MJK photo 4 enhanced

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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]

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.

[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

[Khanada]

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.

It's all good. Both you and Phil gave me quite a laugh. I thank you both for it. Besides, sometimes some of these subjects need at least a moment of mood-lightening -- they're awfully grim.

[Khanada]

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.

That's an extremely chilling thought... And I think you could very well be onto something there.

Of course, it begs the question(s) of whether the same killer did for the other ladies, and if so, why didn't he seem to want the others to watch? (At least, going by descriptions of how the bodies were situated when found.)

[perrymason]

That's an extremely chilling thought... And I think you could very well be onto something there.

Of course, it begs the question(s) of whether the same killer did for the other ladies, and if so, why didn't he seem to want the others to watch? (At least, going by descriptions of how the bodies were situated when found.)

Hi Gordon,

I think its the subtleties of the scene in Room 13 that separates this killer from the traditional model prior to Mary....that of a killer who kills strangers he meets in the street. Marys death was personal.. on all levels.

We cant be sure whether the killer tilted the face so she could "watch him leave", or draped the left arm across an empty cavity....but if you have a good imagination and you can flesh out the remains on the bed in the pose its in....it seems a lot like like a woman provocatively reclining on the bed...even in an artists pose perhaps.

Best regards G.

[Sam Flynn]

Marys death was personal.. on all levels.

No, Mike - you believe that it was personal on all levels. If that were so, based on the criteria you put forward, every indoor mutilation murder would be personal; or that outdoor killers never kill indoors - but neither is true. Mutilation murders of strangers can and do happen indoors. The "indoor/outdoor" dimension may be about as significant as the "single-cut/three-flaps" dimension, i.e. not significant at all, but rather indicative of expediency and circumstance.

[Suzi]

Hi all-
This personal thing is starting to worry me- I've always thought that the MJK scene is a) quite unique because it's just total/partial destruction and b) Almost a let's see what I can do to out do anyone else -scenario...There is the possibility that it was a total lunacy from a MJK ex lover/s or whatever to totally destroy her etc by partially dismembering the body and destroying the face so that it became unrecognisable..... despite the fact that our Joe seemed to reconise that mess by the parts various!

But somehow to me, this doesn't sit right...Why bother with all that when you could have taken her into a dark alley and done for her in some way- or chucked her off of a bridge- whatever, if all you wanted to do was get rid!

..........Or just buggered off yourself come to that and leave her to it- unless she had something over you that may make that move a tad dangerous Hmmmmmmmmmm

Overkill I say! - for whatever reason I wish I knew!

As to the 'posing'- Hmmmmmmmmm it's an odd way to be found on your bed after such extreme mutilation ,so yes I would say she was 'er rearranged after the 'doings' for best effect whether seen from the window (possibly imagined) or coming in through the door ( highly unlikely!).

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The only visible body part in the photo is someone's right hand. I use the word "visible" advisedly.

Regards,

Simon