MJK photo 4 enhanced

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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!

[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

[perrymason]

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]

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.

[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.

[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?)

[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

[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.

[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.)

[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]

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).