| Author |
Message |
    
Brad McGinnis
Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 39
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 8:54 pm: | 
|
Hi Mark,
I too have used poles and rods to catch perches. What kind of bait do you use? |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 121
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 2:38 pm: |
|
Kidney |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 333
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Hi Mick,
Can you E.mail me ,there is something private I wish to discuss, the user list has my address.
Richard. |
Belinda Pearce
Police Constable
Username: Belinda
Post Number: 5
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 6:57 pm: |
|
Women's waists were smaller because of the corsets they wore and tight laced themselves into. It compressed the waist and gave an unnatural measurement.A woman in the 1950's shrank her waist down to 18' by tight lacing over a couple of years |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 102
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 1:05 pm: |
|
Belinda!!
\my granny who was born in 1888!! was married with a 14" waist!! I can double that now!!
even with the lacing!! Didn't Henry VIII's first wife have a 13" waist!!!!!!!!!Eeeek..some corset and lacing there!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 519
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi,
I can treble it [ almost] but that is due to the occassional Hmmm six pack of my favourite nectar, which I tend to bring home with me, as a pre dinner drink.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 104
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 3:59 pm: |
|
Richard!!
Treble it!.shurely not sor!!..why don't you make sure that you have enough left over from the previous evening in order to have a stiffener prior to having to toddle up to the offie for your pre-dinner slurp!
Suzi |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 9:35 am: |
|
Hi Mick Lydon
Cault your reconstruction photo's of Mary kelly with great interest. I am currently working on a program idea combining modern computer graphics and Ripperologist experts with Psychic's. Appriciate it is a strange combination but it seems to work giving the veiwer accurate reconstruction combined with fascinating subjecture.
We are currently finishing as accurate 3D model of Millers Court as I beleive anyone has created so far. We intend to eventually produce accurate models of all 5 murder sites and put them online.
We have started to work with a number of Artist impresssionists to come up with impressions of the victims. However your computer generated images got me thinking that this would be a much more interesting way to complile a photo fit and look much better along side of the 3D studio max graphics we have already produced.
I'm very interested in talking to you about your pictures and whether you'd be interested in coming up with accurate 3D models of all five victims.
I've just changed my email to jeff.leahy@btinternet.com
I would really like to talk to you as some of the new graphics programs could take this a step further and virtualy bring these women back to life.
Hoping you will contact
Jeff |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 222
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 5:22 pm: |
|
Jeff-
How's the 3D 'model' of Millers Court coming along..as an artist who has resorted to the odd shoe box/ruler and bits of cardboard school of building mary's room (with some success I may say!!..if some amusement from others!!) I can't wait to see the results of your totally amazing labours!!
Keep me up to speed on suzihanney@hotmail .com
Cheers
suzi |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 5:29 am: |
|
Dear Mick,
I think the 'hot lips' is a tad voluptuous... otherwise, its a remarkable likeness. I congratulate you.
Rosey :-) |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 246
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Jeff- Well>????? have you disappeared under a pile of cyber balsa wood??
Good luck!
Suzi |
Matt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 5:14 am: |
|
Good job on that reconstruction, if it were only 10% accurate you have done the girl a great justice and perhaps restored a little dignity. I would love so much to look on the unspoilt face of Mary Jane, that the only lasting image of her should be the famous Millers court photograph is a cruel epitaph. For the greater majority of Mary’s life, she did not in fact look anything like she did in that picture and I wish that she wasn’t remembered thus. I have studied the Ripper case for more years than I care to admit. As my knowledge of these women and of how they lived and died grew I have found I can no longer bear to look at the photographs of what the Killer did to them. |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 2:31 pm: |
|
I have only just found this thread in the archives and found the facial reconstruction pictures very interesting.
I did a computer enhancement of Mary Kelly myself a while ago so thought I would post a link to it her for anyone interested in seeing it.
I am not claiming it to be a true likeness of MJK or done with any scientific basis,it just stopped me having nightmares for a while after looking at those awful murder scene photographs, I hope I have made her look like she is just sleeping peacefully.
Hope you like it :o)
Debra
[IMG]http://img98.exs.cx/img98/2233/kelly1.jpg[/IMG] |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 5:20 am: |
|
Hi anybody????
When I had posted the above message I decided to have another look at the original Kelly photograph and noticed what appears to be a bright shiny reflection from a small circular object under Mary's bedside table,I am not sure if this has been discussed before, but if you zoom in closely to that area of the photograph there appears to be something that looks like a mask there too.
This is an awful thought but does anyone think this could be part of Marys face partialy taken off and discarded? and what is the shiny object?
Debra |
Busy Beaver
Detective Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 68
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 4:01 pm: |
|
The shiny object looks like a teaspoon.
Busy Beaver  |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 390
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 10:48 am: |
|
Hi Debra,
The search form that lets registered users see what new posts have been added often misses posts by unregistered users, so that's probably why people did not respond.
The face image you supplied certainly looks more human and less horrific than the file we're all used to.
The visible spot that looks like something shining in light and the object on the floor have been a matter of much discussion elsewhere on these boards. I don't see a mask like shape. Interestingly, the white spot as well as the dark line (or broken line) coming off of it that looks like a spoon to BB does not show up in the other photo we have that shows the the crime scene from the same angle. It may be some artifact of the photo-taking or developing process. But I don't want to get into it too much as there are other threads here discussing that.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 11:37 am: |
|
Hi Chris Scott
I have just seen your post of Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 4:53 pm with the construction of Mary's room at
../4921/9070.html"../4921/11035.html" target=_top>../4921/11035.html"http://www.ripperologist.info">http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 397
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Hi,
I don't mean to be excessively contrary to Chris George today (sorry, Chris), but I am not convinced there was any gap at all between the bed and the wall.
The photo doesn't appear to show any space to me. As far as I know the wash stand was actually further down the wall and not between the bed and the wall (and is shown that way in some sketches of positions of items in the room). I don't take an illustration of doctors being between the bed and the wall as necessarily proof of anything other than artistic license. I believe the blanket was on the bed and propped against the wall with no other support, and that the camera was placed in that general vicinity to take the photo from that angle without needing to have a gap or move the bed.
I also doubt that people living in a room that small would waste space by having the bed pulled out from the wall or that two people sleeping on a bed that size could stay on it very well if there was a gap. Someone once had a diagram that showed something like a five foot gap, which of course is physically impossible for the dimensions of that room, and I think even one foot would be tricky to pull off with the bed, stand, door and slight gap between door and wall that we know had to fit in there.
I personally would guess that any gap, if one existed, would be less than four inches.
But that's just me.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Hi Dan
If you look at Chris's schematic compared with the colorized photograph, you don't see a line on the photograph consistent with a corner where he shows it. The marks to the left of the headboard appear to continue backwards, and I would say the corner is closer or at the angled molding that can be seen on the back wall, not to the right of the molding as Chris shows it, close to the headboard leg. See what I mean? Also, Dan, how do you explain, that bolster or pillow or whatever it is down the side of the bed by Mary's leg? It is resting on something. Yes the room was small but that doesn't mean there was not a foot to spare on the side of the bed. And I still cite that sketch in Paley's book that shows the washstand on that side of the bed. Check it out, Dan. It might be artistic license, true, but it might have been like that as well.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 399
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 8:57 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I have never gotten the lines argument, and reading what you wrote I'm still not following along. I think I would need a diagram or something to understand what you are saying.
As far as the blanket thing on the bed, I think it's on the bed and against the wall, like how a pillow would be on the bed and against the headboard. I would think that if it were on a stand of some sort that at this angle we'd be able to see some sort of visible difference between where the stand ends and the alleged gap would be, unless the blanket roll thingy completely covers the stand so it can't be seen but not so much that it droops off the edges.
And you know I'm being precise when I pull out the word "thingy."
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 3:56 am: |
|
Hi Dan
I think the bed is pushed up against the wall too, in the colourised photograph you can see that the matress fits right up into the corner, for me it is the position of the headboard that puts the whole thing out of perspective. I was wondering if this was originally a single bedstead with a larger double sized matress placed on top of it. The roll of blankets definitely seem to be placed on the bed.
|
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 5:54 am: |
|
Another thing I have noticed, which knocks out the whole perspective of the picture is that Mary's bed appears to be tilted downwards at the headboard end,the foot of the bed appears to be several inches higher than the head end, as can happen when a headboard becomes detached from the main bed frame, leading me to think the room at Miller's court was just supplied with a broken ' make do' kind of bed arrangement with an ill fitting matress,making it much harder to judge the actual position of the bed.
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Hi Debra,
Like, Wow!!!, your "reconstruction/enhancement" is top notch.
It's a pity the content of that link isn't actually inside the casebook as who knows how long it will remain valid. Why didn't you upload it?
Was she really that pretty, not that prettiness comes into it, but it seems to make it all the sadder at how she lived her life and how it ended.
I saw Mick Lyden's reconstruction and she's pretty in his version also but the fact that your enhancement matches the look and feel of the orginal media and also shows more of the original photograph makes it somehow more realistic and seems to make the horrors of what were done to her all the more vivid to me.
The fact that she is depicted as pretty does make me feel that I'd rather not have seen the reconstruction. I'd have felt more "comfortable" at seeing a more "homely" woman in the reconstruction.
I've written the above paragraphs a couple of times now and I still can't find the words to actually describe what I really mean and it always comes out wrong.
If anyone can understand what I've probably left unwritten, is it just an "ian" attitude, a male attitude or a human attitude.
Just curious, and will accept the women here taking pot shots at me if it does come across as a bit sexist (it probably is but I'm not sure).
Cheerio,
ian - keeping both eyes wide open, gawking at Mary, feeling strangely uncertain about what I really feel.
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1579
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 11:25 am: |
|
Hi Chris
Thanks for the comments on the reconstruction that I posted on the other thread. Perhaps I should explain that my motive in doing so was not to try and give a precise idea of the physical layout of the room in terms of depth and perspective but merely to clarify and outline the jumble of sections visible in the degraded image of the original photo.
The corner of the room may lay where you say but in the colorized photo and in the original it looks to me as though the right hand limit of the back wall is the double line that runs vertically up the photo immediately to the left of the bottom of the moulded suppost to the left of the bedhead. I say this because I am sure the right hand part of the back wall in is fact a blocked up panel door whose outline can be seen and which at some stage in the room's former life was open to the premises at the front of the building.
There are certainly oddities in the perspective of the photo. The main one is that horizontal line to the right of the photo, running some distance above the bedhead, runs virtually parallel to the edges of the photo, but the bedhead itself runs at a sharp downward angle compared to the edges of the picture. I have never been able to sort out the perspective of that in my mind.
All the best
Chris
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
Thanks for replying and explaining that your concern was to sort out MJK's injuries and the various things on the bed more so than the layout of the room.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Howard Brown
Detective Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 144
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:18 pm: |
|
Ian...I think I share the same sentiments towards MJK as you do. Its a combination of the uncertainty as to what she really looked like and the natural disdain we feel when a "good looking woman" is harmed or in this case,destroyed.
Not that features always count,but its a fact of life that attractive women usually get priority to us in situations like this. She is,after all,the most "popular" victim of JTR,and her attractiveness may just be a part of the popularity...
I got your back,brother.....
How |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:20 am: |
|
Hi hemustadoneit
Thanks for the comments about the Mary Kelly picture, glad you liked it.
You could be right, maybe she is a little too pretty in the picture, I tried hard to make her features as plain as possible and not romanticise her too much.
I didn't have the technical expertise to upload the picture onto the casebook before, but I think I can manage it now, so here it is;
 |
John Casey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 3:23 pm: |
|
Thought I'd have a go at Mary's face, and this is the result. Its actually based on Micks reconstruction, I took the murder scene photo, overlaid that with a skull, overlaid that with Micks picture, then overlaid the whole lot with flesh tones from a donor face. My eyes hurt now!! Hope it was worth the effort anyhow, and Mick, sorry for pinching your picture to use as the basis as mine! |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4052
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 5:25 pm: |
|
John, I like that very much.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1575
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Debra,This is the first time I have seen your astonishing portrait.She looks so peaceful here.
Truly I am quite amazed at what you have managed to reveal ----which seems to "fit" so precisely with the what has been left of her demolished face.[I am not saying here that the technical use of the computer is all that special-its clearly not-but for a likeness as I see it ----remarkable!
John,
I like your portrait too---very much actually.
The expression is as I can picture it myself,a rather lost soul who couldnt really hack it except when full of booze.This though is Mary sober and soulful.
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4054
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 8:20 pm: |
|
Hi Debra
I like yours too. I think the general reports of Mary show her as being pretty. Maybe what Ian means is that it's just so incongruous, seeing that face surrounded by all that gore etc. Still, your rendition of Mary herself is top notch.
On a more prosaic note, the defensive wounds on the arms have come out well.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Hi,
I feel moved by the above reconstructions, although we have no real way of knowing exactly what Mjk looked like , both are excellent attempts to portray a likeness.
The millers court victim is unique to this case because she was so young, we seem to forget that in comparison to the others she was only 24/25 years of age, which is only a year older than my youngest daughter.
The killer certainly altered his MO, in this murder ....Why?.
Regards Richard |
Neil Williams
Police Constable
Username: Neilw
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
Why indeed, Richard!
Fantastic work from Debra and John, although the two results are quite different. I find John's image very haunting somehow. |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie and Robert
Thanks for the comments
I did do this a long time ago and just put a link to it originally, until Ian saw it...I wasn't sure how people would take it as it was done over the original crime scene photograph!The reason I did it like that was because the only part of Mary left intact facialy was her hairline, and from the hairline you can definitely tell the position her head was laid in, also that she had a large 'celtic' forehead with a straight hairline that probably receeded slightly at the sides when face on ( I spent many years looking at hairlines in a previous life as a hairdresser!!). I am not knocking Micks version using the same photo as it was absolutely brilliant technically, but for me ( and this is only my opinion) the hairline just did not match to the superimposed face.Also It can clearly be seen from the photograph I think, that Mary had a darkish hair colour ( probably mousey if she was described as blond)and her hair does not appear the poker straight glossy mane she is often portrayed with, It seems to have more of a frizzy almost curly texture to it.
Debra
|
John Nickolaus
Police Constable
Username: Marykelly
Post Number: 1
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 3:41 pm: |
|
The facial reconstructions on this site are amazing! Witnesses have always said Mary was the prettiest of the victims. It's funny though, the murder reconstruction photo reminds me of an exgirlfriend of mine!!!!! |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page