveal the eyeballs, which I guess is what they were referring to.
After all, flesh covering the eyes looks pretty much the same on everyone.
Doesn't it?
Gary.

[ghoulstonstreet]

Where are Mary's eyes?

Seriously Folks, I can't see any eyes on this poor battered head. Does anybody see eyes, wide open with terror or otherwise? I've been turning and twisting the photo for 25 years.

Please, if anybody who has the computer ability to add arrows, point out where Mary's eyes are. It is said her eyes were open. But where are they? It is said that she could be identified by her eyes, but where are they? Thanks

[Madam Red]

Still no joy, but check out this from the Casebook Archive. The first post on that thread contains some superb reconstructions by David Shields, which are pretty much spot on as far as I'm concerned.

Whoa. Thanks for linking us to this.

[LongLiz]

Thanks Chris, even though it's really sad...

[ghoulstonstreet]

The Eyes Have it?

That's just it. I don't see any eyes, wide open or otherwise. Can anybody else?

Seriously Folks, I can't see any eyes on this poor battered head. Does anybody see eyes, wide open with terror or otherwise? I've been turning and twisting the photo for 25 years.

[ghoulstonstreet]

Eyes?

As we speculate and debate about Mary Kelly's death, indeed, all of them, let us keep that quote in mind.

God be with them. No one else was.

That's just it. I don't see any eyes, wide open or otherwise. Can anybody else?