MJK photo 4 enhanced

[Nothing to see]

Well, I know for a fact that Willem was 100% correct when he shouted out in the mall, "There is no Easter Bunny! That's just a guy in a suit!"

Intelligence tells me that a lot of "what if's" are being trotted out for us to speculate on. What I haven't quite sussed out is why people want to play the "what if" game so badly, here. Or why they want to sidestep questions posed.

If the photographer squatted down by the bed to take MJK3, why would he steady himself by placing his hand on the corpse, and not on the bed?



What possible reason would the police have to do such a thing? Seriously, what would be in it for them? Assuming any of them had the stomach to do it in the first place. Nothing shows in the photos to support this -- and there's nothing in Bond's postmortem notes, either. What support do you have for the police possibly having done this?



Do you suggest Victorian police had the anatomical knowledge to put back together the gory jigsaw puzzle that is Mary Jane Kelly? I doubt it. And if MJK3 was in fact the first photo shot, doesn't that rather put paid to your speculation that the police chopped Mary Jane's hands off to rearrange her corpse for whatever esoteric end you're hinting at? We would see it in MJK1.

At this stage, please. If you have a theory on nefarious doings at Miller's Court, then just put them on the table. What do you think happened?

Intelligence tells me that I'm not likely to get a straightforward answer to that.

Well, that's one post that tells me that this has been discussed.

Man, this idea is not sane at all. Who is putting forward this idea?

[The Good Michael]

NTS,

No one said that. Read back further. All is sane here.

Mike

[Nothing to see]

I know I haven't posted here for a few days but to come back to this? Mary's hand was chopped off by the police and... who is taking any of this seriously?
This was a serious discussion of the photos.

[The Good Michael]

Oh, I did. I think you didn't read mine, since you're still sidestepping every question you're asked. Why is that?

If you really read my post, you would see that I was saying the exact opposite of what you suggest.

Mike

[Malcolm X]

i doubt her name was MARY KELLY or even if she came from IRELAND/ went to PARIS etc etc....

there is evidence that many prostitutes would use false names and over glamourise their lives... especially the so called ``high class`` whores, it was a way of attracting rich clients, nobody knew anything about MARY KELLY only what she said, probably all lies...

Mary Kelly was a common name and even one of the Ripper victims called herself that name too, i was reading about this on the web today.

[Khanada]

You didn't read my post, really, did you?

Mike

Oh, I did. I think you didn't read mine, since you're still sidestepping every question you're asked. Why is that?

How are we to know that MJK's hand wasn't hacked off and reassembled by the police in order to make it look like it was on the wrong arm?

So, are you asking here, "How are we to know that MJK's hand wasn't hacked off [by her killer] and reassembled by the police in order to make it look like it was on the wrong arm?" Or are you asking here, "How are we to know that MJK's hand wasn't hacked off [by the police] and reassembled by the police in order to make it look like it was on the wrong arm?" Frankly, either way, I have to ask you why the police would do this, and where the support is for it? If none, then speculation, and it's speculation I just don't see the point of. If you've a genuine theory about what may have actually happened that day in Miller's Court, by all means say so. But I've asked you several questions in sincerity and seriousness, and all the response I seem to get is more cryptic nonsense about fictional characters.

Have a glorious day, of course.

[The Good Michael]

What possible reason would the police have to do such a thing? Seriously, what would be in it for them? Assuming any of them had the stomach to do it in the first place. Nothing shows in the photos to support this -- and there's nothing in Bond's postmortem notes, either. What support do you have for the police possibly having done this?

You didn't read my post, really, did you?

Mike

[cappuccina]

Hi Jane!

I always look forward to the excellent informaiton you provide in your posts here!

It would not surprise me at all if the photographer did have to move furniture slightly to accomodate his camera and other equipment at some of the angles he may have been shooting at...

Frankly, I am amazed he was able to record what he did given the circumstances...

[Khanada]

I've been following the thread, and have no intention of getting immersed in all the kafuffle again, (no way!) but I can't really see why there should be a problem with objects being moved around to a greater or lesser extent in the room between shots to accomodate the photographer and allow him to gain access. How was he supposed to get around to take the shot looking towards the window without shifting any of the furniture? There is nothing sinister implicated, purely practical logistics of photographing the scene in such a tiny and cramped room.

These are the first crime scene photos we know of, and the whole procedure pretty experimental and hit and miss, with no established routine to follow. I suspect they just made it up as they went along and modern forensics would roll their eyes in horror at what went on. Does it actually matter if the table was moved a little between shots (not saying it was, but does it really matter anyway?). I sometimes think we try to read far too much into very grainy, retouched and much resaved copies of the photos.

Thank you. I agree wholeheartedly!

[Khanada]

...here pixie, pixie, pixie...

I have an old photo that's a bit fuzzy on one side. The logical explanation is that the camera or the subject moved a bit. Yet, how am I to know it's not the Easter Bunny? Intelligence might be a way to figure it out. The same goes for these photos. Intelligence may tell one that MJK's pinky is curled a bit, and that the angle of the shot shows it in the way it does precisely because of that angle. How are we to know that MJK's hand wasn't hacked off and reassembled by the police in order to make it look like it was on the wrong arm? Or how are we to know that This photo wasn't the first one and the police decided to put her back together for the subsequent shots? Intelligent thought may allow us to put those ideas to rest. We may also put to bed Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, and Santa Claus. If we can't do that, we may as well be looking for Baphomet again.

Well, I know for a fact that Willem was 100% correct when he shouted out in the mall, "There is no Easter Bunny! That's just a guy in a suit!"

Intelligence tells me that a lot of "what if's" are being trotted out for us to speculate on. What I haven't quite sussed out is why people want to play the "what if" game so badly, here. Or why they want to sidestep questions posed.

If the photographer squatted down by the bed to take MJK3, why would he steady himself by placing his hand on the corpse, and not on the bed?

How are we to know that MJK's hand wasn't hacked off and reassembled by the police in order to make it look like it was on the wrong arm?

What possible reason would the police have to do such a thing? Seriously, what would be in it for them? Assuming any of them had the stomach to do it in the first place. Nothing shows in the photos to support this -- and there's nothing in Bond's postmortem notes, either. What support do you have for the police possibly having done this?

Or how are we to know that This photo wasn't the first one and the police decided to put her back together for the subsequent shots?

Do you suggest Victorian police had the anatomical knowledge to put back together the gory jigsaw puzzle that is Mary Jane Kelly? I doubt it. And if MJK3 was in fact the first photo shot, doesn't that rather put paid to your speculation that the police chopped Mary Jane's hands off to rearrange her corpse for whatever esoteric end you're hinting at? We would see it in MJK1.

At this stage, please. If you have a theory on nefarious doings at Miller's Court, then just put them on the table. What do you think happened?

Intelligence tells me that I'm not likely to get a straightforward answer to that.

[Jane Coram]

Actually, it's probably only fair that I bring it back on topic.

I've been following the thread, and have no intention of getting immersed in all the kafuffle again, (no way!) but I can't really see why there should be a problem with objects being moved around to a greater or lesser extent in the room between shots to accomodate the photographer and allow him to gain access. How was he supposed to get around to take the shot looking towards the window without shifting any of the furniture? There is nothing sinister implicated, purely practical logistics of photographing the scene in such a tiny and cramped room.

These are the first crime scene photos we know of, and the whole procedure pretty experimental and hit and miss, with no established routine to follow. I suspect they just made it up as they went along and modern forensics would roll their eyes in horror at what went on. Does it actually matter if the table was moved a little between shots (not saying it was, but does it really matter anyway?). I sometimes think we try to read far too much into very grainy, retouched and much resaved copies of the photos.

That's my two pennerth. Lol.

Having said that, very good work with the enhancement, it's really an excellent job. Thanks for posting it.

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi Lika,

That particular sketch of Mary is purely imaginery and from a map booklet published just a few decades ago. (I have got it, but I can't be bothered to go and dig it out, but it's a recent publication).

The other contemporary illustrations we have of her are all really guesswork or from descriptions from friends etc., so we will probably never know what she really looked like, unless by some miracle a photograph of her with an impeccable provenance comes along........doubtful given that we can't even pin down who she was.



Sorry if that was a bit off topic, but it should be easy to drag it back into touch.

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

[Lika]

yes but more photos wont tell us who the killer is... this is the problem.

i'd like to know, what MARY actually looked like, this has always interested me

Might not be much but here.

[Malcolm X]

Damn.Seeing these pics and her body mutilations in such a high detail just makes me realize now what kind of sick mind Jack must have had.
Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me but I cant even see where her eyes are.(soz incase it sounds like a joke with the eyes)

yes very sick indeed... it's partial insanity, but probably well hidden

[Malcolm X]

Hi MX,

Of course it would not tell us definitively WHO the killer is - I mean nothing would do that..., but it could give us more information than we have now..

I am sorry my post above posted twice, and now I canot delete it...Is there any way to delete the superfluous post? Thanks, and sorry I did that!

go to the first post and there should be a delete option, i think it's further down the page.... no sorry, its right here in the box

save...go advanced....delete...cancel