| Author |
Message |
    
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2857
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 1:35 pm: |       |
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 8:31 pm: | |
Another great job, Stephen. I have to confess that I've never been able to make any sense of Mary's face. Could you or someone else tell me, is her face pointing directly towards the table, or is it lying at an unnatural angle, her face pushed almost into the mattress (I ask, because in the black and white photos I think I see what looks like an eye just above the mattress.)
On another thread, that was great work picking up what might be a handprint on Kelly's leg. I think you're right there, but I believe there's no circumferential cut. With the color helping mark boundaries between leg and blanket, I'd agree that's a garter holding up a stocking. I also think I can see a clear division between the top of the stocking over the garter and the flesh of the leg. Also, see how the flesh is kind of contracted around it? It's much easier to see with the color you've added, which is why I'm posting about it here.
I know there's no mention of the stocking in the report, but that's what it looks like to me  I wonder what happened to the other one (if that is indeed a stocking on her leg).
But I think you're right about the fingerprints there on the leg. It's crazy, how good your eyes are, man.
Cheers,
Dave |
Rodney Gillis
Police Constable
Username: Srod
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 10:54 pm: | |
Stephen,
I've looked at the original photo many times. Bringing color to the picture makes the scene seem more horrible and ghastly than ever before. I'm not being critical of you but this picture is very disturbing. Poor Mary
Rod |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 27
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 2:50 am: | |
I agree, Rodney. It does somehow make her seem more human, doesn't it? And yet more pathetic. I think too often we get so caught up in playing "Hunt the Ripper" that we forget that these women were flesh-and-blood human beings, with families and friends, and no matter how they chose to live their lives they absolutely did not deserve to die in such a brutal, horrifying manner. 
Brilliant work, though. I've always wondered if this were possible. Maybe it's just my computer, but the blood looks somewhat purple. Of course, I probably would have found bright red blood a little harder to stomach, so perhaps it's for the best that my video card isn't so hot.
Would you be able to do this for the other photographs of the victims? It might help us pinpoint Eddowes' and Stride's injuries. The detail you've managed to add is incredible. Dave, my eyes aren't that good, either! |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2862
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 8:09 am: | |
Hi Rodney -
I absolutely agree that its a horrible sight to look at, particularly in color. In fact I became a bit nauseous several times while working on the colorization.
But I do find that the color brings out a lot more detail, and it has helped me piece together a few things just while in the process of making it.
I'm not sure if it would be worthwhile to do this for shots of the other victims but I could certainly give it a try.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Holger Haase
Police Constable
Username: Holger
Post Number: 4
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 8:21 am: | |
"I'm not sure if it would be worthwhile to do this for shots of the other victims but I could certainly give it a try."
It WOULD be worthwhile!!! Not a doubt in my mind. Yours is one of the most original approaches in the JTR investigation I have seen in many a year. Your colorisation has certainly helped visualise several aspects of the original b&w photo!
A job well done: Just when you think there are no new angles to look at, you come up with this incredibly original idea!!!
Holger |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2863
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 9:23 am: | |
Both photos, colorized as per my own interpretations. I believe you can see in the 2nd photograph Bond's observation that "The left calf showed a long gash through skin & tissues to the deep muscles & reaching from the knee to 5 ins above the ankle." I colored this in appropriately in red. It is very difficult to interpret that part of the photo, as it is looking into the light source and there is significant distortion as a result. Anyhow, for what its worth:
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 124
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 9:31 am: | |
I remember watching an interview with Steven Spielberg after Schindler's List was released when he was talking about explaining to his father that he made the film in black and white because in his mind's eye he always saw the Second World War in black and white, to which his father, who fought in the war, replied that to him it would always be in colour.
I think that's something we keep forgetting as we dryly pick over the facts. That for the people involved this case was not dry facts and old black and white photo's, it was a vivid and horrible real life experience. It is difficult to imagine standing at this scene in real life and not feeling a pressing need to rush back out into the yard and deposit your breakfast in the nearest corner. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 174
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 11:17 am: | |
Hi, Stephen
Yes, in the 2nd photograph, I'd say that looks more like a cut than a garter. At the same time, it looks like there's material on the leg below that cut. But as you say, it's hard to make it all out.
About Dr. Bond's statement that the left calf showed a gash. It was my understanding that Bond made his statements based on the victim's point of view? He seems to hold to this rule in other areas of his report ("the head was turned on the left cheek" and "the left arm. . .lying across the abdomen"). I guess it's possible Bond made an error and wrote left when he meant right (considering what he was looking at), but I'd taken it to mean he was talking about a wound that can't be seen in the picture. (Edit, there's a view of the other side of the leg in the 2nd photograph, but I can't make much of it).
Cheers,
Dave
PS, all: The MJK pictures are the worst photos of a murder victim I've ever seen, and I'll never forget the first time I saw them, which was around 1990. But at some point, it's important to get past the horror and take a measured view of what was done. |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 125
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 6:01 pm: | |
David
I wasn't (and I assume nobody else was) intending to suggest that there is anything wrong with taking a dispassionate look at the photos to see what facts we can ascertain from them. What I personally was trying to suggest was rather that we should keep the horror of the scene in mind when we try to interpret the behaviour of people who were around at the time. I am thinking in particular of the very unusual behaviour at the inquests of both Joseph Barnett and Michael Kidney. A lot has been made on one of the other boards about Barnett's stuttering and unusual speech. Heck, if that was my girlfriend hacked to pieces on the bed there I'm not sure exactly how clear my thought processes would be for a considerable time afterwards.
So in other words, yes you have to look past the horror, but you also have to make sure you don't forget about it. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 6:04 pm: | |
"So in other words, yes you have to look past the horror, but you also have to make sure you don't forget about it."
Point taken, and well said, Alan
Best,
Dave |
Suzi Hanney
Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 35
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 7:12 pm: | |
Stephen-
have just happened across your coloured m.j.k. photos...horrific yes but what did we all expect!! They're brilliant..don't be discouraged! and keep going despite the yuk factor!
Cheers
Suzi |
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 3:48 pm: | |
Some of you talked about what seems to be either a sock garter or a cut. I believe it is a cut, I'll get to why before I close this message.
I first saw the full photo of Mary Kelly when I was 5 years old, that would have been 1970 BTW. I've been reading about unknown crimes a long, long time! The two I mostly read about being the Zodiac and Jack the Ripper. In fact I always believed these two killers had many things in common just from what is known about them. No doubt that the Zodiac likely knew a bit about the Jack the Ripper case and other cases of killings.
In any event, the image of Mary Kelly cut up in this way has been the worst I've ever seen. Adding color to it adds sort of a "real" feeling to it than the old brown toned one.
The cut marks on her arms seem as if she might have been alive fighting off her killer with at least this arm. She might have lived for a few moments after Jack the Ripper cut her throat, just long enough for her to raise her arm towards him. Or she might have put her arm up as he went to cut her throat. These cuts on her arm do look like she tried to defend herself at some point. They are not the same as the cuts elsewhere in her body. The wacks on her face I think came next before JTR moved down to cutting up her body. The reason I believe that is the wacks on her face seem more random and with more rage. Removing the other parts like the breast he cut in a circle way. He cut away most of her lower half of her body, as seen below the arm left across where her tummy would be if it was still there. He had taken out most of her insides as we all know, like her heart. UGH! I know this is getting kind of gross but stay with me here. Below the knee and above the leg bone JTR has cut almost like a roast leg of lamb. It looks like a clean cut around most of the thigh flesh he cut off. Under the leg he might have ripper the last part of the flesh off. It looks like this is the case in the image anyway. I beleive he started to do the same below her knee. I still think that was his last cut around the bottom of her knee. Maybe something caused him to flee but I always thought he was forced to leave before he did everthing he wanted to do to this poor girl. Case in point her other leg that is toward us in the image is almost in tact. If given more time I think JTR would have cut the lower half of that leg he did cut the top of to the bone and would have done the same to the other one. I know it's just my point of veiw but think about it. Okay? Thank you, M.Mc. |
Busy Beaver
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 5:34 am: | |
I applogise for being a bit slow- I mentioned in another post about her hair not being blond, but a reddish brown. This colourised photograph is great, but is it really Mary Jane Kelly? |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 544
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 8:34 pm: | |
I'm not really sure of your point. Are you suggesting that because the hair color in the colored photo doesn't match what you believe to be the correct color of her hair, that she is not MJK?
If so, then I would direct you to Stephen's post where he says it is colorized according to his interpretation and therefore, the color of her hair is not necessarily reflective of the color her hair would have been in life.
If this is not what you meant, could you please clarify because I don't think your point is clear from what you have posted.
Ally
 |
Busy Beaver
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 7:33 am: | |
Hi Ally,
I just quickly looked at the picture, saw the hair colour and thought is that MJK? I'm no expert on black & white photograpghs, but sometimes blond hair does show as well, blond hair. In the black & white photographs of MJK, it is dark. However,reading back through the other information that has been posted on MJK, I feel certain in myself that it is now actually her. Cheers Busy Beaver. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 551
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
Ah gotcha then.
Peace,
Ally
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 700
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Great pix tho Stephen!!!
Cheers Suzi ...x just found this one again!!
For Gods sake Thomas Bowyer didnt see it in black and white did he!!!!!?
No point in being sterile here chaps this was the hideous reality!!!! colourised or not.....thats how it was!!!
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 848
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
Bowyer [ help Chris] was not in my mind a youth.
If he was a older person, then although he well may have observed the body of kelly, by being present with McCarthy at the scene, when the police gave orders for the door to be broken in, he according to Walter dew was not the person who discovered the body.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 704
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 6:10 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Walter Dew eh!! ?? Hmmmm
I also think of the ubiquitous Indian Harry as not being in how you say the first bloom of youth!!! Funny that but have a really strong image of him!!!...not a young man I feel.....may be totally wrong here
Cheers Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 705
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 6:17 pm: | |
Hi,
Sorry...... but I cant get over the fact....looking at Stephens pix just makes it more obvious....that its NOT a chemise.....just a rucked up sheet around the body and Dr Bond was right........the body was naked upon the bed etc etc.
Cheers Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2418
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 9:29 am: | |
Hi Suzi
Phillips said "She had only her under linen garment on her." Isn't it easier to conclude that Bond was slightly wrong (saying "naked" when he meant "as good as naked") than to conclude that Phillips imagined a garment that wasn't there?
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 853
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 1:22 pm: | |
Hi,
I had always imagined a chemise to have been a undergarment, and as i find in hard to imagine that she would have had regular nightware, pajamas, or nightie,so she would have slept in the underlayer of her clothes.
It would be be intresting to ascertain what other clothes kelly owned , she must have others then were folded on her chair.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 709
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 4:00 pm: | |
Hi Robert and Richard...
Right A-Z in hand here...
'The body was lying on the bed quite naked and mutilated as in the annexed report.....etc ..Bonds report to Anderson phillips report.....the chemise....hmmmm Suzi
|
Jennmelo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 3:02 pm: | |
}Hello everyone. I'm not very familiar w/ this case, I just saw "From Hell" w/ Johnny Depp,the movie based on Jack the Ripper and I was in awe.
I'm very much intrested in learning more about this mystery and I'm just as confused about the whole case as well. I'd welcome any info. |
