MJK's photo censored/vandalised?

[Losmandris]

The photo on the JTR3D site MJK2_Hi_4x.png (2308×2896) (jtr3d.com) is astoundingly impressive (I know the word is hardly applicable to such a scene...) in other parts of the image. In view of the likelihood that the face part specifically is messed up because the software is determined to find facial features where it really won't find them, I might suggest to the JTR3D bod that enhancing the image with the 'facial recognition' bit switched off could be an idea...

M.

I think you are right here. There is some amazing clarity in other parts. It doesn't make sense that literally nothing (Sorry DJA) is even remotely recognisable in the facial area. That is apart from the hair which is very clear.

[DJA]

[DJA]

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Dr. Bond's Post Mortem on Mary Kelly

[Mark J D]

Here's the one in the Casebook album...

M.

[Abby Normal]

"One day men will look back and say I gave birth to the twentieth century..."

As I once heard a man say in a film...

M.

great flick and graphic novel, and a chilling quote

[Harry D]

I'm glad more people are talking about this. I thought there was something wrong with me that I couldn't decipher a single feature from that grisly image.

[Ms Diddles]

I'm glad more people are talking about this. I thought there was something wrong with me that I couldn't decipher a single feature from that grisly image.

Agreed, Harry!

Mark's theory would indeed go some way in explaining why I too have struggled to decipher anything coherent in terms of Mary's face.

[erobitha]

Found a couple of what appear to non edited versions of the original image and tried to highlight where I believe the eyes nose and mouth are on the body.

I just think that due to the savage nature of the cuts, blood and hair - we don't get a clear view of her facial features such as her eyes nose and mouth. I don't believe any editing or doctoring has gone on here.

[richardh]

Where's the original located?

[erobitha]

Where's the original located?

Good question. I am not 100% certain these are the original copies I found.

[richardh]

Good question. I am not 100% certain these are the original copies I found.

It/they are most probably in the Black Museum (Scotland Yard Archives) and not accessible to the general public. I think it's possible to make an appointment and sometimes they (the Museum) have open days where the public is allowed in for an admission fee. Would be amazing to get access to the original.

[Harry D]

Agreed, Harry!

Mark's theory would indeed go some way in explaining why I too have struggled to decipher anything coherent in terms of Mary's face.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting it to be a picnic, testament to the killer's barbarism, but I expected to make out something.

Found a couple of what appear to non edited versions of the original image and tried to highlight where I believe the eyes nose and mouth are on the body.

I just think that due to the savage nature of the cuts, blood and hair - we don't get a clear view of her facial features such as her eyes nose and mouth. I don't believe any editing or doctoring has gone on here.

Thanks for that. I can now discern the mouth and nose but still struggling with the eyes.

[Mark J D]

... I can now discern the mouth and nose but still struggling with the eyes...

A problem visible in these old images too is that we get the impression of a right eye being in a place a right eye can't be.

M.

[Losmandris]

Found a couple of what appear to non edited versions of the original image and tried to highlight where I believe the eyes nose and mouth are on the body.

I just think that due to the savage nature of the cuts, blood and hair - we don't get a clear view of her facial features such as her eyes nose and mouth. I don't believe any editing or doctoring has gone on here.

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.

[Mark J D]

... like as Mark J D has proposed it has been scratched over with a stylus of some sort...

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.