'V' shape cut on MJK's face - WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES

[sgh]

I've made a close up enhancement of the head area on the MJK 1 photo to help determine some of the facial damage.

There appears to be evidence of a 'V' shape cut on her lower right cheek.
This is very subjective I realize due to the quality of the image.

I've circled it in the top photo - the identical copy below is purely for your reference without distraction.

It is the second 'V' shape mark which I think are intended cuts made with the point of a double edge knife that I can find on her body, the other(s) can be found on the back of her left hand in the MJK 3 photo reposted below.

Alongside is the Eddowes' close up photo for comparison of confirmed 'V' shaped cuts.

If it can be determined for certain that these are indeed 'V' shaped cuts on Kelly's body which appear the same as can be seen on Eddowes face, then it would seem to be the 'signature mark' of one and the same killer!


Best
Steve.

[Archaic]

Mary's Chemise??

Hello Steve. Thank you for adding the warning about graphic images, because the close-up of Mary is horrifying.

I agree with you that the "v's" are very subjective.

As Hunter pointed out on another thread, the photo of Eddowes was taken after the autopsy when her face had been stitched up, so the wounds are not in their original state.

I couldn't help noticing that your enhancements seem to make visible the chemise that some sources say Mary was wearing when she was murdered. I think I see the upper part of it in your enhancement. It appears to be shoved up near her neck area. It's hard to tell what we're looking at, but it looks more like fabric to me.

Does anybody agree that it looks like Mary's chemise?

(By the way, a chemise was a simple undergarment, rather like a sleeveless nightgown.)

- Jesus Christ, I've been looking at your enhancement some more and her face is utterly destroyed!
I think I can see her right eyeball staring out. It's very disturbing.

But you did a good job Steve, thank you.

Best regards,
Archaic

[sgh]

chemise

Hello Steve. Thank you for adding the warning about graphic images, because the close-up of Mary is horrifying.

I agree with you that the "v's" are very subjective.

As Hunter pointed out on another thread, the photo of Eddowes was taken after the autopsy when her face had been stitched up, so the wounds are not in their original state.

I couldn't help noticing that your enhancements seem to make visible the chemise that some sources say Mary was wearing when she was murdered. I think I see the upper part of it in your enhancement. It appears to be shoved up near her neck area. It's hard to tell what we're looking at, but it looks more like fabric to me.

Does anybody agree that it looks like Mary's chemise?

(By the way, a chemise was a simple undergarment, rather like a sleeveless nightgown.)

- Jesus Christ, I've been looking at your enhancement some more and her face is utterly destroyed!
I think I can see her right eyeball staring out. It's very disturbing.

But you did a good job Steve, thank you.

Best regards,
Archaic

Hi Archaic,
Many Thanks!

Yes, I agree that's her chemise clearly visible on her left shoulder and various parts on the body.
Also on the close up you can see as you say a part of her right eyeball, the other eye is covered over with a flap of loose flesh from her left eyebrow area hanging over her nose.
There are other flaps of facial tissue obscuring the face detail too!

I 've also noticed what appears to be a dark stain on the corner edge of the bedding where the operator may have wiped his knife clean (see circled area
on photo below.)
If that is the case and considering the table would be in the way to do that it could be that he did the face mutilations first without the table being there - then brought the table from across the room and placed it at the bedside ready to accept the abdominal flesh etc! Just a guess!

To All
I do apologize for posting these horrific images especially at these sizes, but I feel it necessary to get these points across. A postage stamp image size would do nothing.

Best
Steve

[Archaic]

The Victorian Chemise

Hi Steve. Yes, Mary's chemise is clearly visible in that picture.

I do see the sort of rectangular stain. Perhaps you are correct and a blade was wiped; I really don't know.

I thought it might be helpful to post some pictures of chemises. Chemises were worn as the undermost garment. In other words, they were worn against the skin. Most were loose, straight, sleeveless, simple garments.

Bras had not been invented yet. "Respectable" ladies wore corsets; also called "stays". The corset was worn over the chemise, not under it.

A chemise is not a nightgown; those were usually long-sleeved, full-length, and often made of a warmer material like flannel, whereas a chemise was shorter and relatively sheer. Another term for chemise is "shift". A slang term was "shimmy".

The illustration is Late Victorian c.1900 and the photograph shows a modern reproduction of a classic Victorian chemise.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Archaic]

Was Part of Mary's Upper Arm Near The Bicep Removed?

Steve, I'm looking at the last photo and I can see the deep cuts on Mary's arms. Her forearm has long gashes.

It looks to me that a portion of her upper left arm was removed, roughly in the area of the bicep. You can see that a chunk of flesh is missing.

Wow, it's so clear I'm amazed.

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

PS: Could the dark rectangular image you circled possibly be a strip of bloody flesh?

[kensei]

Archaic points out the wounds on Mary's left arm. I think these closeups bring into sharp focus something I have always thought, that these are NOT defensive wounds as some have suggested, i.e. cuts made during the attack as she tried to shield herself. There is just too much flesh missing, clearly wounds inflicted after death and one of the many things the Ripper decided to do to the body for whatever twisted reasons had meaning to him.

[Sister Hyde]

Archaic points out the wounds on Mary's left arm. I think these closeups bring into sharp focus something I have always thought, that these are NOT defensive wounds as some have suggested, i.e. cuts made during the attack as she tried to shield herself. There is just too much flesh missing, clearly wounds inflicted after death and one of the many things the Ripper decided to do to the body for whatever twisted reasons had meaning to him.

Yes it's much clearer although we could see that there was too much flesh missing for these to be defensive wounds, now we can really see how big these wounds were.
the blooded rectangle shaped mark is hard to tell, but if it was the stain from the blade being wiped, the shape wouldn't be so geometrical I think

[Phil Carter]

Written in stone? Or just written in ink?

Hello Steve,

Thank you for these enlargements. Detracting slightly away from the V shape markings, I note you include in this series of photos the MJK3 photo. As you probably know, I (amongst others) find this photograph most dubious indeed.
One of the many reasons for this is highlighted in your enhancement photograph, on the right of the two of MJK3.

That purported "V shape" on the back of the hand is indeed very visible. I have blown it up to 200% for greater clarity. (below)

To my mind, it is not a V shape, but an attempt at playing a game (again).. it resembles the symbol of Freemasonary. It may even be a smiley face, crudely drawn. It looks drawn on the hand, so does the "scissor-like" symbol next to it. (Ever seen a carving THAT small and detailed on a body? It would take a very small knife!)

I have previously given the opinion that the hand we see is NOT MKJ's at all, as it is. imho, a right hand (as has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere).

Although I am open to any particular symbol such as V shapes being carved in the flesh by the murderer, the MJK3 photograph is littered with so many anomelies that make it far too questionable to be relied upon, imho.

Fine presentation of the photograph though. Many thanks indeed.

best wishes

Phil

[Sister Hyde]

I have previously given the opinion that the hand we see is NOT MKJ's at all, as it is. imho, a right hand (as has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere).

who's hand could it be then?? (and i'm not being sarcastic), it wouls be very weird for the police to take a crime scene picture with someone having his hand on the corpse.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Sister,

Although this has been talked about a thousand times, I, and others, are of the opinion that this photograph is a fake. It is on some other thread somewhere.. many discussions. I have little time atm to search, but will do so later if that is ok?

best wishes

Phil

PS I would like to know how someone who cuts and rips bodies with such malice can take the time to carve such intricate little symbols with a 6" knife? Perhaps it was Sickert after all... he's the artist...lol.. seriously, a large knife could not carve such small details (scissors)... it would take a razor blade or suchlike. Ask any tattoo artist.

[Sister Hyde]

Hello Sister,

Although this has been talked about a thousand times, I, and others, are of the opinion that this photograph is a fake. It is on some other thread somewhere.. many discussions. I have little time atm to search, but will do so later if that is ok?

best wishes

Phil

sure, I've probably seen the thread but I've read so many posts in so many threads I wouldn't know which one, yes I remember this theory being brought up, some people even think that the last victim was not even Mary Jane, but I'm sure there would be a way to clear this up at the archives maybe, and if this is not the real picture of the crime scene, there must probably be a real one somewhere.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Steve, good work. I believe what you identify as a 'v' in MJK1 is really a tuft of her hair. With Eddowes, you've missed 3 V's. As for the alleged 'faked' photo, could it not be a reverse of the negative making her left hand appear to be her right? Phil's blow up is interesting, and I see where he could get the Freemason insignia from it, but I don't believe it's a V cut at all, but a regular cut with a line of blood running down that gives the appearance of a V cut. However, look BEHIND the big cut on the hand and there's a smaller cut that actually looks like a V

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sister Hyde]

seriously, a large knife could not carve such small details (scissors)... it would take a razor blade or suchlike. Ask any tattoo artist.

I confirm.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Sister, Tom,

I have a recent photo on my computer somewhere of the MJK3 original, direct from TNA (The National Archives), as I have with most of the photos... from just before Xmas. Later this evening I will try and fish it out. Am a little busy atm, my apologies.

I would still like to know how a 6" knife can carve such minute details. A knife that big cannot possibly carve such small intracasies. Perhaps JTR was a tattooist?...hahaha! It looks for the world to me as if it is written on that hand...as a deliberate attempt to mislead (yet again, with MJK3)

best wishes

Phil

[Sister Hyde]

Perhaps JTR was a tattooist?...hahaha!

I don't think so, but if our man was a sailor you never know but a razor blade makes very distinct cuts, very thin, and never rounded, a razor blade is too stiff to carve details proper. If this has really been made separately and that it's not just a little blade-drifting made in the fire of the action (which the killer would not even have noticed), then it was made with the thin tip of a blade, or a medical blade.