MJK photo 4 enhanced

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Helen,

If the leg bone is as I see it then an axe, hatchet, cleaver or impliment of that ilk must have been employed. I say this because of the end of the bone being cleaved off horizontily.

If so, then we have to account for how he could have done so without damaging the rest of the leg. I could imagine a "free-standing" femur being split along its length if it were stood on one end and chopped, vertically, like a log; but I can't see how the trajectory of a knife or cleaver could be forced along the line necessary to create that effect if the thigh were still attached between the hip and the knee. It sounds practically impossible.

For what it's worth, I think that the "split femur" is an artefact produced by some blood-soaked rucks in the bed-linen.

[Archaic]

Hi, Helen, I just wanted to take a minute to welcome you to the forums, and to say that I find both of your posts very interesting...

Now I need to go study the photos again so I can respond intelligently to the questions you have raised!

Best regards, Archaic

PS: I would like to say hello to Alibalie as well, as I see you are another new member!

[Snicket-Dweller]

Further to my above post and image.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it is Mary's fractured leg bone, it would answer a lot of questions regarding this photograph but raise many more.

For instance it would explain why the photographer needed to get that awkward shot across the body as it is a very telling wound. It also appears that it is this fracture that is the middle and main focus of the shot.

It would also explain all the queries regarding the left knee position being higher than in the full body image. The photographer needed the leg raised so the whole fractured bone is in shot. The only other (that I can think of) way that it could be done would to be to take an overhead shot, which wouldn't be possible with LVP camera equipment.

It also means that the right leg is more than likely fractured and is not bits of draped skin causing an optical illusion.

If the leg bone is as I see it then an axe, hatchet, cleaver or impliment of that ilk must have been employed. I say this because of the end of the bone being cleaved off horizontily.

If these mad mutterings of mine are correct on any level then the medicos either ignored the these huge injuries (unlikely as the photographer obviously spotted them) or they deliberatley withheld this information.

The axe/cleaver theory would also explain why the legs are only partialy de-nuded, and the huge v shaped wounds on the arms. As an aside, I have seen wounds similar to those on the arms before albeit on a much smaller scale. Shears or scissors cause similar wounds when they knick the skin on a horizontal cut, think sheep shearing or a hair dresser cutting hair through her/his fingers.

Please be gentle it's only my second post.

Helen x

[Snicket-Dweller]

Hi to all,

I'm new to the boards, infact I only found this site 3 days ago. In those 3 days I have must have had about 6 hours sleep as I have spent so much time avidly reading as many post as possible.

I have attached a piccie of MJK 3, can anyone tell me if the coloured outlines are Mary's femur?

Yellow-Ball end of femur (with fractured end). This end actually looks like it ha been cleaved through on both the horizontal and vertical as I can see the shadow caused by the marrow cavity)

Pink-Long part of bone Extending into muscle depicted by the turquoise line)with fractured other end

Red-Cleave mark (not on the correct axis I know, it is the lack of sleep LOL)

Please be aware these markings are not intended to be exact, just indications so you know which parts I am waffleing on about.

If this has been discussed before I am sorry to resurrect it again, my only defence is that I am a newbie.

Helen x

Thank You

Thank you so much for those picture, I really think that people do not know the severity that these lady went though. I have always said that if I ever wanted to meet any ghost it would be Mary Kelly's, even though I can't seem to get though a haunted house. LOL!!! As long as she was nice of course! But, the truth is he has become an entertainment icon and the women have been once again forgotten. I hope these picture help people to understand!!!!

[caz]

It's Caz "domestic goddess" Morris doing the Drape 'n' Vac !!

Oi Sam, stop that! If hubby sees this it'll be curtains for me - he'll have me cleaning the bleedin' things all over the weekend.

Only just seen this thread. Fascinating stuff - and with knobs on!

I still think Mary's pet crocodile got a bit too snappy happy. She should have followed Liz Prater's example and stuck to fluffier creatures.

While I'm here I may as well say that I totally agree with what you said at one point in this thread about the identification procedure. I imagine Joe being asked:

"Do you recognise the deceased as someone you knew in life, Mr Barnett?"

"Y-y-y-yes, sir. It's m-m-m-my poor Marie, sir. As p-p-p-plain as day, sir."

"Could you be a bit more specific for me? What is it that makes you certain?"

"Certain - oh everything about her, sir. T-t-t-too many things to mention."

"Yes, I do understand, Mr Barnett. But if you could just indicate one or two identifying features for the record, I can complete the formalities without causing you too much more distress."

"Distress - th-th-thank you, sir. Then you can put that I formally identify her by the ear [or 'air, depending on one's preference] and the eyes."

Job done.

Where people get the idea that Joe was 'only' able to say it was his Mary because of these two features (and presumably wouldn't have had a clue if the killer had taken her head clean away) goodness alone knows.

Love,

Caz
X

[sgh]

Hi Steve,

I bow out, leaving you with a rare photograph of MJK cleaning her muslin curtains.

[ATTACH]5220[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

WoW!!! MJK never looked so good :-)
You'll bow back in again pretty soon, Simon.

Best,
Steve

[Stephen Thomas]

One way to ensure that youve determined the correct light source is to use the time of day, room alignment and environmental conditions for that day.

The usual way is to look where the shadows are, Mike.

Here you can clearly see them on the left of the bolster's 'crocodile's head'.

[Sam Flynn]

I bow out, leaving you with a rare photograph of MJK cleaning her muslin curtains.

[ATTACH]5220[/ATTACH]

It's Caz "domestic goddess" Morris doing the Drape 'n' Vac !!

[Malcolm X]

probably his wife.........quite attractive too

[Mr.Hyde]

Hi Simon Wood,
Thanks for the rare photo.Best laugh I've had for a while,
Dave.

One way to ensure that youve determined the correct light source is to use the time of day, room alignment and environmental conditions for that day.

I believe 2 of those answers would be the time was sometime soon after 1:30 by the records....and the second is that the day was slightly overcast I believe.

I know Simon has the correct answers to these issues...light and period photographic data.

Best regards all.

[Malcolm X]

you can see the light source comming in from the second window on the hideous mutilations.....it's as obvious as anything, they're probably temporary curtains on the left....... who knows!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

I bow out, leaving you with a rare photograph of MJK cleaning her muslin curtains.



Regards,

Simon

[sgh]

Hi Stephen,

You wrote, "If the ones [curtains] on the smaller window were muslin then so be it. The light source on MJK3 is pretty obviously from the larger window, judging by the shadows."

How does that work? According to Steve's plan the smaller window is the only one visible to the camera. Therefore light should have been visible through its muslin curtains.

Sorry, Stephen, the whole premise of the light source in MJK3 doesn't wash.

Regards,

Simon

Simon,
Stephen has understood the main light source correctly!
It's coming from the 2nd window out of shot to the right.
Light is recognisable on those curtains by their lighter colour compared to everything else in the room due to them allowing a certain amount of light through it's very fabric.

Best, Steve