MJK photo 4 enhanced

[richardnunweek]

Hi Maggyann,
A Intresting thought that the object on the table was a spare mattress, it would quite possibly have been on the table when not in use.
You along with Jane Coram, noticed the stripes and the 'Ticking', and therefore let us once and for all reject that what we see, is a mound of kellys flesh.
Regards Richard.

[Maggyann]

I think the 'bolster' is some sort of stuffed palliase. The stripes show on the material just as you would expect with the material called 'ticking' and they were stuffed with feather, straw or rags usually to make an extra layer of mattress or even a spare mattress for a guest or child. Joe said MJK had another woman living with them at one point and that was why he left so I this was probably the 'spare' mattress for that guest.

[ghoulstonstreet]

I Share Your Vision

What the hell is a bolster?

I'm on page 8 and will say so far, I can't make out anything BUT a partial hand in the up close gross pic and it looks like the thumb of the right hand to me off a straight visual, and the pinky doesn't bend the same way. Why is it such a horrid proposition this is a shot taken from another angle? They do that in CSI work.

Other than that, the big hump looks like a well endowned Mae West sort of lady parts thing but apparently is not the case if he removed both breasts, so what are the humps? What the hell am I looking at here? Is this even the same victim? Maybe they got pics confused in the case files. What it all looks like to me, can't be. So I don't know what this is in the gross pic. So ehh.


Oh and whoever said he wasn't whacko is whacko.

I just had to reply because you are seeing this photograph in just about exactly the way I do. What is the big curved lump on the right? And in my opinion we are looking at a THUMB, not a pinkie. There are so many posts about the anatomical details in this photo that my head spins. Can someone please post a copy of this photo with labels on the body parts?
As per the "bolster", well, in the US a bolster is specifically a cylindrical pillow. That's not in this photo, of course. I believe the word bolster refers to the stuffed fabric thing in the upper left, which looks like a bed covering. Best to all. Got to go to work now.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
IF that is not a bolster , spec-savers I want my money back.
Richard.

[AuroraSarintacos]

I feel so much tragedy when looking at the first photograph. If one were to look hard enough, you can see the shadow of her hair.

She was a human being who had something horrible happen to her.

I hope she is in a better place.

[karensa]

It does look that way but as it turns out, those asserting it's her left hand would be correct. I had commented on that on the last page. Not sure how far you read

The door/key issue is sticking out at me now...anyone could've easily gotten in without any problem. Hmmm...

[ghoulstonstreet]

Little Finger?

It looks like we are looking across Mary Kelly's midsection from her right side to her left side. The hand and finger we see must be the left hand. I guess. Because anatomically that just does not look like a pinkie finger. I realize it does not jive with the positioning in the full shot. Quite confusing. Explanations, please?

[CountessHappyBunny]

There's been much discussion about this, and much disagreement. My view is that it was a thin "garter", possibly improvised from a bootlace.

It really is too precise for a cut, if you ask me. That's comparatively wobbly flesh he'd have been dealing with there, not to mention a relatively springy mattress, so maintaining a steady line across several inches of curving flesh would have been rather difficult. Furthermore, the killer would have had to have been on the bed, with his leg over his shoulder perhaps, in order to remain steady enough to make such a neat, thin wound.

I suppose the clincher comes from Dr Bond mentioning almost every wound you can see in the photographs with minute detail, including the merest abrasions to the back of the hand and a single, small cut to the thumb. He goes on to mention the circular incisions to the breasts... but of a circular incision around the right calf, no mention at all is made.

Thank you! - CHB

[karensa]

Finally made it to page 27. If it's any consolation, I saw the doorknob right away once the position of the room made sense I lost my favorite graphics program so had to use a crappy one for now with minimum options, but brightened, contrasted, and then sepia makes the door/window wall much easier to see. The doorknob would be facing into the room, the dark line above and below the light reflection is the edge angle of the edge of the door and the edge of the window wall. The curtain is easier to make out and it's light coming through the right edge of whatever covering was used. The door is closed.





My question is this....


If her door knob was broken and there was no key option from the outside, then she basically left the place wide open for intrusion when she was away. Now being inside the place with this or that guy, she might have bolted it from the inside but who knows. If there was no way to lock the door, then anyone could've come in on her. Or could've been waiting on her, maybe hiding under the bed til she wrapped it up and then got her when she passed out from the all nighter binge?

Timeline I read showed her to have basically pulled an all nighter. She was seen early in the morning, as late as 9:30 something, and she was found an hour and 15 minutes later all hacked up. It'd be daylight, no other way out but the door into the alley way or the window, and from that one picture, wide open for sighting.

Mention of part of a hat in the fireplace...could this person have had a change of clothing handy and burned all the bloody stuff - or did this person get naked first to commit the act and then wipe down, redress and walk out casually? I am of the opinion he killed her or rendered her unconscious and then performed the mutilations given the fact of other tenants all about and the hole in the window so if he attacked her at all, she could've screamed and drawn attention. That she didn't seems to me she was either knocked unconscious or already dead and couldn't scream or feel all that.

I also don't think whoever hollered murder had anything to do with anything, given the timing.

As for the suggestions JtR had the fire going to be able to see, I doubt it. It was 9:30 in the morning, clearly daylight with enough light through the window. Considering the month, the fire was no doubt for warmth and any cooking.

She talked to a younger guy mid 20s earliest, with a description that could reasonably fit James Kelly...and then a few others overnight and into the morning, with the stout one being the last one with her for a little over 2 hours before someone had *heard* someone walking away down the alley way, though they didn't hear any door close. That could've been the last one she'd been with and that guy left. I'm reluctant to consider the men she'd encountered that others had been up close enough to see her with, and those guys seeing these people because if so, those people could ID these guys easily if seen again, so if any were the ripper it'd seem to me he'd go after the witnesses too. The only one from the timeline that didn't seem to know he'd been seen talking to Mary was the JK looking guy.

She was seen after she got sick and then she went in her place. An hour and 15 minutes later, she's hacked to shreds and nobody sees anyone go in with her or leave.

Didn't her ex know the lock was broken?

Didn't her ex get upset and not want her hooking?

If her ex showed up early, wouldn't she let him in without protest?

Someone got in her place without forced entry, so she let him in quietly or he knew he could slip in quietly.

Is it possible that Mary Kelly wasn't actually a ripper victim but a jealous boyfriend victim who went nuts and attacked the object of his ire - her lady parts?

If the cops had to force open the door, knocking a table out of the way, that's a needle across a record, if the door/lock was broken. Did someone put the table in front of the door to help keep it from opening? If so, is there an alternate way out - what about through an attic or something? This one doesn't jive.

Just kicking around options. Whoever it was pulled this off in barely more than an hour, from arrival to departure, and did so without drawing suspicion...and where he would exit down the alley way on the other side, it'd have to be casual enough not to make people freak out at the bloody guy running off. Hmmm.

[karensa]

Well I can't delete or edit the above so apologies for the spam. I'd put it all in the one post if it'd let me

I do feel that her body wasn't positioned or staged. Granted her involvement in the art of sex and the genital mutilation and the spread legs would suggest that this is all the same but to me, that's associative and subjective to the beholder (like the hand thing!). In order for him or anybody to commit this kind of slaughter, he moved her legs apart for the "best angle" and no doubt moved her dress out of his way to get at flesh. It was for convenience of the act and not sexual in and of itself.

If he was trying to show off his work, a much more symbolic or representative position would be shown. He left the clothing bunched up and in a wadded mess, much as he left her...and then he left her in the death position. Her legs were apart because he was very probably down between her legs cutting and hacking. He had them shoved out of his way. Wonder if measurements could be taken based on her height and space between the legs to get an idea of Jack's size...just a thought.

Great thread though...got 10 more pages...sorry if it's spam posting but this forum doesn't allow for delete function *all the time* apparently...and I'm still commenting :P

[karensa]

Ohhh kay. Wow, amazing how we process visual data.

I *think* I see what's up with the photos - and while I still *see* the thumb of the right hand (and my brain processed the rest of the image as her head being out of view on the *right* edge of the photo), that's not the perspective at all. Nope, I think I get it now.

The reports clearly have her right arm/hand on the bed, and it's not showing in the main full body image. Only the left hand is draped over her side.

The camera angle is most likely taken from the foot of the bed on the side closer to the wall, up near her hip area, facing UPwards toward the bedside table. The big bloody "thing" in the center is the genital area after having been mangled, and the skinned portion that originally looked like a forearm is actually her right leg. The area below that circle artifact is a dark line, which would be the same as had been mistaken/assumed to be the ridge of a stocking on the right leg. This image is an up close and personal photo of the "money shot" so to speak, and the line of perspective goes across and upwards to the table with the rest of the remains still there.

Look on page 1, at the larger shot of her on the bed and up against the wall is whatever that thing is, pillow, bedding, whatever - that would be the general position of the photographer kneeling down and shooting from bed height angle toward the table.

So in this shot, her head would be out of view of the left edge of the photo, and while it still looks like a thumb, the hand being out of the shot in this manner is a visual illusion and the brain is seeing the beautiful lady instead of the old hag, or the white rabbit instead of the woman at the vanity etc.

*whew*

I need a drink after that mental wrestling match.

[karensa]

And how sure are we that this is even taken from the crime scene itself and not after the body was moved elsewhere? I do understand the argument about which hand or thumb/pinky but there's still another scenario that isn't moving from one side of the bed to the other, but moving the body or turning it, and someone putting the right hand over that side of her body, and still getting the table thing in the shot.

1888 CSI was crude compared to procedures today. Of course they moved the body and who knows what else and we don't know the sequence (theirs) of the shots, or if there had been others that have been lost over this much time.

Page 11 and instead of debating what it is, my question is now on "and the point is?" Back to reading...

[karensa]

What the hell is a bolster?

I'm on page 8 and will say so far, I can't make out anything BUT a partial hand in the up close gross pic and it looks like the thumb of the right hand to me off a straight visual, and the pinky doesn't bend the same way. Why is it such a horrid proposition this is a shot taken from another angle? They do that in CSI work.

Other than that, the big hump looks like a well endowned Mae West sort of lady parts thing but apparently is not the case if he removed both breasts, so what are the humps? What the hell am I looking at here? Is this even the same victim? Maybe they got pics confused in the case files. What it all looks like to me, can't be. So I don't know what this is in the gross pic. So ehh.


Oh and whoever said he wasn't whacko is whacko.

[Sam Flynn]

with his leg over his shoulder perhaps

Nice trick if you can manage it, but what I meant to say was "with her leg over his shoulder", of course

[Sam Flynn]

hey - can anyone tell me what the line is that appears to encircle her right leg, just above her calf muscle?

There's been much discussion about this, and much disagreement. My view is that it was a thin "garter", possibly improvised from a bootlace.

It really is too precise for a cut, if you ask me. That's comparatively wobbly flesh he'd have been dealing with there, not to mention a relatively springy mattress, so maintaining a steady line across several inches of curving flesh would have been rather difficult. Furthermore, the killer would have had to have been on the bed, with his leg over his shoulder perhaps, in order to remain steady enough to make such a neat, thin wound.

I suppose the clincher comes from Dr Bond mentioning almost every wound you can see in the photographs with minute detail, including the merest abrasions to the back of the hand and a single, small cut to the thumb. He goes on to mention the circular incisions to the breasts... but of a circular incision around the right calf, no mention at all is made.