MJK 1 Colour version - WARNING - GRAPHIC IMAGE

[sgh]

Here's a preview of the MJK 1 photo I'm working on at the moment.
This is only a trial version image.

The excercise using colour helps to identify significant features of the injuries sustained
which may not be quite apparent in the original sepia image, especially if one is unable to,
or does not have the facilities to perform a suitable close-up image to study.

Briefly, two of the main points of interest in this cropped image are the
extensive injuries to the left arm, and the bloodstained top of the clothing (chemise) nearest
to where the neck would be.


Observations to left forearm.
In addition to the deep cuts to the outer forearm one can see that the fleshy part of the underside
of the arm has also been cut and pulled outwards into view.
The biceps muscle has also been cut out leaving an apparent hollow area.

Obs to top edge of the chemise.
The top of the chemise clothing indicates a blood dispersal pattern adjacent to the neck area
which one would assume being caused by the cutting of the neck.
This 'may' give a little insight as to how much blood came towards the operator depending on his
position to the body in this case, and perhaps what can be expected with the others in the C5 group.

*
It will take some time to produce a complete version but the results from my initial trial
seems promising regarding the clarification of detail for an easier study.
--------------

For the those interested:
The colour work I'm doing is far from complete as you can see.
The image I'm using is a 49mb tif, and all enhancements, most importantly, are non destructive.

The base image is enhanced first before any colour layers are applied.
No sharpening takes place at any stage!

The colours (still to be tweaked) are applied using multiple colour balance adjustment
layers in photoshop CS3.
Some layers are duplicates with different blend modes and % of opacities applied.
All work saved in PSD format.

Best
Steve

[John Winsett]

Why?

I don't understand, why would you want to do this? How do you know your interpretation is even correct? I understand people needing to see these photos but come on. This is as strange as the post where they tried to reconstruct MJK's face. A little disrespectful to the dead IMO. Good coloring though.
These pictures represent a murder, do you get this person is dead and spent the last seconds of her life staring at the face of the man who killed her? If people are obsessing to the point of coloring and re-arranging wounds, they're no better then the murderer himself.
The only reason people can tolerate these pics is because they're old, grainy and black and white. Try examining color pics of murder victims taken with digital cameras and let me know how much you would enjoy tweaking them.

[sgh]

I don't understand, why would you want to do this? How do you know your interpretation is even correct? I understand people needing to see these photos but come on. This is as strange as the post where they tried to reconstruct MJK's face. A little disrespectful to the dead IMO. Good coloring though.
These pictures represent a murder, do you get this person is dead and spent the last seconds of her life staring at the face of the man who killed her? If people are obsessing to the point of coloring and re-arranging wounds, they're no better then the murderer himself.
The only reason people can tolerate these pics is because they're old, grainy and black and white. Try examining color pics of murder victims taken with digital cameras and let me know how much you would enjoy tweaking them.

I don't see anything strange about it. The point is to try to help others make a clearer study of a most famous crime scene.

The interpretation is subjective, however w/o going into too much of the finer points of photoshop - histogram readings etc, etc, assist to a certain extent.

This is not a reconstruction ie a repair job where cloning would take place to modify the subject, it is non destructive enhancement!
I am not ''re-arranging the wounds' as you put it!

John, the warning was clearly marked at the top of the post.
If you can't stomach it then that's your tough luck and I can't understand why you are even here in the first place.

Why not have a go at everybody else on these boards who study,talk and write reams about these things and tell them they are strange too!

I'm shaking my head too mate!

Steve

[The Grave Maurice]

I don't find anything strange about it either, Steve. Very nice work. And I appreciated the warning.

[Archaic]

Hi Steve.

I have to disagree with John too. I sincerely hope NOBODY is on this site because they "enjoy" the site of mutilated human beings. But if we want to learn more about a serial killer, it's unfortunately necessary to study their crimes. That is what we are doing.

John, do you seriously believe that by colorizing a photo that is all over the internet, has been shown in books & documentaries, and has been seen by probably millions of people makes him "no better than the murderer"?? Wow.

Steve didn't put the image on a t-shirt, he put it on a serious research forum that was created for adults who study the Whitechapel Murders. I have to commend Steve for always being careful and conscientious and including the words WARNING- GRAPHIC IMAGE! on the thread-titles of his photo enhancements.

>> John, may I asked why after reading that title with that warning you still chose to view that graphic image? What were you expecting?

Yes, the picture is horrible. The Ripper's crimes were horrible. To be perfectly honest, I never get over them. The photographs of his victims still have the power to make me cry. In fact Steve's recent enhancement of Mary's face made me cry, because it gave me a better understanding of what some deviant bastard did to her. I didn't yell "Oooh, gross!!!" and call my friends over to look. A number of us were very upset and very moved by that image, and we discussed it quietly among ourselves. We also called the perpetrator of that horrific murder certain names that will immediately be censored if I attempt to post them. We feel strongly about the murders of these women, which is why were are here in the first place.

John, most of us are on this site because we truly care about History and about Justice. We care about the victims. We wish to learn more about the real lives of these real women who were pitilessly slaughtered by a very sick killer. We are also trying to understand the killer's personal motivation to commit such monstrous crimes, and that involves studying the crime scenes.

I for one greatly appreciate the effort that my friend Steve has put into these image enhancements. I know that he finds them disturbing too.

So, John, please reconsider your judgment and put the blame where it truly lies- with the sick bastard that did this a living, breathing, defenseless young woman.

Best regards,
Archaic

[John Winsett]

I expected the responses...

Well, I think there is a misunderstanding and I probably should have expressed it a little more clearly. The pictures mentioned are gruesome and sad but I've seen alot worse so the idea that I get "grossed" out by them is overstated and incorrect.
I personally do find it strange that we are so fascinated by this case. It's over a hundred years old, there is really no way to find out who did it unless we get very lucky. But yet hundreds of books and dozens of video/movies are made about it, people do walks to crime scenes, and some people with too much money believe they can get meaningful DNA from remnants of letters, etc. If you don't find it at least unusual that we are hanging around this website then you may be a little off.
When I see this particular picture, which over the last 30 years is probably a hundred times, I think 1. how sick the person who did this was and I wished he would have gotten caught, and 2. That the only remaining evidence that MJK was a person are these sad pics. I don't think I ever once thought I needed to take a crayon to it, or do some sort of reconstructive surgery on her to do some half assed attempt to see who she really was.
The fact of the matter is people, including myself, are fascinated by MJK because we don't know what she looks like so we try to make her more real than this corpse. But I don't see anyone doing this for Eddowes. Why hasn't someone removed the stitches and cleaned her up? Because we kinda know what she looks like and there's no glory in that is there?
I find it extremely strange that someone would take this pic, and with probably no real expertise in forensic reconstruction try to reproduce it in color, or piece together the face. There's no evidentiary point to it because it's not accurate and will never be accurate. At best it's a mediocre interpretation and should not be viewed as correct and true to the real crime scene. I would very much like to see MJK exhumed and a forensic sculptor rebuild her face, but I doubt if she's even in the same grave anymore.
So if it bothers you that you're not getting a pat on the back from everybody for obsessionally coloring a dead woman, too bad. And if none of you realize how strange it is, then that's really sad isn't it mate?
Oh, and for those of you who asked me why I looked, it's because I wanted to read the reason why SGH did it, not the pic itself. If anything it makes the pic look less real, which is really a disservice to MJK. She was, after all, a real person.

[Jane Coram]

Hi John,

Well, as one of those who 'took a crayon' to try to reconstruct what the victims looked like - all of them by the way and not just Mary - I can tell you why I did it.

I did it because these women were living, breathing women, with lives and families, who should be remembered as they were in life as well as in death. I don't find anything in the least bit strange about that. The National Portrait Gallery has its halls full of dead people's portraits, including Charles I and several hundred, if not thousand people that met violent and tragic deaths. I don't think many people would consider viewing them unnatural.

As to Steve's work. I worked in forensic reconstruction for decades before I retired and can state quite categorically that Steve has not 'rearranged' or second guessed anything. What he's put above is an excellent piece of reconstruction (bearing in mind that it's a test run and might need some fine tuning) If I'd seen anything that didn't look quite right, I would have pointed it out, and I daresay so would almost everyone else that thought there might be a need for relooking at a certain part of it. I know Steve would be happy for any input that anyone wanted to give him. That's the point of a board like this, to get input from others, share research and get things right.

He took the trouble to put up the techniques he used to illustrate that he was not tampering with the image, but using methods that were totally non-invasive. Black and white or sepia photos can be coloured extremely accurately using black and tonal levels. It is not painted over using paint of any kind. It's a very sophisticated technique that needs great skill to execute, because the method actually converts the black and white image to colour using the tonal values, pixel by pixel.

Why do it? Investigative teams use photographic techniques all the time of crime scene photos to try and find clues that have been overlooked. It's standard practice. In this instance, Steve has brought out details that might make a lot of difference in working out how Mary died and if she did, in fact, have defense wounds on her lower arms, or if they were mutilations. Important stuff I'd say.

There may well be one or two ghouls around that like looking at the photos because they get their jollies from it, but the vast majority of people on these boards are sensible, serious researchers that just want to find out about the case for any number of valid reasons.

If you fit into neither of these groups, then maybe you should take up a different pastime!

Kind regards

Janie

[John Winsett]

that was about as big a pile as you could get. Really retired from forensics? from where? Proof is in the pudding. I'm not going to argue the inconsistencies of your remarks but come on. I always love the remark about if you can't handle it find another past time. Why? Because I disagree with this crap? and what victims have you taken a crayon to? I think you're full of it and don't know a thing about which you speak, and the people who, including myself, have such a vested interest in this case they can't see beyond their noses and let their egos in the way of common sense.
Retired from forensic reconstruction!

With Warmest Regards,
John

[Phil Carter]

Hello John,

I must say that Jane Coram is a very distinguished artist.

You may find much to see though Casebook from her outstanding collection of oils and paintings.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2757

She also happens to be one of the kindest, most genuine and generous people on this entire website. She is also a genuine cockney, and of long cockney decent. She has also added great understanding and knowledge to many through her perception and knowledge. I think that of all people on here, she deserves great kudos and respect.

best wishes

Phil

best wishes

Phil

[babybird67]

John

you may have an opinion about the worth and motivation behind work like Steve's and that is fair enough. I happen to disagree with you and have found Steve's work illuminating and helpful to me to understanding what happened to Mary. If you don't find the same benefit then you are welcome to ignore the postings and the pictures.

Attacking Jane's character is another matter as you have virtually accused her of lying. I am honoured to consider Jane a friend. Not only that I value her contributions to Casebook very much and consider her a person of talent and integrity.

Please, don't make comments about her which are derogatory without any cause. It really isn't nice.

Jen

[Stephen Thomas]

that was about as big a pile as you could get. Really retired from forensics? from where? Proof is in the pudding. I'm not going to argue the inconsistencies of your remarks but come on. I always love the remark about if you can't handle it find another past time. Why? Because I disagree with this crap? and what victims have you taken a crayon to? I think you're full of it and don't know a thing about which you speak, and the people who, including myself, have such a vested interest in this case they can't see beyond their noses and let their egos in the way of common sense.
Retired from forensic reconstruction!

Try this, Mr Winsett

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2757

And what's a past time?

[Loublin]

I personally found the picture helpful. To be honest I have always had difficulty identifying what that particular picture was of.

[Archaic]

The fact of the matter is people, including myself, are fascinated by MJK because we don't know what she looks like...

I find it extremely strange that someone would take this pic, and with probably no real expertise in forensic reconstruction try to reproduce it in color, or piece together the face.

There's no evidentiary point to it because it's not accurate and will never be accurate.

I would very much like to see MJK exhumed and a forensic sculptor rebuild her face...

John, I find your last post highly offensive. My good friend Jane Coram has a very long and distinguished career in Ripperology and a sterling reputation- how dare you accuse her of lying about her credentials?? You insulted Jane in public and you owe her a public apology. Every single poster on this thread has responded courteously to you and have done their best to answer any points you raised, yet you have replied in a truly obnoxious manner with both collective and individual insults.

You are also completely wrong if you think that people on this forum are obsessed with how Mary might have looked in life. The people who have attempted to reconstruct Mary's facial features have done so because her killer deliberately ravaged Mary's face and body in a loathsome and perverted effort to destroy her identity, humanity, individuality, and womanhood.
Murderers often destroy personal features in an effort to utterly "dehumanize" their victim, and forensic reconstructionists labor to restore those personal features with as much accuracy as possible in order to help restore the victim's identity and human dignity. It's part of the effort to restore the unique personhood of the victim, as is researching the details of Mary's short life. You have NO right to cast aspersions upon these people simply because YOU fail to understand their true motives.

Frankly, your bizarre statements have only led me to wonder about your own motives for being on this thread and for belonging to this forum. If the rest of us wished to emulate you, perhaps we could speculate that you are engaging in what psychologists term 'transference', and merely ascribing to others your own low motives?

Your statement "I would very much like to see MJK exhumed and a forensic sculptor rebuild her face" utterly sickened me. You would like to see a human grave disturbed because YOU "would very much like" to see her face reconstructed??? Not only is that SICK, it betrays YOUR OWN prurient interest in this matter. Thank God no judge in the world would consent to the violation of a human grave based upon the personal "likes" of a person such as yourself.
Photographic reconstruction is a completely non-invasive procedure that can be updated and improved as photographic methods advance. Disturbing a grave and disinterring a body is the height of invasiveness. Your logic in this matter is sadly flawed.

And by the way, disinterring the body of Mary Kelly in order to attempt to rebuild her facial features is an endeavor entirely devoid of what you term "evidentiary value", which is another reason why it would never be permitted by a court of law. Disturbing Mary's 122-year-old grave in order to attempt to physically reconstruct Mary's facial features will never constitute "evidence" in this case; how could it?? Even if Mary's skull was still intact, no results we could obtain would justify such wanton desecration. Do you think if we can see her face we can somehow identify her killer? Flawed reasoning again.

Disturbing the sanctity of Mary's grave after 122 years and disinterring whatever might be left of her poor bones won't lead us to a better understanding of her killer's sick motives, but analyzing the crime scene photos taken on the very day of her death and examining the types of wounds inflicted upon her might.

John, I am in complete agreement with Steve, Ken, Jane, Phil, Jen, Loublin and Stephen on this matter, and so far not a single poster on this thread is in agreement with you. You have stated your personal opinions, and we have listened and responded courteously. For you to make further postings in the same vein would be both redundant and obnoxious. The polite and mature thing for you to do now is as others have suggested: find another thread whose content you prefer.

Or perhaps you could even exert yourself to do as many others do, and put in some personal time and effort in order to find some item of historical material worth contributing to this field of study- hopefully something that goes far beyond your own personal "likes" and "dislikes".

Best regards,
Archaic

[John Winsett]

My apologies to Jane

Thanks Stephen, Jane my apologies. Your pics were very nice. Doesn't prove a thing but nice. I liked them alot.

[Archaic]

Hello John. Thank you for apologizing to Jane.

But I'm really not sure what your next sentence with the phrase "doesn't prove a thing" means.

Surely you are not again accusing her of misrepresenting her professional credentials?

Best regards,
Archaic