MJK photo 4 enhanced

[George Hutchinson]

Sorry about the Beatles post. I was just trying to lighten the mood a tad and have a bit of fun. ( My effort was really a take-off of the Rolling Stones 'Satanic Majesties Request' album that had the Beatles faces hidden in the holographic album cover). Sorry again for the non-topic post.

Hi Neathy.

I'm more astute than I took myself for, then! It really WAS The Beatles!

You don't need to apologise for making light - the majority of us do every so often and there was nothing out of order about your post. People thought you were being serious, hence the questions. Believe me, we've seen much, much weirder from people who are convinced they can see any old crap. Many of us applaud a sense of humour, especially as it winds up those without one.

PHILIP

[GordonH]

Not only that Gordon, but I think an argument might be made that he was "showing her" what he was doing to her, or wanted him figuratively watching him...with her head lying flat he wouldnt get that impression by her pose.

Her face being mutilated I think clearly shows he knew he was dealing with a human being who is recognizable by her facial features. Taking a heart also has symbolic inference here that would not be present with the taking of an animal heart. I would think almost anyone of that period associated the human heart with the humanity of a person...rather than the brain, which is really the case.

This was a man killing a human woman...Im sure he knew that. This wasnt remedial slaughterhouse work.

Cheers Gordon.

I think this rules out someone trying to make the MJK killing look like a ripper killing. It has to be one of the same series.

If he did pose the body then that suggests he was treating it as a person which rather goes against the slaughterman theory, where it would not be treated in quite the same way even if there was a sado sexual motive.

Not only that Gordon, but I think an argument might be made that he was "showing her" what he was doing to her, or wanted him figuratively watching him...with her head lying flat he wouldnt get that impression by her pose.

Her face being mutilated I think clearly shows he knew he was dealing with a human being who is recognizable by her facial features. Taking a heart also has symbolic inference here that would not be present with the taking of an animal heart. I would think almost anyone of that period associated the human heart with the humanity of a person...rather than the brain, which is really the case.

This was a man killing a human woman...Im sure he knew that. This wasnt remedial slaughterhouse work.

Cheers Gordon.

[GordonH]

If he did pose the body then that suggests he was treating it as a person which rather goes against the slaughterman theory, where it would not be treated in quite the same way even if there was a sado sexual motive.

I know many people try to resist seeing "posing" as part of this crime scene, but there is I think at least one pose element that the killer did intentionally....propping her head up with a breast and her uterus. Whether the angle of her left leg is the same in MJK1 and 3, or whether her head was actually facing the windows when they entered, or whether something was moved to facilitate photos...whether her left arm hung off the bed to the floor and they moved it back over her.....all those things are up in the air somewhat as to whether they relate to the killers actions specifically...but that single feature of this scene suggests that he did pose Mary...if only by elevating her head.

Best regards all.

[neathy]

trying to lighten the mood

Sorry about the Beatles post. I was just trying to lighten the mood a tad and have a bit of fun. ( My effort was really a take-off of the Rolling Stones 'Satanic Majesties Request' album that had the Beatles faces hidden in the holographic album cover). Sorry again for the non-topic post.

[Suzi]

Neathy - does this prove The Beatles (circa 1967) had something to do with it?

PHILIP

George had sort of gappy teeth didn't he?

Khanada- That's just a mass of clotted blood I reckon- no doubt with some fm involved considering the mutilation!

Suzi

That's fm as opposed to F M !!


Diana- As to 'pleated fabric'

I reckon IMHO - that's the the same as the rucked up sheet from the bed that appears under Mary's left shoulder and has been interpreted as a chemise puffy cuff...It's a sheet!....or whatever passed for such a thing in Miller's Court--

- I doubt they changed them daily nay yearly! and the 'bundle ' (Whatever that was!) -at the bottom of the bed -I still remain to be convinced wasn't put together, or found by, the photographer to rest his camera on to take the MJK 2 pic after the bed had been moved away from the wall to allow him and his camera and tripod in between the bed and the partition

Suz x

[diana]

Posed?

I have been looking at what appears to be a piece of pleated fabric bunched up under Mary's right leg. Could the folds have resulted when a section of the sheet was bunched and shoved under her leg?

[Khanada]

Lucy In Miller's Court With ... er ...

Neathy - does this prove The Beatles (circa 1967) had something to do with it?

OMG...

Philip, what have I told you about almost making me spit drinks on my keyboard?!


Seriously, in the image at the beginning of the thread, I thought I could see faces in that area, but then again, the human eye and mind so enjoys making patterns out of what's really nothingness, that I just let it go on by.

[George Hutchinson]

Neathy - does this prove The Beatles (circa 1967) had something to do with it?

PHILIP

[Suzi]

The closest thing I can make out of how she used to look is (and I don't mean this in a bastardy way at all) that she had gapped teeth.

'Er where did you get from?

[Suzi]

That little finger does look odd there- in it's positioning /angle looks more like a thumb but we know it isnt!!........unless there's more to Mary than we know (!) x ??

Trouble is Neathy, you can look long and hard at that ghastly image and after a while you can see anything you please-including Baphomet...well in extremis!!!!.......and that's just a start!!

sgh

Trouble is - it's a tad late for that now re the fingerprints/gloves etc. Tantalising though it is..............

Suz x

[sgh]

This is very good work.

What is the situation with the original photos?
Or are there any first generation (from the plate) prints?

If it was possible to get back to the closest to the original then there may be all sorts of possibilities for future enhancement.

I made my enhancements of the MJK3 photo on the low res image of only 120 kb's which I found on this site which is a copy of a copy of umpteen previous copies, so the quality was low to start with, hence there's the very basic information to work with to provide a bit of an improvement for general visual purposes.

If I had a professionally produced high resolution scan of the original image which would then contain high quality bit data to work with, then much more information could be extracted from the image.

As an example, there are several marks on MJK's right lower leg that appear to be finger smudges of body fluids/blood. It might be possible to ascertain whether these are finger smudges (which I think they are) and also if they are made by bare fingers or rubber gloved fingers (Indiarubber gloves were available and used at that time by medics I believe).
Should it be the case that these smudges can be proved to be made by a rubber gloved hand then I'm sure this would alert the JTR experts to consider and evaluate their prime suspects who might be considered likely to use them!


On Mary's left knee area there are at least five marks that appear similar to finger marks. As these are closest to the camera lens they too could be a good source of information as to determine a bare or gloved hand.
And again, on Mary's left wrist there appears to be at least one smudge similar to a finger mark. Although that wrist 'mark' is slightly angled away from the lens, it's close to the main focal point of the lens - the groin area,
so a decent visual may be possible.

I'm not saying that finger prints worthy of proper identification could be extracted from a hi res image, although I do not doubt the the resolution capabilities of film, even of that period, but that would be expecting too much I think. On the other hand, using advanced enhancement techniques
of forensic standards can reveal much more than one sometimes expects!

As an note, I'm curios as to the suitabilty of rubber gloved hands due to the danger to the operative of causing accidental self damage due to a sharp instrument unstable in slippery hands considering the voracity and apparent speed at which this mutilation was carried out.
However, a bare hand will still have a similar level of dangers.

To finalise, the question is, how to get hold of a genuine direct from the original hi res scan. Do the authorities allow this! If not - Why ?

[sgh]

A good try Neathy!

I increased the contrast of the enhanced MJK photo by 50% and discovered something others may have missed. I have outlined my discovery in light brown. Coincidence ?[ATTACH]4895[/ATTACH]

Very artistic and a good try, Neathy.
The eye tends to search for patterns as you have recognised here, however
the problem being, and I'm assuming those are drawn curtains where you have placed your sketch upon, that the sunlight would have cast dark shadows that could have shown a silhouette on the inside of the curtains if anybody was standing closely to the window on the outside, whereas we can see slightly lighter patches in and around the areas of your sketch.

Steve

[neathy]

Important Clue ?

I increased the contrast of the enhanced MJK photo by 50% and discovered something others may have missed. I have outlined my discovery in light brown. Coincidence ?