Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can't get past Maxwell

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

  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    Tolkien wouldn't have approved of this low-brow garbage.
    hi Harry
    well i think he would approve of the LotR original movies trilogy, which was epic and a masterpiece IMHO, maybe not the follow up The Hobbit, which i think Jackson did get rather low brow. and i think he would also be OK with this series in general, but probably not specifically with all the changes. I think this series is more in line with the original movie trilogy.

    anyway you may be right, alot of authors hate the movie version of their books. but were straying way off topic so this will be my last post on it.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

      Hi Martyn,

      I've been giving this some consideration.

      I've been with my partner for around fifteen years.

      I'm sure that I would know his hair, eyes or hands anywhere.

      His feet? Highly unlikely.

      (Unless of course I had recently become bored, and amused myself by painting his toenails whilst he dozed in front of the telly, oblivious to my pedicure!!)
      Must do better, Ms D. My OH guarantees she could recognise my feet, and there's nothing weird about them. We've been together nearly 20 years though, so don't start questioning the state of your relationship...yet.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

        Must do better, Ms D. My OH guarantees she could recognise my feet, and there's nothing weird about them. We've been together nearly 20 years though, so don't start questioning the state of your relationship...yet.
        Oh no! Now I'm gonna be staring at them all weekend, and he's gonna wonder what's going on!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

          Oh no! Now I'm gonna be staring at them all weekend, and he's gonna wonder what's going on!
          Lol. But you look so hot without socks on...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post

            Thanks Ms D.

            Judging by the picture I have linked to, I'm not convinced the eyes were in a better state to use for identification than the hands.
            ...and one pair of eyes are just the same as any other. All blue eyes are the same, all brown the same, all green etc. etc.
            It's the muscular structure around the eyes that make them distinctive, and in Kelly's case the eyebrows & eyelids had been mutilated (Bond, Hebbert), so if that is true her eyes were in no fit state to be distinctive for an I.D.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              ...and one pair of eyes are just the same as any other. All blue eyes are the same, all brown the same, all green etc. etc.
              It's the muscular structure around the eyes that make them distinctive, and in Kelly's case the eyebrows & eyelids had been mutilated (Bond, Hebbert), so if that is true her eyes were in no fit state to be distinctive for an I.D.
              Thank you very much for that info and conclusion.

              Comment


              • Click image for larger version

Name:	MaryJaneKelly_Ripper BIG 01 eye.jpg
Views:	378
Size:	213.5 KB
ID:	797718 Reckon that is one of her eyes.
                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                  .
                  Hi Jon,

                  A brief off topic. You have been looking for a suspect with a distinctive walking gait. Probably nothing, but I thought I'd draw your attention to the last sentence here:


                  Cheers, George
                  They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                  Out of a misty dream
                  Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                  Within a dream.
                  Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

                  ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                    Reckon that is one of her eyes.
                    Definitely not.

                    That particular version of the print has had at least one digital enchancement applied to it and shows various 'details' that weren't part of the original image. It would be unwise to use it to reach any definitive conclusions.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PRB View Post
                      That particular version of the print has had at least one digital enchancement applied to it and shows various 'details' that weren't part of the original image. It would be unwise to use it to reach any definitive conclusions.
                      Can I appeal once again for high-res scans of the earliest/largest/clearest findable publications of this ghastly image? I still think the face on the original photographic plate was delibertaely vandalised with a stylus, possibly by the police, in order to prevent the horrific damage to Mary's face ever being seen by the public. That's why we seem to see parts of two eyes in totally impossible places: the emulsion on the plate has been broken up and moved about.

                      Mark D.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                        Hi Jon,

                        A brief off topic. You have been looking for a suspect with a distinctive walking gait. Probably nothing, but I thought I'd draw your attention to the last sentence here:


                        Cheers, George
                        Thankyou George.

                        "Knock-Kneed"?
                        Given the period I suspect people who had abnormalities with walking was more common than today, but I had not read that before - thanks again.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                          Can I appeal once again for high-res scans of the earliest/largest/clearest findable publications of this ghastly image? I still think the face on the original photographic plate was delibertaely vandalised with a stylus, possibly by the police, in order to prevent the horrific damage to Mary's face ever being seen by the public. That's why we seem to see parts of two eyes in totally impossible places: the emulsion on the plate has been broken up and moved about.

                          Mark D.
                          The only recognizable detail I see are the (upper?) teeth, but they seem at an odd alignment to the angle of the head.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post
                            ...... That's why we seem to see parts of two eyes in totally impossible places: the emulsion on the plate has been broken up and moved about.

                            Mark D.
                            I wasn't aware you could do that, also the photographic plate is not that large. Wouldn't it be simpler to have just scratched the face off the plate?

                            It's the chin I think is in an impossible place, far too near her left shoulder. If her head had been severed from the body and just placed on the pillow for the photograph, then the result would be similar to what we see - in my opinion.

                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Mark D.Thanks for your interesting post.

                              I notice you say "I think".

                              This idea does raise some interesting questions.

                              What evidence do we have this happened?
                              In what context did this happen?
                              When?
                              What's the provenance of this picture. Is one of the pictures that Don Rumbelow rescued?
                              The face looks horribly damaged anyway. So what was the point of altering it anyway?

                              It's a curious thing for the police to do.

                              Just thinking aloud.

                              Martyn




                              Comment


                              • Police cover up
                                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X