MJK's photo censored/vandalised?

[Bridewell]

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.

[DJA]

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.

[Losmandris]

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.

[Losmandris]

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.

[erobitha]

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.

[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.

[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]

... 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.

[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.

[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.

[erobitha]

Where's the original located?

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

[richardh]

Where's the original located?

[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.

[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.

[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.