MJK photo 4 enhanced

[Fisherman]

NTS writes:

"There must, I think, be photos taken of her after she was stitched up"

and

"I don't buy that the City police were smarter and had more resources. For a crime this important, they must have dropped their differences."

Well, NTS, I don´t have to sell it - history has taken care of that part for me. All of the other Ripper victims - up to Eddowes - were photographed for one reason only; to enable an identification. It was standard procedure, and the pictures were publically displayed, hoping for tips. The damage done to these victims, though, was NOT depicted, since the Met had not realized that there were forensic benefits to be made.

This, however, was something the City knew, and that is why Eddowes was photographed, as well as drawn in situ - all for forensic purposes.

Whether Kelly was photographed after having been sewn up (if that she was), I´m not sure. She had already been identified, and whatever the doctors came up with would have had very small likeness to the real Mary. And the forensic evidence had been secured already - by now, the Met had started to catch up on the Citys ideas and that is why we DO have in situ pics of Mary.

The best,
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

I agree with what you say. But Barnett could only id her because of her eyes.
So, that means he must have seen her pre any stitching or fixing her up. I have a prob thinking he was taken to Miller's CT and asked to ID her there.

It's an interesting qn. There must, I think, be photos taken of her after she was stitched up. If it was done for Eddowes, then why not for Kelly. No, I don't buy that the City police were smarter and had more resources. For a crime this important, they must have dropped their differences.

Anyway, IMO.

[Fisherman]

To begin with, NTS, we don´t know what was done for Kelly. She may well have been stitched up.
The main reason for the differences, though, probably lie in the fact that we are dealing with different police forces - Eddowes was the only victim on City Police territory, and they apparently were a bit ahead of their colleagues in the Met when it came to using photos for forensic purposes.

The best,
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

High five the docs who stitched up Cathy. And the photogs who took her before and after photos.

OK. Why wasn't this done for Kelly?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jukka,

On 12th November 1888 a Pall Mall Gazette reporter went with the jury to see the Millers Court victim in the Shoreditch mortuary. He wrote—

"Only her face was visible: the hideous and disembowelled trunk was concealed by the dirty grey cloth, which had probably served to cover many a corpse. The face resembled one of those horrible anatomical specimens which may be seen in surgical shops. The eyes were the only vestiges of humanity, the rest was so scored and slashed that it was impossible to say where the flesh began and the cuts ended. And yet it was no means a horrible sight. I have seen bodies in the Paris Morgue which looked far more repulsive."

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Did they ever even try to think about stitching together MJK's face?

They might well have done, Jukka. I know her facial mutilations were severe, but they were - one hesitates to use the word - "only" cuts after all, perhaps only twice as numerous as those sustained by Catherine Eddowes. It wouldn't have been beyond the capabilities of a Victorian doctor to at least patch her up as best he could.

[Suzi]

No point in getting the needle and thread out for Mary I'd say- anyway Janey has given us a GREAT Mary!

Reckon they'd have sort of flattened it down and covered her with a sheet- leaving the hair and ears exposed of course for identification purposes! LOL

[Malcolm X]

Hello Sam!

Did they ever even try to think about stitching together MJK's face?!

All the best
Jukka

dont know, i dont think they stitched her face back up.... JOE BARNETT recognised Kelly by her hair/ eye colour only .... her face would've been far too mangled to rebuild... maybe be able to do it nowadays

i've always wondered what she looked like, JANE CORAM would be the best to illustrate her face around here, great artist

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Sam!

Did they ever even try to think about stitching together MJK's face?!

All the best
Jukka

[Sam Flynn]

Wich brings me to a question:
Were Eddowes and MJKs "noses" ever recovered?

They were never reported as missing, Mitch. They were just cut off - Eddowes' only partially so (and it was stitched back on at the mortuary).

[Mitch Rowe]

Here are my opinions for what they are worth.

Whether JTR posed the bodies or not isnt as important as the fact that it appears as if Annies body position is nearly the exact mirror image of MJKs.

I had my doubts at first as to whether the MJK3 photo was a fake considering it re-appeared only recently but after further study of the photo and actually recognizing what I was looking at it appears to me to be absolutely genuine.

I dont believe MJKs body was wearing stockings or anything else. I think the mark on her calf may have been dried blood that dried when her leg was horizontal. But I lean more towards a cut of some type.

The wrinkles in the sheet are from JTR moving the body.

Clenched fists are a sign of strangulation.

After studying what JTR left of MJKs face I have concluded that it is not as bad as it looks. It appears to be mostly made up slices in such a manner as to cause folds of skin to fall from the face. If you look at a high rex image you can see these folds are still clinging to the face obscuring possibly(very possible!)undamaged areas of the face. I myself think that JTR cut the vee shapes on Eddowes face to give the same effect.

If one considers the time JTR may have spent removing MJKs vital organs and the least amount of time JTR spent cutting the skin off MJK then one realizes the skin itself is playing a major role in JTRs post mortem activities.

This seems also to be true with AC. If three flaps were cut and removed then one can presume it takes more cuts than one fell swoop of the knife.

Thats why my current theory is JTR wasnt focused on the organs themselves but what type of flesh they were made of.

Wich brings me to a question:
Were Eddowes and MJKs "noses" ever recovered?

[Sam Flynn]

We're getting an awful lot of victims with clenched fists. Is there some post-mortem reflex that might allow this to happen?

Indeed, Chava. Rigor mortis can cause the fingers to clench. "No measurable shortening of muscle occurs during rigor mortis unless the muscles are subjected to tension. When rigor is fully developed, the joints of the body become fixed, and the state of flexion or extension of these joints depends upon the position of the trunk and limbs at the time of death. If the body is supine then the large joints of the limbs become slightly flexed during the development of rigor. The joints of the fingers and toes are often markedly flexed due to the shortening of the muscles of the forearms and legs." (See this article.)

Kelly's body was supine, and both her arms would certainly have been subjected to tension - the left arm being placed across the torso, and the right being "abducted" from the body and lying across the mattress. Bond wrote:

"The right arm was slightly abducted from the body and rested on the mattress. The elbow was bent, the forearm supine with the fingers clenched."

It's conceivable that Bond's not mentioning this detail in respect of Kelly's left arm/hand was simply an omission on his part, or maybe rigor had just commenced in the extremities by the time the body came to be photographed.

(Originally posted by moi over on Howard's site.)

[Nothing to see]

I didn't know Barnett was taken to Miller's Ct to id Kelly's body in situ. That's news to me. I always thought he id'd her (or what he could) at the morgue. So.

Mr Miller takes photo through window/enters crime scene, backs up against window and takes photo. Very carefully walks across blood, gore etc to opposite wall carrying heavy, bulky tripod and camera.
Pushes bed away from wall to get 2nd photo of abdominal mutilations (and I still can't 'see' anything in that photo).

Wasn't no3 shot by a Frenchman, or was it he reproduced it? Can't even think of his name, at the moment. Lacenaire (I know that's not right) but it was something like that. If Miller took 6 to 10 photos in that room then he or someone else either destroyed them, locked them away never to be seen, or someone's sitting on a goldmine. Wish it were me.

[The Good Michael]

There's no way that Barnett - or anyone else ID'ing a body - should have to list every single detail they recognise. It's not as if he was going to comment on "her hair, ear, eyes, teeth, nape-of-neck, areolas, nipples, right forearm, fingers, thumbs, knees, right shin, ankles, heels, soles, toes...", is it?

Gareth,

Thanks for bringing this up. I think this is an opportune time to say that so many folks, because something isn't specifically said, seize the opportunity to insert all sorts of their own fancies into a scenario. Many things may have happened that make sense. For example, moving things for a photograph make sense, if it is deemed necessary. Writing down what one observes makes sense, but writing down what one doesn't observe would be ridiculous.

"I did not see a statue of Baphomet." I didn't see a wine bottle." "Although there was bood on the wall that ran in rivulets and looked like FM, upon closer examination, I saw only rivulets." "The flesh was piled next to a bolster." "The GSG writing did not contain the word: Juives".

It's sometimes annoying to have to constantly refute what to most students of the case is wild speculation. Logical speculation, based upon... the way Gareth things , is good and healthy. Wild schemes of ghosts, goblins, conspiracies, and other canards make this site far bigger than it should be, and for more unwieldy for the neophyte or casual user who has to wade through huge amounts of insane ideas and refutations. I suggest that folks PM or email others if they have something out of the norm to discuss before they throw it on Casebook to be attacked and defended, over and over again.

This idea of MJK's pinky being a thumb on the opposite hand is a prime example of taking illusion over common sense and common sense loses out because of the frustration levels this cause.

That's all,

Mike

[Chava]

We're getting an awful lot of victims with clenched fists. Is there some post-mortem reflex that might allow this to happen? Because I don't think she would have fought her attacker with a clenched fist. And she does seem to have some defensive wounds on the back of her hand. (Which could have been caused in a barney with Barnett earlier in the evening. He didn't say they had a fight, but then he wouldn't have, would he?)