MJK photo 4 enhanced

[chrisjd]

Reminder call: Reasonable Question!

Hi Simon,

"With so many contradictions existing between the two photos, why do you persist in believing that MJK3 is the scene depicted in MJK1 but taken from a different angle?"

What else could it be? Please explain.

Christian

[Domino]

Mary's left hand looks like a left hand to me. The pinky finger looks as though it's been obscured by all the mess, hence why it looks stubby, like a thumb.

[Malcolm X]

Poor Mary, what a repulsive mess...almost unbelievable, this looks like insanity and depravity... it doesn't seem like George Chapman either, wrong personality

why make that mess of her? this killer is a real sicko and an imbicile too.

you can argue about this that and the other and we have done over the years, but this mess reveals little clues... the killer either broke in or was a customer, whatever the case; Mary put up a struggle before dying.

would Abberline have noticed a suspect as disturbing as this?......... maybe not, too well hidden

[steje73]

Looks very much like her left hand to me. Having said that, after all this time I've only just noticed Marys right arm stretching out to the edge of the bed, so who am I to say?

[cappuccina]

My understanding is that 10 photos were taken, and we only have two.

"They made a preliminary examination of the body, and sent for a photographer, who took several photographs of the remains..."
(This is what the news papers of the time were reporting - bold mine...)

I think if we had more of the photographs in series, things would make a lot more sense...

Generally, the photographer would be instructed to start with the scene in its entirety, followed by taking pictures of portions of the scene. As forensic phography was in its infancy at this time, however, we really don't know if the phtographer was being specifically or generally instructed.

However, it would be foolish to beleive that he only took two pictures of a notorious scene such as this, and given what he had to go through to photograph this scene, the gruesomeness, the weather outside, the odd angles hae had to phtograph etc. I think he would have taken as many photographs as he possibly could at different angles, etc.

I think if other photos are found, we would see a more logical "series" here, and would be able , then to more definitively identify body parts, angels, etc.

[cappuccina]

My understanding is that 10 photos were taken, and we only have two. I know that this was reported in older books on the case, only I now cannot find the reference...

"They made a preliminary examination of the body, and sent for a photographer, who took several photographs of the remains..."

(This is what the newspapers of the time were reporting - bold mine...)

I think if we had more of the photographs in series, things would make a lot more sense...

Generally, the photographer would be instructed to start with the scene in its entirety, followed by taking pictures of portions of the scene. As forensic phography was in its infancy at this time, however, we really don't know if the phtographer was being specifically or generally instructed.

However, it would be foolish to believe that he only took two pictures of a notorious scene such as this, and given what he had to go through to photograph this scene, the gruesomeness, the weather outside, the odd angles he had to photograph etc. I think he would have taken as many photographs as he possibly could at different angles, etc. I'll bet he took more than 6 photographs, is what I am saying as well...

I think if other photos are found, we would see a more logical "series" here, and would be able , then to more definitively identify body parts, angles, etc.

Right now it is as if we are looking at a partly completed jigsaw puzzle with incomplete holes, and are trying to make exact determinations as to the "missing" pieces...I think that task is difficult at best without at least another couple of photographs...

[Malcolm X]

My understanding is that 10 photos were taken, and we only have two. I know that this was reported in older books on the case, only I now cannot find the reference...

"They made a preliminary examination of the body, and sent for a photographer, who took several photographs of the remains..."

(This is what the newspapers of the time were reporting - bold mine...)

I think if we had more of the photographs in series, things would make a lot more sense...

Generally, the photographer would be instructed to start with the scene in its entirety, followed by taking pictures of portions of the scene. As forensic phography was in its infancy at this time, however, we really don't know if the phtographer was being specifically or generally instructed.

However, it would be foolish to believe that he only took two pictures of a notorious scene such as this, and given what he had to go through to photograph this scene, the gruesomeness, the weather outside, the odd angles he had to photograph etc. I think he would have taken as many photographs as he possibly could at different angles, etc. I'll bet he took more than 6 photographs, is what I am saying as well...

I think if other photos are found, we would see a more logical "series" here, and would be able , then to more definitively identify body parts, angles, etc.

Right now it is as if we are looking at a partly completed jigsaw puzzle with incomplete holes, and are trying to make exact determinations as to the "missing" pieces...I think that task is difficult at best without at least another couple of photographs...

yes but more photos wont tell us who the killer is... this is the problem.

i'd like to know, what MARY actually looked like, this has always interested me

[cappuccina]

Hi MX,

Of course it would not tell us definitively WHO the killer is - I mean nothing would do that..., but it could give us more information than we have now..

I am sorry my post above posted twice, and now I canot delete it...Is there any way to delete the superfluous post? Thanks, and sorry I did that!

[Lika]

Damn.Seeing these pics and her body mutilations in such a high detail just makes me realize now what kind of sick mind Jack must have had.
Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me but I cant even see where her eyes are.(soz incase it sounds like a joke with the eyes)

[Malcolm X]

Hi MX,

Of course it would not tell us definitively WHO the killer is - I mean nothing would do that..., but it could give us more information than we have now..

I am sorry my post above posted twice, and now I canot delete it...Is there any way to delete the superfluous post? Thanks, and sorry I did that!

go to the first post and there should be a delete option, i think it's further down the page.... no sorry, its right here in the box

save...go advanced....delete...cancel

[Malcolm X]

Damn.Seeing these pics and her body mutilations in such a high detail just makes me realize now what kind of sick mind Jack must have had.
Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me but I cant even see where her eyes are.(soz incase it sounds like a joke with the eyes)

yes very sick indeed... it's partial insanity, but probably well hidden

[Lika]

yes but more photos wont tell us who the killer is... this is the problem.

i'd like to know, what MARY actually looked like, this has always interested me

Might not be much but here.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Lika,

That particular sketch of Mary is purely imaginery and from a map booklet published just a few decades ago. (I have got it, but I can't be bothered to go and dig it out, but it's a recent publication).

The other contemporary illustrations we have of her are all really guesswork or from descriptions from friends etc., so we will probably never know what she really looked like, unless by some miracle a photograph of her with an impeccable provenance comes along........doubtful given that we can't even pin down who she was.



Sorry if that was a bit off topic, but it should be easy to drag it back into touch.

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

[Jane Coram]

Actually, it's probably only fair that I bring it back on topic.

I've been following the thread, and have no intention of getting immersed in all the kafuffle again, (no way!) but I can't really see why there should be a problem with objects being moved around to a greater or lesser extent in the room between shots to accomodate the photographer and allow him to gain access. How was he supposed to get around to take the shot looking towards the window without shifting any of the furniture? There is nothing sinister implicated, purely practical logistics of photographing the scene in such a tiny and cramped room.

These are the first crime scene photos we know of, and the whole procedure pretty experimental and hit and miss, with no established routine to follow. I suspect they just made it up as they went along and modern forensics would roll their eyes in horror at what went on. Does it actually matter if the table was moved a little between shots (not saying it was, but does it really matter anyway?). I sometimes think we try to read far too much into very grainy, retouched and much resaved copies of the photos.

That's my two pennerth. Lol.

Having said that, very good work with the enhancement, it's really an excellent job. Thanks for posting it.

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

[Khanada]

...here pixie, pixie, pixie...

I have an old photo that's a bit fuzzy on one side. The logical explanation is that the camera or the subject moved a bit. Yet, how am I to know it's not the Easter Bunny? Intelligence might be a way to figure it out. The same goes for these photos. Intelligence may tell one that MJK's pinky is curled a bit, and that the angle of the shot shows it in the way it does precisely because of that angle. How are we to know that MJK's hand wasn't hacked off and reassembled by the police in order to make it look like it was on the wrong arm? Or how are we to know that This photo wasn't the first one and the police decided to put her back together for the subsequent shots? Intelligent thought may allow us to put those ideas to rest. We may also put to bed Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, and Santa Claus. If we can't do that, we may as well be looking for Baphomet again.

Well, I know for a fact that Willem was 100% correct when he shouted out in the mall, "There is no Easter Bunny! That's just a guy in a suit!"

Intelligence tells me that a lot of "what if's" are being trotted out for us to speculate on. What I haven't quite sussed out is why people want to play the "what if" game so badly, here. Or why they want to sidestep questions posed.

If the photographer squatted down by the bed to take MJK3, why would he steady himself by placing his hand on the corpse, and not on the bed?

How are we to know that MJK's hand wasn't hacked off and reassembled by the police in order to make it look like it was on the wrong arm?

What possible reason would the police have to do such a thing? Seriously, what would be in it for them? Assuming any of them had the stomach to do it in the first place. Nothing shows in the photos to support this -- and there's nothing in Bond's postmortem notes, either. What support do you have for the police possibly having done this?

Or how are we to know that This photo wasn't the first one and the police decided to put her back together for the subsequent shots?

Do you suggest Victorian police had the anatomical knowledge to put back together the gory jigsaw puzzle that is Mary Jane Kelly? I doubt it. And if MJK3 was in fact the first photo shot, doesn't that rather put paid to your speculation that the police chopped Mary Jane's hands off to rearrange her corpse for whatever esoteric end you're hinting at? We would see it in MJK1.

At this stage, please. If you have a theory on nefarious doings at Miller's Court, then just put them on the table. What do you think happened?

Intelligence tells me that I'm not likely to get a straightforward answer to that.