MJK1 and MJK3

[Debra A]

Thanks. I already know it isn't fake, Trevor.
MJK3 depicts The pelvic mutilations and left thigh area of Mary Jane Kelly. Her left hand resting on her abdomen with her pinkie finger curled under giving the illusion of a thumb, just as in MJK1. Simple.

[Debra A]

duplicate

[richardh]

Amanda,
I my opinion the space you see between 'thumb' and finger is either shadow and/or blood stain. Also, the 'pattern of cloth' you mention is, again in my opinion, just artifact and noise resulting from degradation of a multiple-copied, umpteen-zoomed, many-'enhanced' digital image. In short the image we are using is too shite to discern any valuable, trustworthy and accurate information.

It does look more of a thumb, there's a definite space between finger and ' thumb' here, in my opinion.
What is clearer, and I did try and show it in my photographs that I put up, but everyone chose to ignore, the pattern of the cloth behind the hand. There is a distinct woven pattern in the background , and it shows up really well here.
There is no material hanging down from the table in MJK1.

[Rob Clack]

Thanks Rob old bean!
Wow, how did I miss the obvious? It's not a traingle it's really an inverted 'Gull' and MJK's left hand is really John Netley's, I can clearly see the hairy knuckles ..Now, who was it said that the Royal Conspiracy was a load of crap? They were totally wrong.

Nothing like a clear image for the doubters to ignore.

But here's one for Phil as I know he rather look at poor, low resolution copies instead of nice clear images.

I am sure he will find all sorts of interesting things in this picture.



Rob

[Rob Clack]

Amanda,
I my opinion the space you see between 'thumb' and finger is either shadow and/or blood stain. Also, the 'pattern of cloth' you mention is, again in my opinion, just artifact and noise resulting from degradation of a multiple-copied, umpteen-zoomed, many-'enhanced' digital image. In short the image we are using is too shite to discern any valuable, trustworthy and accurate information.

Not on my copy which is straight from the original. There is a pattern on the cloth between the table and the bed.

Rob

[richardh]

I concur Debra... but what concerns we about MJK3 is what many people are saying, that there is NO real identification of any human anatomy apart from the contentious left/right hand. MJK2 (the full body shot) shows quite clearly the left and right legs. It's easy to see the denudation to the right left and the femur is obvious. The left leg is low to the mattress and is quite clearly a left leg. Between the legs we clearly see a mess. But I feel that if a photographer had taken photo of that exact scene (untouched) from the MJK3 position we would see something entirely different from what MJK3 shows. That high pointed left knee (if that is what it is) is TOO high off the mattress. From the mess that people claim they can see a split femur is just not so for me. MJK2 we can see the left leg intact (from that view) but there is NO skin, no clear knee outline or anything to show us it is a left leg in MJK3.

Oh and regarding the split left femur: That to me is the single most ridiculous claim. I am aware of who made the claim but I know that splitting a femur longitudinally is no small task and IF this had happened then the left leg would have been pretty much amputated from the torso. This was not mentioned in any contemporary reports (was it?) and if the femur had been damaged in such a way them I am sure that even Bond, in his brisk notes, would have mentioned this. He mentioned the right femur but made no mention of the 'exposed, hacked, split and mutilated left leg'? Can't see him missing that out.

Thanks. I already know it isn't fake, Trevor.
MJK3 depicts The pelvic mutilations and left thigh area of Mary Jane Kelly. Her left hand resting on her abdomen with her pinkie finger curled under giving the illusion of a thumb, just as in MJK. Simple.

[richardh]

Then we need a good clear copy of the original. Rob, can this pattern be seen on any online MJK3 image?

Not on my copy which is straight from the original. There is a pattern on the cloth between the table and the bed.

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Then we need a good clear copy of the original. Rob, can this pattern be seen on any online MJK3 image?

The original photo is faded a bit, so it's feint, but it's there.



Rob

[Debra A]

I concur Debra... but what concerns we about MJK3 is what many people are saying, that there is NO real identification of any human anatomy apart from the contentious left/right hand. MJK2 (the full body shot) shows quite clearly the left and right legs. It's easy to see the denudation to the right left and the femur is obvious. The left leg is low to the mattress and is quite clearly a left leg. Between the legs we clearly see a mess. But I feel that if a photographer had taken photo of that exact scene (untouched) from the MJK3 position we would see something entirely different from what MJK3 shows. That high pointed left knee (if that is what it is) is TOO high off the mattress. From the mess that people claim they can see a split femur is just not so for me. MJK2 we can see the left leg intact (from that view) but there is NO skin, no clear knee outline or anything to show us it is a left leg in MJK3.

Oh and regarding the split left femur: That to me is the single most ridiculous claim. I am aware of who made the claim but I know that splitting a femur longitudinally is no small task and IF this had happened then the left leg would have been pretty much amputated from the torso. This was not mentioned in any contemporary reports (was it?) and if the femur had been damaged in such a way them I am sure that even Bond, in his brisk notes, would have mentioned this. He mentioned the right femur but made no mention of the 'exposed, hacked, split and mutilated left leg'? Can't see him missing that out.

Thanks Richard,
The trouble is people seem to be jumping into this discussion willy nilly without really reading any of the points being made by individuals, preferring instead to see it as a 'them and us' thing.
I agree, there would probably have been some movement of the leg between MJK1 and MJK3 being taken for them to correspond.
As I keep saying, I have no anatomical knowledge so I don't know what anatomical landmarks I am supposed to see. And again, I mentioned Warren because Amanda was seeming to claim her 'anatomical knowledge' meant her views were superior to those who didn't have the same. I knew Nick Warren, surgeon, findings were contentious, but surely a surgeon would recognise human anatomy at least? And if not then that just goes to show that even people with anatomical skill aren't any the wiser?

[Amanda Sumner]

Well,yes. It is obvious to some of us Miss Marple. But somehow, explaining this against Amanda's adamant assertions the picture is definitely a fake became an act of hostility towards her.
Amanda and the people who are certain this is a thumb believe there is a person bobbed down at the table side of the bed with his/her head covered over and his/her right hand placed into MJK's abdomen from what I can gather.

I think the thumb and finger issue is the least of the photographs problems. I think Richard demonstrated quite clearly that it could equally be either. It's a strange swollen little finger, in my opinion.
So far no one has addressed the square box within her body tha seems to have a button or the woven cloth that hangs from the table. There is no cloth hanging down in MJK1. One can clearly see the bed under it.
Another issue is the size of the table. In MJK1 the edge is in line with her elbow, but in MJK3 it ends at her 'knee'. Considering the bolster, clearly shown in MJK3, but not in the other, must be leaning against something. A natural conclusion would be the wall. This defies logic and therefore thee only conclusion is that the table is longer or the thing depicted on the bed is much smaller.
A debate on these issues would be welcome and perhaps move away from the stagnant finger issue that Richard has proved to be inconclusive.

[Amanda Sumner]

Debra,
I apologise if my claim to knowing the human anatomy came across as superior to others. I'm sure many people have far better knowledge than myself. I merely pointed out that, as a nurse, it is my professional opinion. To claim to have no anatomical knowledge would hardly support my claim that I don't believe we are seeing a human being.

[richardh]

Amanda,
in a thread on these forums I posted a pic of what I thought the square clip was - a garter/suspender clip (again only guess work).
The table was probably moved so it wouldn't line up with what is in MJK2
The Bolster (in my opinion just rolled up bed blankets) could have been balanced on the edge of the table. Although why put them there when there was apparently a big table to put them on is odd.
The cloth: I can't see it in the images I have (all online ones) so I can't really say.

I think the thumb and finger issue is the least of the photographs problems. I think Richard demonstrated quite clearly that it could equally be either. It's a strange swollen little finger, in my opinion.
So far no one has addressed the square box within her body tha seems to have a button or the woven cloth that hangs from the table. There is no cloth hanging down in MJK1. One can clearly see the bed under it.
Another issue is the size of the table. In MJK1 the edge is in line with her elbow, but in MJK3 it ends at her 'knee'. Considering the bolster, clearly shown in MJK3, but not in the other, must be leaning against something. A natural conclusion would be the wall. This defies logic and therefore thee only conclusion is that the table is longer or the thing depicted on the bed is much smaller.
A debate on these issues would be welcome and perhaps move away from the stagnant finger issue that Richard has proved to be inconclusive.

[Debra A]

If an anatomist who performs human dissections told me they couldn't identify anything anatomical then I would pay attention.

[Trevor Marriott]

If an anatomist who performs human dissections told me they couldn't identify anything anatomical then I would pay attention.

I just happen to have one,

An independent forensic pathologist who on seeing MJK4 says exactly that

quote

[I]"Hi Trevor I’ve had a good look at the photo, but I‘m afraid that I can’t really say anything worthwhile based on this image (apart from confirming that the body looks to be in the foreground based on the position of the hand at the left side of the image). What was the crime scene photographer aiming for with this shot… was it an ‘arty’ one?!

If you have any other images then I might be able to say something about them, but I really can’t make out anything definite in this one… sorry!"[/I]

[Rob Clack]

Your welcome.