Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MJK's photo censored/vandalised?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

    I am still struggling to see what you have highlighted on the original picture. I think you show where the eyes and the mouth should be in context to the face, but I just can make them out. As Harry D points out above, you would have thought that at least some thing would be discernible, but I cannot make out anything. You would have thought that the facial area would have been as clear as other parts of the picture, so you would even be able to make out individual cuts or flaps of skin. More than that, at least one feature like an eye or lips. but there is nothing. The part closest to the bed is just fuzzy almost, like as Mark J D has proposed it has been scratched over with a stylus of some sort.
    As I have Photoshop and can zoom in, I see more subtlety than you probably can on this version for Casebook. It is still poor clarity, but we are talking of a scan of photograph that is over 130 years old now.

    It would be hugely useful to get a copy of the original print.
    Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
    JayHartley.com

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

      I'm still pondering this...

      ... but surely it is pretty unlikely that the late-Victorian mindset -- which backed away even from publicly describing Nichols' wounds in detail! -- would have allowed an accurate photo of Kelly's ravaged face to be passed down to posterity? Might we not, at the very least, be looking at a face deliberately rendered indistinct by a gauze placed on the flesh or a barrier put over the image before it was copied?

      M.
      Very good point! Is this picture fairly unique or where there lots of Victorian crime scene pictures of similar context? I certainly would not it passed the powers that be to censor it somehow.
      Last edited by Losmandris; 03-28-2022, 03:31 PM.
      Best wishes,

      Tristan

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by erobitha View Post

        As I have Photoshop and can zoom in, I see more subtlety than you probably can on this version for Casebook. It is still poor clarity, but we are talking of a scan of photograph that is over 130 years old now.

        It would be hugely useful to get a copy of the original print.
        I completely agree.
        Best wishes,

        Tristan

        Comment


        • #49
          Reckon we already have the original.

          Mary Ann Kelly's face was disfigured so that it would not be recognised.

          The mouth,eyes and where the nose was are identifiable with a decent PC monitor.

          Same with the rest of her in the 'photo.
          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

          Comment


          • #50
            The original photograph was unearthed, as I understand it, by Donald Rumbelow, then a serving police officer with the City of London Police. If anybody can clarify the condition of the picture / plate as found it would presumably be him.
            I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

            Comment

            Working...
            X