My attempt to decipher the MJK in situ photograph

[Karl]

Such a gruesome pic. If we're correct and that is Mary's right eye, then it's my opinion he must've cut at least a good size of the right side of the face and folded over to the left. There is no discernible feature on the left side. It looks like her left eye and check are covered. I don't know, I'm starting to doubt that is the left eye now. it looks a little far out towards the side of the head.

Columbo

We could be looking at the edges of the left eye socket, though. It looks like the sort of rounded corner that the eye socket has, and it is not too far to the side for the eye socket. But I am not sure at all. We are, after all, trying to discern patterns in a mangled, shapeless mass. The only thing we can say for certain is that it's the face.

[Henry Flower]

We could be looking at the edges of the left eye socket, though. It looks like the sort of rounded corner that the eye socket has, and it is not too far to the side for the eye socket. But I am not sure at all. We are, after all, trying to discern patterns in a mangled, shapeless mass. The only thing we can say for certain is that it's the face.

Karl, I had to study anatomy extensively at a New York art school a few years back, and last night I took a human skull down from the bookcase and positioned it side by side with the image of MJK's head, same position and angle as far as I could discern, and I was immediately struck by the fact that - as you suggest - we do appear to be able to see a portion of her zygomatic bone, the inferior lateral edge of her orbital cavity, or in layman's terms, the lower outside corner of her left eye socket. This tends I think to confirm the locations of what I took to be her lips and severed nose.

As to what is happening on the right side of her face, there is nothing recognisable, and it can only be that flaps or fragments of hacked flesh have obscured her entire eye region. We really are reduced to complete guesswork there.

[Henry Flower]

Bond explicitly states that her cheeks were at least partially severed, which makes it entirely possible that large flaps of flesh are obscuring her right eye, and that the more accessible outer edge of her zygomatic (lower outer eye socket and cheekbone) could be left partly denuded of flesh.

I also think Columbo's earlier observation is doubtless correct, that gouges or hanging flesh has entirely distorted her jawline. It has always just looked plain wrong anatomically.

[Henry Flower]

It turns out that adding some experimental colours gets us... absolutely nowhere!

[Geddy2112]

Some pictures most will be familiar with from the interwebs.... :

[Karl]

Karl, I had to study anatomy extensively at a New York art school a few years back, and last night I took a human skull down from the bookcase and positioned it side by side with the image of MJK's head, same position and angle as far as I could discern, and I was immediately struck by the fact that - as you suggest - we do appear to be able to see a portion of her zygomatic bone, the inferior lateral edge of her orbital cavity, or in layman's terms, the lower outside corner of her left eye socket. This tends I think to confirm the locations of what I took to be her lips and severed nose.

As to what is happening on the right side of her face, there is nothing recognisable, and it can only be that flaps or fragments of hacked flesh have obscured her entire eye region. We really are reduced to complete guesswork there.

Well, if it transpires that I was correct I'll pat myself on the back. But I still wouldn't stake my life on it.

[Pierre]

I agree. I can't think of another explanation. I think nose stump, blanched and sliced lips, and her left eye region are all broadly discernable, and a hanging flap is the only explanation for the absence of a right eye. The shadowy patch that Pierre, among others, has identified as being her right eye is in way the wrong position.

Looks like Pierre has misinterpreted the source.

It was a question, Henry.

The question was exactly: "Are these the eyes (in the blue circles)?"

Looks like Henry has misinterpreted the source.

[Henry Flower]

Henry has misinterpreted the source?

Pierre, if there's one thing you are not, it's a source.

Sure, it was a question: that's the Pierre way though isn't it - never state anything outright, then you can never be wrong, you can always turn around and claim you never stated such and such. You asked whether the blue circles were the eyes - because that's where you thought the eyes were, so stop with the pedantic denial.

[Pierre]

Pierre, if there's one thing you are not, it's a source.

Sure, it was a question: that's the Pierre way though isn't it - never state anything outright, then you can never be wrong, you can always turn around and claim you never stated such and such. You asked whether the blue circles were the eyes - because that's where you thought the eyes were, so stop with the pedantic denial.

I knew you would be wrong again and say that. The post I wrote is now a historical source.

No, Henry, it is not being "pedantic". It is being exact.

And I did not ask whether "the blue circles were the eyes". Go back and read again.

And I have stated many things outright. Just read my posts.

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Oh Pierre, you save me the trouble of ridiculing you by doing it yourself. Nevertheless...

Your blue circle question wasn't worth citing exactly. I knew what you meant and you knew that I did, but having the mentality of a self-unaware sixteen year old shitheel, you decided to deflect from your own anatomical error by citing a minor looseness in my paraphrasing of your question. Classy!

You know what a man, or a real historian would've said? "I see that now, the eyes couldn't possibly be within those blue circles, they're too far apart". But not Pierre the great teenager: "It was only a question, so I wasn't wrong, and you have slightly misquoted my question so it's you who is wrong not me!"

Many thanks, pedant. Your puffery never fails to amuse.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Henry Flower;385446]

Oh Pierre, you save me the trouble of ridiculing you by doing it yourself. Nevertheless...

Henry, I donīt understand why there is a need for ridiculing. I see this often in this forum. I was hoping for a good discussion, but people who are ridiculing others destroy such a possibility.

Your blue circle question wasn't worth citing exactly. I knew what you meant and you knew that I did, but having the mentality of a self-unaware sixteen year old shitheel, you decided to deflect from your own anatomical error by citing a minor looseness in my paraphrasing of your question. Classy!

I see. That is the level on which you chose to communicate with others. I thought maybe you could do better.

You know what a man, or a real historian would've said? "I see that now, the eyes couldn't possibly be within those blue circles, they're too far apart". But not Pierre the great teenager: "It was only a question, so I wasn't wrong, and you have slightly misquoted my question so it's you who is wrong not me!"

Many thanks, pedant. Your puffery never fails to amuse.

Goodbye Henry.

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

I understand what you are talking about, the small dark circles which appear to be at the centre of larger, lighter, circle areas within the blue circles, is that correct?

If so I can see where you are coming from, however they appear to be in the wrong place in regards to each other, they appear very far apart. and the alignment does not seem correct.

The problem of course is that we are using an enlargement, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy and so on.
The image is far too indistinct to be sure of anything, and the very process of copying and enlarging time after time will produce artefacts in the image.
Often people see what they want to see.

I see a very badly mutilated head and face area, with possible hanging skin from the forehead, covering much of the facial area,with no discernible features obvious.
we can make estimates at where certain features should be, and then maybe some think they actually see them.

For instance, has mentioned above, I think I may see skin hanging down from the forehead; but my view of this may be bias given I have read the post mortem notes, which suggest such may have been done.
Am I really seeing this? or is my mind constructing it because it expects it?

I honestly do not know. Given the image we are looking at can anyone be sure?

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;385449]

Pierre,

I understand what you are talking about, the small dark circles which appear to be at the centre of larger, lighter, circle areas within the blue circles, is that correct?

Yes. I was posing a question about that. As I have said before, the signature in terms of detailed descriptions of the wounds is not something I am very interested in.

If so I can see where you are coming from, however they appear to be in the wrong place in regards to each other, they appear very far apart. and the alignment does not seem correct.

It is difficult to say if the position of the eyes are far apart, since the face - as the result of the cutting - is not symmetrical. It might be that the chin is hanging down on the left side of Kelly (her left). It might also be that the nose is hanging down on the same side. What do you think?

The problem of course is that we are using an enlargement, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy and so on.

The image is far too indistinct to be sure of anything, and the very process of copying and enlarging time after time will produce artefacts in the image.
Often people see what they want to see.

I do not think that we can no be sure of anything. We do see that it is a face with hair, and other details too. If we let 50 people point out where some details in the face was, for example the nose or the mouth, I think most of them would point out the same details and there would not be so much variation. To "be sure" would then be operationalized as a majority of people in a sample saying the same things. So I donīt think it is hopeless, but meaningless for finding the killer. Then again, that is not what everyone is trying to do (I guess you would say).

I see a very badly mutilated head and face area, with possible hanging skin from the forehead, covering much of the facial area,with no discernible features obvious.
we can make estimates at where certain features should be, and then maybe some think they actually see them.

For instance, has mentioned above, I think I may see skin hanging down from the forehead; but my view of this may be bias given I have read the post mortem notes, which suggest such may have been done.
Am I really seeing this? or is my mind constructing it because it expects it?

Perhaps both.

I honestly do not know. Given the image we are looking at can anyone be sure?

As I said, that could be a matter of the definition of "being sure"!

Best wishes, Pierre

[Elamarna]

It is difficult to say if the position of the eyes are far apart, since the face - as the result of the cutting - is not symmetrical. It might be that the chin is hanging down on the left side of Kelly (her left). It might also be that the nose is hanging down on the same side. What do you think?

Pierre
Yes that is possible.
However I would say unlikely that the nose is hanging down, given the construction of the noise, that is it is comprised to a great extent of cartilage and retains shape if cut, so I do not seeing it hanging to one side, of course that is my personal views, others will disagree.

Of course your observation just reinforces the view we do not know what we are really looking at

I do not think that we can no be sure of anything. We do see that it is a face with hair, and other details too. If we let 50 people point out where some details in the face was, for example the nose or the mouth, I think most of them would point out the same details and there would not be so much variation. To "be sure" would then be operationalized as a majority of people in a sample saying the same things. So I donīt think it is hopeless, but meaningless for finding the killer. Then again, that is not what everyone is trying to do (I guess you would say).

I will disagree to an extent, we do not see a face; we see the area where a face should be, and we see hair.


Yes there is an area which may be the nose, and a line which may be the mouth, I certainly see them, and I agree would probably point to the same areas if asked where I thought they may be.

But we may be pointing at those areas because those marks, are in the roughly correct area of the face and in relation to each other.
In that situation, and the human brain will interpret these marks as being the facial features.

That is not to say they are not the features, they may very well be such, just that the brain will interpret these marks as such even if they are not.

Steve

[Columbo]

I think the left circle is correct. the right is covered up by hanging skin (I think).

Columbo

I should clarify as I made a mistake in a later post. By saying left circle I'm referencing her right eye, not left. The left eye is the one we can't see.

Sorry for any confusion,

Columbo