Tweet
OK. We don't have an image of Mary Kelly to compare to the photo on this thread, however, I thought about the fact that in the Miller's Court photo the mutilation, horrible as it is, is soft tisue, so I thought if I cropped the image of the head, we could compare the hairline and the jawline to the other photo.
I flipped the other photo, so we are comparing right to mirror-image left, but since the ears are too obscured for shape comparison, and most people's ears are the same distance up their heads on both sides, I didn't think it would matter. Unless MJK had a condition no one ever noted, that made one side of her face significantly bigger, or very non-symmetrical for some reason, left/right comparison should work.
Now, I also realize that the "faces," to use the term loosely, are at different angles to the camera, so we get parallax distortion, and that probably accounts for some of the reason one face looks longer and narrower, but probably not all of it. Also, we can see where the orbits are on the Miller's Court photo, and it looks like the eyes were more widely spaced than in the "alleged" photo. Parallax distortion that made the face wider and shorter should make the eyes farther apart. Even allowing that the orbit scars (for lack of a better term) don't show us exactly where the eyes were, I still think it looks like they were widely spaced.
The Miller's Court photo has a square jaw, and somewhat prominent chin. Even allowing for the upward tilt of the head in the "alleged" photo, I don't think the law is that square. The highlight on the chin makes it hard to tell how prominent it is.
There's a lot of hair visible in the Miller's Court photo, and it looks like a different texture and color from the "alleged" photo.
A couple of things I never noticed before I looked at the head this clodely in the Miller's Court photo: the hair seems to be spread out in an almost serene way-- posed, in other words. I wonder if the killer posed her after he killed her, but before he mutilated her. Also, there is no blood on the hair at the forehead that I can see, so the killer probably made sure it was out of the way-- you can sort of see it behind her if you blow the picture up. Considering how destroyed the body is, the hair is untouched.
Second, the facial mutilations look symmetrical. He didn't just slash-- he cut a design, sort of, the way Eddowes is cut. Makes me a little more certain that the same person killed both women.
I flipped the other photo, so we are comparing right to mirror-image left, but since the ears are too obscured for shape comparison, and most people's ears are the same distance up their heads on both sides, I didn't think it would matter. Unless MJK had a condition no one ever noted, that made one side of her face significantly bigger, or very non-symmetrical for some reason, left/right comparison should work.
Now, I also realize that the "faces," to use the term loosely, are at different angles to the camera, so we get parallax distortion, and that probably accounts for some of the reason one face looks longer and narrower, but probably not all of it. Also, we can see where the orbits are on the Miller's Court photo, and it looks like the eyes were more widely spaced than in the "alleged" photo. Parallax distortion that made the face wider and shorter should make the eyes farther apart. Even allowing that the orbit scars (for lack of a better term) don't show us exactly where the eyes were, I still think it looks like they were widely spaced.
The Miller's Court photo has a square jaw, and somewhat prominent chin. Even allowing for the upward tilt of the head in the "alleged" photo, I don't think the law is that square. The highlight on the chin makes it hard to tell how prominent it is.
There's a lot of hair visible in the Miller's Court photo, and it looks like a different texture and color from the "alleged" photo.
A couple of things I never noticed before I looked at the head this clodely in the Miller's Court photo: the hair seems to be spread out in an almost serene way-- posed, in other words. I wonder if the killer posed her after he killed her, but before he mutilated her. Also, there is no blood on the hair at the forehead that I can see, so the killer probably made sure it was out of the way-- you can sort of see it behind her if you blow the picture up. Considering how destroyed the body is, the hair is untouched.
Second, the facial mutilations look symmetrical. He didn't just slash-- he cut a design, sort of, the way Eddowes is cut. Makes me a little more certain that the same person killed both women.
Comment