Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by caz 4 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by caz 5 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by caz 6 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Batman 6 hours ago.
General Discussion: Mary Kelly Jack the Ripper celebrity ghost box session interview - by Bridewell 6 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Abby Normal 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (42 posts)
General Police Discussion: City of London Precincts and Divisions involved in the Investigation - (1 posts)
General Discussion: Mary Kelly Jack the Ripper celebrity ghost box session interview - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Mary Jane Kelly

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-08-2011, 02:53 AM
sgh sgh is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 130
Default 'V' shape cut on MJK's face - WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES

I've made a close up enhancement of the head area on the MJK 1 photo to help determine some of the facial damage.

There appears to be evidence of a 'V' shape cut on her lower right cheek.
This is very subjective I realize due to the quality of the image.

I've circled it in the top photo - the identical copy below is purely for your reference without distraction.

It is the second 'V' shape mark which I think are intended cuts made with the point of a double edge knife that I can find on her body, the other(s) can be found on the back of her left hand in the MJK 3 photo reposted below.

Alongside is the Eddowes' close up photo for comparison of confirmed 'V' shaped cuts.

If it can be determined for certain that these are indeed 'V' shaped cuts on Kelly's body which appear the same as can be seen on Eddowes face, then it would seem to be the 'signature mark' of one and the same killer!


Best
Steve.
Attached Images
  
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-08-2011, 03:20 AM
Archaic Archaic is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,902
Question Mary's Chemise??

Hello Steve. Thank you for adding the warning about graphic images, because the close-up of Mary is horrifying.

I agree with you that the "v's" are very subjective.

As Hunter pointed out on another thread, the photo of Eddowes was taken after the autopsy when her face had been stitched up, so the wounds are not in their original state.

I couldn't help noticing that your enhancements seem to make visible the chemise that some sources say Mary was wearing when she was murdered. I think I see the upper part of it in your enhancement. It appears to be shoved up near her neck area. It's hard to tell what we're looking at, but it looks more like fabric to me.

Does anybody agree that it looks like Mary's chemise?


(By the way, a chemise was a simple undergarment, rather like a sleeveless nightgown.)

- Jesus Christ, I've been looking at your enhancement some more and her face is utterly destroyed!
I think I can see her right eyeball staring out. It's very disturbing.

But you did a good job Steve, thank you.

Best regards,
Archaic

Last edited by Archaic : 03-08-2011 at 03:38 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-08-2011, 04:15 AM
sgh sgh is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 130
Default chemise

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaic View Post
Hello Steve. Thank you for adding the warning about graphic images, because the close-up of Mary is horrifying.

I agree with you that the "v's" are very subjective.

As Hunter pointed out on another thread, the photo of Eddowes was taken after the autopsy when her face had been stitched up, so the wounds are not in their original state.

I couldn't help noticing that your enhancements seem to make visible the chemise that some sources say Mary was wearing when she was murdered. I think I see the upper part of it in your enhancement. It appears to be shoved up near her neck area. It's hard to tell what we're looking at, but it looks more like fabric to me.

Does anybody agree that it looks like Mary's chemise?


(By the way, a chemise was a simple undergarment, rather like a sleeveless nightgown.)

- Jesus Christ, I've been looking at your enhancement some more and her face is utterly destroyed!
I think I can see her right eyeball staring out. It's very disturbing.

But you did a good job Steve, thank you.

Best regards,
Archaic
Hi Archaic,
Many Thanks!

Yes, I agree that's her chemise clearly visible on her left shoulder and various parts on the body.
Also on the close up you can see as you say a part of her right eyeball, the other eye is covered over with a flap of loose flesh from her left eyebrow area hanging over her nose.
There are other flaps of facial tissue obscuring the face detail too!

I 've also noticed what appears to be a dark stain on the corner edge of the bedding where the operator may have wiped his knife clean (see circled area
on photo below.)
If that is the case and considering the table would be in the way to do that it could be that he did the face mutilations first without the table being there - then brought the table from across the room and placed it at the bedside ready to accept the abdominal flesh etc! Just a guess!

To All
I do apologize for posting these horrific images especially at these sizes, but I feel it necessary to get these points across. A postage stamp image size would do nothing.

Best
Steve
Attached Images
 
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-08-2011, 04:39 AM
Archaic Archaic is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,902
Default The Victorian Chemise

Hi Steve. Yes, Mary's chemise is clearly visible in that picture.

I do see the sort of rectangular stain. Perhaps you are correct and a blade was wiped; I really don't know.

I thought it might be helpful to post some pictures of chemises. Chemises were worn as the undermost garment. In other words, they were worn against the skin. Most were loose, straight, sleeveless, simple garments.

Bras had not been invented yet. "Respectable" ladies wore corsets; also called "stays". The corset was worn over the chemise, not under it.

A chemise is not a nightgown; those were usually long-sleeved, full-length, and often made of a warmer material like flannel, whereas a chemise was shorter and relatively sheer. Another term for chemise is "shift". A slang term was "shimmy".

The illustration is Late Victorian c.1900 and the photograph shows a modern reproduction of a classic Victorian chemise.

Best regards,
Archaic
Attached Images
  
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-08-2011, 04:50 AM
Archaic Archaic is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,902
Default Was Part of Mary's Upper Arm Near The Bicep Removed?

Steve, I'm looking at the last photo and I can see the deep cuts on Mary's arms. Her forearm has long gashes.

It looks to me that a portion of her upper left arm was removed, roughly in the area of the bicep. You can see that a chunk of flesh is missing.

Wow, it's so clear I'm amazed.

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

PS: Could the dark rectangular image you circled possibly be a strip of bloody flesh?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-08-2011, 01:54 PM
kensei kensei is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 983
Default

Archaic points out the wounds on Mary's left arm. I think these closeups bring into sharp focus something I have always thought, that these are NOT defensive wounds as some have suggested, i.e. cuts made during the attack as she tried to shield herself. There is just too much flesh missing, clearly wounds inflicted after death and one of the many things the Ripper decided to do to the body for whatever twisted reasons had meaning to him.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-08-2011, 02:17 PM
Sister Hyde Sister Hyde is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensei View Post
Archaic points out the wounds on Mary's left arm. I think these closeups bring into sharp focus something I have always thought, that these are NOT defensive wounds as some have suggested, i.e. cuts made during the attack as she tried to shield herself. There is just too much flesh missing, clearly wounds inflicted after death and one of the many things the Ripper decided to do to the body for whatever twisted reasons had meaning to him.
Yes it's much clearer although we could see that there was too much flesh missing for these to be defensive wounds, now we can really see how big these wounds were.
the blooded rectangle shaped mark is hard to tell, but if it was the stain from the blade being wiped, the shape wouldn't be so geometrical I think
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-08-2011, 07:40 PM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,193
Default Written in stone? Or just written in ink?

Hello Steve,

Thank you for these enlargements. Detracting slightly away from the V shape markings, I note you include in this series of photos the MJK3 photo. As you probably know, I (amongst others) find this photograph most dubious indeed.
One of the many reasons for this is highlighted in your enhancement photograph, on the right of the two of MJK3.

That purported "V shape" on the back of the hand is indeed very visible. I have blown it up to 200% for greater clarity. (below)

To my mind, it is not a V shape, but an attempt at playing a game (again).. it resembles the symbol of Freemasonary. It may even be a smiley face, crudely drawn. It looks drawn on the hand, so does the "scissor-like" symbol next to it. (Ever seen a carving THAT small and detailed on a body? It would take a very small knife!)

I have previously given the opinion that the hand we see is NOT MKJ's at all, as it is. imho, a right hand (as has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere).

Although I am open to any particular symbol such as V shapes being carved in the flesh by the murderer, the MJK3 photograph is littered with so many anomelies that make it far too questionable to be relied upon, imho.

Fine presentation of the photograph though. Many thanks indeed.

best wishes

Phil
Attached Images
 
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....

Last edited by Phil Carter : 03-08-2011 at 07:52 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-08-2011, 07:53 PM
Sister Hyde Sister Hyde is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Carter View Post
I have previously given the opinion that the hand we see is NOT MKJ's at all, as it is. imho, a right hand (as has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere).
who's hand could it be then?? (and i'm not being sarcastic), it wouls be very weird for the police to take a crime scene picture with someone having his hand on the corpse.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-08-2011, 08:04 PM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,193
Default

Hello Sister,

Although this has been talked about a thousand times, I, and others, are of the opinion that this photograph is a fake. It is on some other thread somewhere.. many discussions. I have little time atm to search, but will do so later if that is ok?

best wishes

Phil

PS I would like to know how someone who cuts and rips bodies with such malice can take the time to carve such intricate little symbols with a 6" knife? Perhaps it was Sickert after all... he's the artist...lol.. seriously, a large knife could not carve such small details (scissors)... it would take a razor blade or suchlike. Ask any tattoo artist.
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....

Last edited by Phil Carter : 03-08-2011 at 08:06 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.