MJK photo 4 enhanced

[Lika]

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)

[cappuccina]

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!

[Malcolm X]

My understanding is that 10 photos were taken, and we only have two. I know that this was reported in older books on the case, only I now cannot find the reference...

"They made a preliminary examination of the body, and sent for a photographer, who took several photographs of the remains..."

(This is what the newspapers of the time were reporting - bold mine...)

I think if we had more of the photographs in series, things would make a lot more sense...

Generally, the photographer would be instructed to start with the scene in its entirety, followed by taking pictures of portions of the scene. As forensic phography was in its infancy at this time, however, we really don't know if the phtographer was being specifically or generally instructed.

However, it would be foolish to believe that he only took two pictures of a notorious scene such as this, and given what he had to go through to photograph this scene, the gruesomeness, the weather outside, the odd angles he had to photograph etc. I think he would have taken as many photographs as he possibly could at different angles, etc. I'll bet he took more than 6 photographs, is what I am saying as well...

I think if other photos are found, we would see a more logical "series" here, and would be able , then to more definitively identify body parts, angles, etc.

Right now it is as if we are looking at a partly completed jigsaw puzzle with incomplete holes, and are trying to make exact determinations as to the "missing" pieces...I think that task is difficult at best without at least another couple of photographs...

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

[cappuccina]

My understanding is that 10 photos were taken, and we only have two. I know that this was reported in older books on the case, only I now cannot find the reference...

"They made a preliminary examination of the body, and sent for a photographer, who took several photographs of the remains..."

(This is what the newspapers of the time were reporting - bold mine...)

I think if we had more of the photographs in series, things would make a lot more sense...

Generally, the photographer would be instructed to start with the scene in its entirety, followed by taking pictures of portions of the scene. As forensic phography was in its infancy at this time, however, we really don't know if the phtographer was being specifically or generally instructed.

However, it would be foolish to believe that he only took two pictures of a notorious scene such as this, and given what he had to go through to photograph this scene, the gruesomeness, the weather outside, the odd angles he had to photograph etc. I think he would have taken as many photographs as he possibly could at different angles, etc. I'll bet he took more than 6 photographs, is what I am saying as well...

I think if other photos are found, we would see a more logical "series" here, and would be able , then to more definitively identify body parts, angles, etc.

Right now it is as if we are looking at a partly completed jigsaw puzzle with incomplete holes, and are trying to make exact determinations as to the "missing" pieces...I think that task is difficult at best without at least another couple of photographs...

[cappuccina]

My understanding is that 10 photos were taken, and we only have two.

"They made a preliminary examination of the body, and sent for a photographer, who took several photographs of the remains..."
(This is what the news papers of the time were reporting - bold mine...)

I think if we had more of the photographs in series, things would make a lot more sense...

Generally, the photographer would be instructed to start with the scene in its entirety, followed by taking pictures of portions of the scene. As forensic phography was in its infancy at this time, however, we really don't know if the phtographer was being specifically or generally instructed.

However, it would be foolish to beleive that he only took two pictures of a notorious scene such as this, and given what he had to go through to photograph this scene, the gruesomeness, the weather outside, the odd angles hae had to phtograph etc. I think he would have taken as many photographs as he possibly could at different angles, etc.

I think if other photos are found, we would see a more logical "series" here, and would be able , then to more definitively identify body parts, angels, etc.

[steje73]

Looks very much like her left hand to me. Having said that, after all this time I've only just noticed Marys right arm stretching out to the edge of the bed, so who am I to say?

[Malcolm X]

Poor Mary, what a repulsive mess...almost unbelievable, this looks like insanity and depravity... it doesn't seem like George Chapman either, wrong personality

why make that mess of her? this killer is a real sicko and an imbicile too.

you can argue about this that and the other and we have done over the years, but this mess reveals little clues... the killer either broke in or was a customer, whatever the case; Mary put up a struggle before dying.

would Abberline have noticed a suspect as disturbing as this?......... maybe not, too well hidden

[Domino]

Mary's left hand looks like a left hand to me. The pinky finger looks as though it's been obscured by all the mess, hence why it looks stubby, like a thumb.

[chrisjd]

Reminder call: Reasonable Question!

Hi Simon,

"With so many contradictions existing between the two photos, why do you persist in believing that MJK3 is the scene depicted in MJK1 but taken from a different angle?"

What else could it be? Please explain.

Christian

[The Good Michael]

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.

Cheers,

Mike

[Khanada]

While I can't possibly discount the notion that Mary's left pinky had been cut or injured, I can't entirely agree that that's a pinky that's not a normal size. I'm sorry, but I know a young lady with quite big hands and thick fingers for a female of her height. If Mary Jane had similar hands to this acquaintance of mine, it could be a "normal" size pinky -- at least, to Mary Jane. Equally, it could be injured. But unless we have evidence that Mary Jane was double-jointed... Colour me unwilling to go there.

Again, why would the photographer balance his weight on the body on the bed, and not use the bed itself for balance? The position I'm picturing here is terribly awkward, if he's crouching on the floor and ducking his head, he's then reaching way over his head to steady himself. Why? Far easier to just squat down and lean on the bed.

Still not buyin' the pixie 'til you unpocket yourself and show it to me...

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam and Steve,

Now I've seen and heard everything.

Your diagrams and logic are pure madness.

For pity's sake! Just wander around some objects in your home, will you, and watch how items juxtapose one another differently, depending on your line of sight.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam and Steve,

Now I've seen and heard everything.

Your diagrams and logic are pure madness.

I'm outta here.

Regards,

Simon

[Midnyte]

The pinky

In the full length shot of Mary, you can see the pinky curled in at the end, it looks like a light circle, below her pinky. Her hand does look on the large side, perhaps as she was a country girl from Ireland, her hands were not delicate.
Here's a hint for working with the crime scene photos that I found is helpful; Save the pictures from this site to "My pictures" in your computer, then you can work with the pictures by zooming in and out, flipping parts,etc.
For those of us without the sophisticated software, it can be very revealing.
Hope this helps,
Joan

[sgh]

Sam, Steve

Nope. Elbow next to edge of table in MJK1 and elbow next to tip of bolster in MJK3. The bolster is almost touching the elbow in MJK3 but it's not even visible in MJK1.

Stephen,
I've added a blue line of sight to help clarify the difference in angles causing your confusion regarding the elbow near the bolster claim.
If the bed had been moved then the lines would not tally.
You can see the projected blue line points straight to where the bolster would be positioned on the projected table. If it did not line up then you have a case, but it does line up !!!
Angles are very deceptive to conceive in the mind until you place them as lines onto landmarks on the photo's - then it becomes clearer.
You are seeing a 'compressed line of sight' image in MJK3 that makes you 'think' the elbow is near to the bolster, when in reality it is not.
Sam's 'eclipse' analogy applies and explains this well.

Best, Steve