MJK photo 4 enhanced

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the kind words. However....

Why shouldn't Barnett have been given an opportunity to formally identify Mary Kelly as she "lay in state" at the mortuary? He may have broadly recognised her at the window, but that was hardly the right place - or perspective - from which to conduct a formal ID. It was hardly possible for him to see her eyes from that vantage point and in that light. The whole idea is a non-starter.

Also, there really is no mystery about the fact that only her "hair/ear and eyes" were recorded - and he did NOT state that these were the only things he could identify, either. 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? Of course he could recognise those things! The fact that every minute detail he recognised wasn't remarked upon and/or itemised is neither here nor there - they NEVER are.

Let's be reasonable here, and please let's not dig up that tedious debate on identification procedures, at least not on a thread about the photos.

[Jane Coram]

On the question of Mary's arms -We do have a certain amount of information about the arms from Dr. Bond's report.

In MJK1 it seems that the right arm is hidden behind the body and what appears to be a pile of bloodied sheet that is on the right side of the body.

Bond says that the shoulders were flat on the bed, although the axis of the body was inclined to the left side of the bed, so she was very slightly tilted but not enough to see the right shoulder by the looks of it. It's very hard to tell in a black and white shot what is flesh and what bloodied fabric.

Bond goes on to tell us that the left arm was close to the body with the forearm flexed at a right angle & lying across the abdomen, exactly as we can see in both photographs. I honestly can't see that there is any discrepancy between them at all in that respect.

Bond describes the right arm as being slightly abducted from the body & resting on the mattress, (which confirms that it is out of shot in MJK 1). He tell us that the elbow is bent & the forearm supine with the fingers clenched. So basically it looks as if it was fairly flat against the mattress.

He states that both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds. From that I suppose we can assume that the right arm had similar hideous cuts and wounds as the left arm, which is clearly visible in MJK1.

Bond also writes:

The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition.

That would seem to be a fair amount of damage to the back of the hand which should be readily visible if the hand in the shot towards the window is the right hand and not the left.

I think that the reason that the digit under discussion looks like a thumb is that the bottom half of the pinky is hidden under/in flesh and fabric, so that it looks as if it is shorter than it is. In my mind there is no question that the hand we see in both shots is the same hand in exactly the same position.

Regards

Jane

xxxxx

Oh I am so going to regret making this post.

What people see or dont see in images is a fascinating study topic on its own, some differences can be attributed to the quality of sight, some can be attributed to quality of image...and some it seems see superimposed shapes or details created unconsciously.

The line on Marys right leg...the hand visible in MJK3, The Great Bolster Debates, Whats That on the Table, Whats that on the Wall, How come she doesnt look "stout", Whats that inside her remains on MJK3, How come he removes all the flesh from only the right inside thigh, Did they remove the windows...are all former topics. Most fizzle when arguments are returning to square one.

But if the thread remains focussed and well read, like in a Kelly thread a short while back, you can discover things that can put issues to rest...or some that can test traditions. In MJK 1 you cannot make out Marys eyes at all...including sockets. The reason that was suggested by Sam Flynn, was that a skin flap was obscuring that portion of her face,..a reasonable, and probably correct deduction. Another member Simon Wood contributed a press quote that said Barnett was taken to ID Mary from the window.

That was new to me....that a report suggests that Barnett could not have seen the eyes of the "hair/ear and eyes" he stated were the only features he could identify. Which means he didnt formally ID her there, and had access to her in the same room somewhere, perhaps the morgue,....or the ID was at least 50% impossible.

When it comes to being sure of anything you see in that photo just remember the man who knew her best didnt recognize 80% of her most identifiable characteristics either....he is not on record as even recognizing her hands or feet....that might favor the morgue view being the one he had...as I say, if that occurred. We dont know that he did look at her again after the alleged window incident.

Best regards all.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Archbug,

.....now i'm worried you believe all newcomers are wet-behind-the-ears believers that baphomet was on the wall,

Far from it! but because a lot of the threads have disappeared I bet there are quite a few bewildered people out there! I'm bewildered and I've read most of them. Lol.

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

[John Casey]

The "stocking"

First of all, apologies if this is the wrong thread for this, and if someone with more knowledge than I, knows how to, feel free to move it to a more appropriate thread

I was watching Time Team (UK archealogy prog, for anyone not familiar with it) the other day, and it showed a scene with Tony Robinson skinning an Eel. For some reason it seemed familiar, but I couldn't place it. Then I was looking at this enhancment of MJK full length and it clicked! Is there any possibility that the line which has variously been described as a garter or a stocking or a scratch on the negative is actually loose skin, which has been pulled down much in the manner of literally skinning the leg? I've included a close up of the area I mean so you all can see what I'm burbling on about!

[Archbug]

Thank you for posting all the links Jane

Bophomet has always been my favourite!! although i have a soft spot for maybrick's JM as i can remember my father bringing home a book on him when i was quite young

However these discussions ive read several times and dont seem to help me disern if i can see her right arm or not, which is out of shot MJK 3 and difficult to interpret in MJK 1 (really really sorry if this is a rehash but i cant remember it discussed or if so find it again). How i wish we had a photo from the foot of the bed, this seems like a such an obvious location for a shot, we can live on hope there is one in a dusty attic/cellar/drawer somewhere!!

.....now i'm worried you believe all newcomers are wet-behind-the-ears believers that baphomet was on the wall, and if i look carefully enough i can see MY OWN initials.....but hang on i know......the crocodile dunnit

[Jane Coram]

And finally

This dissertation by Simon Wood is well worth a read.......it might clear up a few points as well!

ROOM 13 MILLERS COURT

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/room-13-millers-court.html

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[Jane Coram]

Afterthought.

I would recommend that everyone buy the casebook CD that's available here.
There are archived threads on it going way back, and all of the discussions mentioned can be read there. Well worth buying.

xxxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

Sorry, this is a long post, but for once I recommend that every one who is reasonably new on the boards read it, as it will save them a lot of headaches!

I think it is probably a good idea to try and give a round up of some of the other (many, many other) threads that there have been over the years on the photos of Mary Kelly, to iron out some of the confusion that's going on here. I'm sure there are a lot of newcomers to the boards that are scratching their heads and wondering what some of the comments in posts are all about, and getting more and more bewildered.

Unfortunately when casebook went down a while ago, quite a few discussions were lost for good and a lot of threads before that were archived, so they are no longer here to view...........hence a lot of comments flying way over people's heads on threads like these about statues of Baphomet, bottles between Mary's legs, stockings, intestines dangling from the ceilings, bed rolls with cameras on, numbers etched on Mary's legs, light sources through cracks in doors, faces in the window, knives on the table, mirrors, and even real demons lurking in the shadows.

There have also been lots of jokes about crocodiles on the table by Mary's bed - which would certainly add to the confusion - it is, needless to say a joke!

Over the years many posters have suggested that they can see hidden artifacts or details in the photos of Mary........such things as the initials 'FM' supposedly clearly visible on the wall behind Mary's bed. These appear on some copies of the prints and not others, and are clearly an illusion or they would be on all of them.

This is true of many of the 'ghosts' artifacts and other items that people can see on various copies of the prints. They are more often than not just bits of grime, scratches, or natural degradation of the photo.

In some instances though, objects and items spotted are almost certainly present and have probably been correctly identified, so I'm not suggesting for a moment that everything that has been spotted is irrelevant or imagination. A lot of valuable information has been gleaned from the photos, thanks to people putting forward suggestions about what they have spotted in the photos and some great discussions have taken place as well.

People can only make up their own mind as to how much value the suggestions have based on logic and common sense as well as probability.
The Good Michael got there before me on that one!

To be frank, a lot of researchers who have been around the boards for some years, have got rather worn down by so many threads of people suggesting things that they have spotted in the photos, so they are not being churlish when they make jokey and dismissive comments.........they have just had it for so long they have got fed up with it. It's not personal. If you had seen some of the threads you would really understand why!

Here are some of the other threads on casebook discussing the photos that might be of interest.

MJK 1 enhanced

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1821

What the photos tell us about her last moments

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1830

The window removal (to take the photos)

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1728

The crucifix in the photo

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1371

The face in the window

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1517

The FM on the wall

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1323

Can Mary's face ever be reconstructed?

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=243

The bolster debate[

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=100

I hope this has helped to clear up some of the confusion on this thread.

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[Nothing to see]

excellent would hate to be viewed as a meddlesome interloper :L

An area which always confuses my eyes is the bed to the right of her body (MJK 1), while steves pic's make this a bit clearer i am still quite confused about what i'm seeing. This is made more difficult by it not being shown in the other view. If an image from the foot of the bed did indeed exist it would show it clearer....but alas....

What do others think is happening at the right side, apart from the usual discussions on knife cuts in the sheet etc.. i mean more to do with arm positiong and blood pooling, ruffled sheet in the way....if anyone can enlighten i'd appreciate. I think someone mentioned being able to see the right arm outstretched which i cant manage to locate

I'd like the same answers if the posters who started the thread are still interested. Seems to me there is a big difference between the photo taken from the door and the photo taken from the wall with Mary's bed pushed awau from the photog.

[Archbug]

excellent would hate to be viewed as a meddlesome interloper :L

An area which always confuses my eyes is the bed to the right of her body (MJK 1), while steves pic's make this a bit clearer i am still quite confused about what i'm seeing. This is made more difficult by it not being shown in the other view. If an image from the foot of the bed did indeed exist it would show it clearer....but alas....

What do others think is happening at the right side, apart from the usual discussions on knife cuts in the sheet etc.. i mean more to do with arm positiong and blood pooling, ruffled sheet in the way....if anyone can enlighten i'd appreciate. I think someone mentioned being able to see the right arm outstretched which i cant manage to locate

[Nothing to see]

Hey nothing to see,

Im sorry if you found my post unwelcome or irrelevant, but like you i was only trying to bring this thread, which started out a most interesting read, a little back to topic.

Apologies for my interferring ways

I'd also like to say thanks to steve for his hard work, the pics do look great!

Nope. None of the above. You don't interfere. Everyone has the right to their OP.

I, too, would like to know how the hell this thread about MJK's death scene photos got hijacked.

It was a serious thread with many good posts. I've been away for a few days and it's degenerated into this?

[Archbug]

Hey nothing to see,

Im sorry if you found my post unwelcome or irrelevant, but like you i was only trying to bring this thread, which started out a most interesting read, a little back to topic.

Apologies for my interferring ways

I'd also like to say thanks to steve for his hard work, the pics do look great!

[Nothing to see]

OK Lurker. You don't think Mary's hand was chopped off and repositioned?

Good to know.

[Archbug]

O.k. i know as a watcher rather than an active poster i dont have the right to just throw in my pennies worth whenever i feel like it...........

............But come on people!!!

As the good micheal begged USE YOUR INTELLIGENCE.

I think you will find that the original post on swapping arms was a rather brilliant and ironic explanation for the proponents of the 'its someone elses, not her hand/left hand theory' If you read it carefully you will quite clealy see the sentence after these theoris reads,

"Intelligent thought may allow us to put those ideas to rest"

In general however, I cant understand how people have such little concept of perspective!! Sitting at my desk now and moving my head back and forward my bottle of juice looks like its touching my lamp....but shock horror its a good 12 inches away, how did that happen.....<insert widly unreasonable speculation here>......i am in perfect agreement with others that its natural some things may have been moved a little for the photographers ease of convenience but there are no MAJOR aberations in positioning.