MJK's photo censored/vandalised?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff
i think her eye would be lower and more to the middle of her face.

Maybe. If I zoom in that blue circle looks like an eye, but as we saw before with the pictures on the wall, one can see all sorts of things that aren't there. The brain doesn't like random visual chaos and it tries to make sense of it, even if it has to make up stuff to do so. That could be what mine is doing. Stupid brain.

- Jeff

[DJA]

[Abby Normal]

Hi Jeff
i think her eye would be lower and more to the middle of her face.

[JeffHamm]

Over on another thread MarkJD has kind of blown my mind postulating that the face in the famous MJK photo was intentionally obscured/vandalised/censored to possibly protect public decency etc. This to me at least makes a lot of sense. I have never been able to pick out any kind of detail. Which is strange as some accounts said her eyes were open and staring. Could this be an explanation? Thoughts?


Here is Mark's excellent post for context:


Originally posted by Mark J D

The facial area on the photographic plate has been censored by way of vandalism with some kind of stylus. Essentially, the emulsion bearing that part of the image has been broken up and moved around by a great deal of scraping motion. What we see is not a hacked-about face. What we see is a hacked-about image that no longer allows us to see the hacked-about face.

Yes, at some point -- perhaps when the plate was first developed and the emulsion was still wet -- someone with custody of the image decided that Mary Jane's ravaged face was something that the world would not be permitted to see, and the image was vandalised to prevent it being seen. It's not impossible that this was done preparatory to the image being released for first publication and in line with applicable obscenity laws; but if the very earliest published reproductions can be examined, there may be a small chance of the un-vandalised image having been used somewhere.

Note of caution. Close up of the MJK photo attached.

Maybe. I've never been able to make much sense of her face either, but the image you presented is the clearest I've seen so far. I'm thinking that part of the problem for us is that there may be a lot of strips of flesh hanging over her face.

I'm making a lot of guesses here, just trying to make sense of what my eyes see. I think the blue circle is her eye. I think the bit I've outlined in solid orange is skin and flesh from her forehead which came from the dotted orange area. The solid purple is another piece of flesh that comes from her left cheek (dotted purple area). These flesh strips are covering her nose, so we can't see that for reference. I think the sold red area, in whole or in part, is part of the flesh found under her head and is in front of the face, not part of the face. The green outlined area appears to be her teeth, but I think we're seeing the side view (mostly molars, etc) but the front teeth are in the light blue circled area, which would align with the eye.

There is what could be her other eye just above the solid orange bit, but it is too small in comparison with the other eye and out of place with the other eye and where the front teeth appear to me, so that might be a red herring.

Basically, it seems possible that the reason we cannot make out her face is because, as described, the flesh is hacked all to pieces and some of it is hanging down over her features, combined with the other bits of flesh that her head has been placed upon. The black and white photo makes it harder to distinguish all of these, and so none of it makes visual sense.

As such, I may just be seeing the equivalent of the drawings we saw on the wall here. But I thought I would share my guess all the same.

- Jeff

[Mark J D]

im wondering if the AI may have enhanced the cracks in the photo, like the ones you can see on the pillow next to her head, but only the ones on and around her face thinking they were hair and enhancing them?

I think we need to see the best existing copy that has not been digitally interfered with: as large as possible and with sensible contrast.

I am perfectly prepared to withdraw my suggestion if poor Kelly's face is visually comprehensible, as it were, in that version.

M.

[Losmandris]

im wondering if the AI may have enhanced the cracks in the photo, like the ones you can see on the pillow next to her head, but only the ones on and around her face thinking they were hair and enhancing them?

Possibly. Though its the hair that makes me now think that the picture was originally altered somehow. It is really clear just above the forehead, especially in the bottom right hand corner. The face looks almost like it has been covered with the Victorian equivalent of tip-ex/correction fluid!

[Abby Normal]

Over on another thread MarkJD has kind of blown my mind postulating that the face in the famous MJK photo was intentionally obscured/vandalised/censored to possibly protect public decency etc. This to me at least makes a lot of sense. I have never been able to pick out any kind of detail. Which is strange as some accounts said her eyes were open and staring. Could this be an explanation? Thoughts?


Here is Mark's excellent post for context:


Originally posted by Mark J D

The facial area on the photographic plate has been censored by way of vandalism with some kind of stylus. Essentially, the emulsion bearing that part of the image has been broken up and moved around by a great deal of scraping motion. What we see is not a hacked-about face. What we see is a hacked-about image that no longer allows us to see the hacked-about face.

Yes, at some point -- perhaps when the plate was first developed and the emulsion was still wet -- someone with custody of the image decided that Mary Jane's ravaged face was something that the world would not be permitted to see, and the image was vandalised to prevent it being seen. It's not impossible that this was done preparatory to the image being released for first publication and in line with applicable obscenity laws; but if the very earliest published reproductions can be examined, there may be a small chance of the un-vandalised image having been used somewhere.

Note of caution. Close up of the MJK photo attached.

im wondering if the AI may have enhanced the cracks in the photo, like the ones you can see on the pillow next to her head, but only the ones on and around her face thinking they were hair and enhancing them?

[Losmandris]

Sorry; but I think I'm going to have to ask if you wouldn't mind drawing a few arrows on the photo to indicate what you are seeing...

M.

That would certainly help me!

[Mark J D]

Jack the Ripper Photo Archive - Mary Jane Kelly/Mary Jane Kelly, crime scene photo number 1

Inadequate image quality, sad to say...

Anyone got a better one?

Distasteful though it is to say it about such a horrible sight, 'we need to see more'...

M.

[Mark J D]

Her mouth/lips with two wooden false teeth are clearly visible. One eye is above and to the the right.That is her left eye. The face has been blanched with very hot water and rotated. Her right eye and where her nose was are discernible.

Sorry; but I think I'm going to have to ask if you wouldn't mind drawing a few arrows on the photo to indicate what you are seeing...

M.

[DJA]

Jack the Ripper Photo Archive - Mary Jane Kelly/Mary Jane Kelly, crime scene photo number 1

[Mark J D]

Her mouth/lips with two wooden false teeth are clearly visible. One eye is above and to the the right. That is her left eye. The face has been blanched with very hot water and rotated. Her right eye and where her nose was are discernible.

Treating this image with AI software is always going to cause problems: the algorithm will be looking for clues that allow it to impose higher-resolution 'corrections' in line with a programmed expectation of likely facial features that simply weren't intact on this victim's face. Can anyone provide a good-quality scan of a printed reproduction from the pre-digital era? I think the first time I ever saw this photo it was in the Stephen Knight paperback, which I read in the mid-80s. The face was radically incomprehensible to me then also; but at least there would have been no cleverclogs IT interference. Can someone upload a guaranteed pre-digital version for comparison? It may of course be that the original image was painted over to some extent as well as the emulsion being attacked physically; but at least we'll know that any impossible teeth and misplaced eyes aren't artefacts of digital processing.

M.

[Losmandris]

Her mouth/lips with two wooden false teeth are clearly visible.

One eye is above and to the the right.That is her left eye.

The face has been blanched with very hot water and rotated.

Her right eye and where her nose was are discernible.

You have me there, I am afraid. I cannot make out a thing. To me the picture has either been doctored or the murderer used a sledge hammer to literally turn her face into pulp.

Do you believe her eyes are open, as eye witnesses seem to have reported?

[DJA]

Her mouth/lips with two wooden false teeth are clearly visible.

One eye is above and to the the right.That is her left eye.

The face has been blanched with very hot water and rotated.

Her right eye and where her nose was are discernible.

[Losmandris]

Perhaps the killer wanted to obscure her identity.

Mary Ann Kelly's corpse was destined to be sent to her old church's mortuary where Sutton was still on the Vestry Board.

Fair chance he assisted in stitching her up.

Quite possibly the person who gave a pressman her time of death.

He quite possibly did. Though from the looks of the picture, this is the result of some deliberate action with a stylus or finger rather than a knife. Didn't Walter Dew talk about her staring eyes? They are no where to be seen in the picture.