| Author |
Message |
    
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 1:21 pm: | 
|
See the picture below, which I have turned upright.
Her face is tilted to the left, we are not seeing it straight on. You can most clearly see this if you notice the line of the right jaw, and the chin (which I have circled and which is clearly off center). There appears to be a deep gash in her right cheek... this appears to be just below the cheekbone. Also rather clear, is the semi-triangular shape of the nasal cavity. A line which goes from the top of the head, through the top of this triangle, and through the center of the chin is the centerline of the face. The eyeline is halfway from the top of the skull to the chin (the top of the skull is hidden by hair). I believe the left eye is closed, and I cannot see the right eye at all. (When I say left I mean her left, i.e. the one on the right in this photo).
That shape on the face as highlighted in Stephen and Camilla's pictures is not in fact the right eye, as it is too high and off-center. It is possible that both eyes are in fact closed, but it is hard to tell from the photo. Is it possible that the police closed her eyes before taking the picture?
Rob H |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 406
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Robert,
I's quite possible that the someone could have closed her eyes before taking the picture. I wonder though if her eyelids were even still present, since her eyebrows were removed. It's also possible that one or both eyeballs were dislocated from their sockets, causing the asymmetrical appearance.
It probably not practical, but if Mary's skull could be exhumed I'm sure a forensic anthropologist could create a very accurate likeness with the aid of the photo. It would serve no practical purpose, but would be a neat tribute. But is the gravesite only an approximation?
Andy S. |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 211
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Hi Rob H
You mentioned in an earlier post about a possible hair covering Mary's right eye. I think it may possibly be a piece of her forehead skin hanging down, as the left side of the skin (our left, Mary's right) would fit nicely with the cut on Mary's right forehead. It looks to me as if the piece of skin is partly covering Mary's right eye.
The left eye looks open to me staring, I wonder if that is her iris at the top, or just a trick of the light.
Rob C |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 52
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Hi Rob C.
I agree with your assessment of that line over the right eye: It could be a gash. Also I agree that a flap of skin may be covering her eye. It is very hard to tell anything definite from this photo.
I also noticed earlier what you highlighted - about the left eye being open. It looks kind of creepy. I cant tell if it is open or closed. I think I am still leaning towards closed.
By the way, for this image I downloaded a photo Stephen posted earlier and also looked at one posted on the thread "Kelly Photograph - High Resolution". I don't know where this image came from, but it was saved as a low quality jpeg, so it has a lot of jpeg "artifacts". It is possible that if someone could post a higher quality jpeg, we could see more in the image.
Rob H |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 317
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Hi Robert H. I would agree with you about the tilt of the head and am about to draw it as you have presented it above.I spent a frustrating
afternoon using charcoal and a rubber.[covered the paper with thick charcoal then used the rubber to "draw in " the outline/some features.What I now have is a sketch of someone who looks surprisingly like Frances Cole"s picturebut with a slightly fuller,heavier jaw.
But now I have a very slightly different angle to work from I am hoping to get nearer.Another method that nearly always helps a lot is to use clay[or plsticine] and just model the whole head until it falls into place and then draw from the model[which was taken from various drawings]
Best Natalie
PS If I cant get someone to help me I"ll have to post it to someone who can do it for me! |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 212
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Hi Rob H
Yes very creepy. This is the best photo I have, I had to scan it at 300 dpi otherwise it wouldn't fit on the page. I think the clearer pictures are the black and white ones. I understand Robert J. Mclaughlin will be publishing a clearer picture in his book.
Rob C
 |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 408
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 3:40 pm: |
|
Robert C.,
My guess is that the skin, including the eye opening, over Mary's right eye has been cut loose and pulled back toward her right ear (or where the ear should have been as it appears to be missing). That "L" shaped artifact above and to OUR left of her nose cavity seems to be three-dimensional, like the edge of a skin flap having been pulled to the side.
Andy S. |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Rob C,
This picture is a good example of jpeg artifacts... see the grid of pixels across the face? Maybe this came from your scanner. What is the source you are scanning from? A book?
Rob H |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 213
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Hi Rob H
I scanned the image from a magazine 'Murder Casebook' I am not much of a techno wiz so not sure how I could improve the image.
Hi Andy
I think the bend in the 'L' is where the forehead skin is twisted downwards. It doesn't look so much as a cut or slash but more of a slice. Well the forehead anyway. And I agree with you I think Mary's right ear has been cut off.
Rob C |
Joseph Paul Jackson
Police Constable
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 11:35 pm: |
|
My hat is off to all of you who contributed these macabre, but effective graphics. You guys truly make the casebook a very informative and thorough site.
Paul |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 562
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Hi Joseph et al......this site is becoming more wonderful by the day! Rob C..looking at that image there....and thinking of that dreadful 'Police Illustrated News' pic of mjk.hate to say it but there is a likeness here I think!! she would have had that carthorse kick I reckon!Have I lost the plot completely or ......I think I may have a point!!Cheers
Suzi |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 3:47 pm: |
|
I am no longer a teacher but a college student. I am taking a computer class this semester. I asked the prof what could be done to enhance a grainy photograph taken in the 1800's. (I didn't mention why I want to know!) He told me that there is a program out there called "Photo Shop" that could help the pixel problem. I don't own photoshop and couldn't afford it right now, but if someone has it you might try fooling with that picture. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 563
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Nats
This sounds like a good project here girl!!! am still working on posting some mjk images to this page........! any advice??
Cheers
Suzi |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 319
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Hi Diane-thanks for that -I"ll look out for it and see if there is one over here. I have been trying to build her face by using the photocopier
and its helped a lot. I"m just waiting for some paint to dry on one of the photocopied sheets now.
I do think I2ve at last gotthe outline of the whole face and have been pleasantly surprised at how pretty the shape is-not nearly so square as I had thought and more pointed [this after hours of scrutiny .
Anyway we"ll see.
Best Natalie. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 320
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi quite frankly its all a bit chaotic at the moment -dont know whether I"m on my arse or my elbow at the moment with paint on this keyboard [I"ve been copying the images and trying to create my own version etc,etc and charcoal crunching underfoot].Yes well if you know how to put them on I for one would love to see them.
Havent they done some brilliant imagery though!
Anyway next week I hope to get some pictures on
and a photo for the profile[since everybody seems to have got one on now-or nearly everybody.
Take care Nats |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 9:44 pm: |
|
Hi all; I am wondering if that is Mary's ear near the lower right of her face near the chin area? It looks ear shaped, but turned over?
I think Jack used her face to send the following messages;
An eye for and eye.
Turn the other cheek.
Cut off your nose to spite your face.
Keep your chin up.
Talking out of the side of your mouth.
Keep a civil tongue in your head.
None so blind as those who will not see.
A pound of flesh.
Heartless bitch.
Perhaps he was a religious man.
Joan |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 11:19 pm: |
|
Diana wrote:
"He told me that there is a program out there called "Photo Shop" that could help the pixel problem."
I use Photoshop. That's how I clean up tonal ranges and so forth.
Each time the image is changed it adds more garbage data and averages out the pixels. Going from original to photo to scan to Photoshop to being printed in a magazine to scan to another time through Photoshop and there's only so much cleanup you can do. After a magazine or book prints it, for example, it's no longer in the pixel format of a computer file but rosette format of a printed page. Much of the cleaning up would be getting rid of printing artifacts. And putting a file up somewhere on the web typically has JPEG artifacts, which are large overlapping blocks of area averages.
Best bet would be to go from a photo of the original and then manipulate it there. I'm not sure where Stephen got the large file he has, but that's probably the best we have right now. That's what I start from. It's probably only got one or two layers of distortion in it (JPEG artifacts) assuming he got it directly from someone with direct access. |
Nina Thomas
Police Constable
Username: Nina
Post Number: 6
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 12:34 am: |
|
I just came across the following in the "Jack The Ripper Companion". Its a section of a letter from Dr. Bond.
"In the Dorset Street case the corner of the sheet to the right of the woman's head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack."
I was wondering if there was any other mention of Mary Kelly's face being covered besides Dr. Bond's.
Nina
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 782
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 5:57 pm: |
|
Nina
Yes I know the Dr Bond comment is tantalising....If you imagine though, that MJK was asleep in bed ,with her face maybe towards the wall,when her 'assailant' crept in or whatever it would make a lot of sense for he/she/it to throw the sheet over her head a). to briefly silence her and or b) to stop her seeing /recognising him/her/it!!Once the throat had been cut it didnt really matter any more did it!!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Nina Thomas
Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 14
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:48 pm: |
|
Suzi,
I have been pondering over your two explanations for MJK having her face covered by the sheet.
a) to briefly silence her.
I had my husband cover my face tightly with a sheet and I could make enough noise to raise the dead. I wasn't sleeping at the time though and that could make a difference.
b) to stop her seeing/recognising him/her/it!!. I can see no other reason why her face would have been covered except maybe the attacker not wanting to see her. Perhaps her face was also cut through the sheet after the initial throat cut.
Nina |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1338
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 12:59 am: |
|
G'day,
Which of the other victims had her face covered?
LEANNE |
Nina Thomas
Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 15
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 1:23 am: |
|
Oops!! I should have explained that my husband covering my face was an experiment that I requested.
Nina |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1339
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 8:41 am: |
|
G'day,
If her killer wanted to silence her he would have just used his hand. I think if her face was covered with the sheet it was to depersonalize the killing, (i.e. so that he couldn't see who he was killing).
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 290
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 11:47 am: |
|
Hi Nina, Suzi and Leanne,
I agree that if Mary’s murderer wanted to silence her he would have just used his hand. In addition to Leanne’s suggestion I have three other possibilities. It may also have been that, in case he entered her room when she was sleeping, before falling asleep she herself had pulled the sheet over the bigger part of her face leaving the nose uncovered. Or her killer may have thrown the sheet over her face to disorient her and make her not see him or his actual knife attack, so she couldn’t defend herself that well. She may even have pulled it over her own face in panic, although this seems unlikely.
By the way, Nina, other than Dr Bond’s, I know of no other mention of Mary’s face being covered with the sheet.
All the best,
Frank
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 806
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Hi all
OK there is a possibility that the face was covered with the sheet...maybe it was ..maybe it wasnt! Lets face it (unlike Mary!) there was so much blood around over Mary and the bed and sheets and all....ok the sheet was cut...odd if it wasn't...The more I type here the more I think that Mary was a one off ....OK she knew the others......very improbable that she didn't but can't get it out of my head that MJK's killer.. whoever that was ..wasn't the man(men,or whatever!) responsible (!) for the rest!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Desmond Reese
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 10:14 pm: |
|
Can we be sure, with such extensive damage to the tissue of the face that this is even Mary Kelly at all? It is suggested that she often gave shelter to other women of the area. Is there any possibility that this could be someone else? |
marie jeanette kelly
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 8:25 am: |
|
what i would like to know is if there are any photos or sketches of Mary Kelly before her face was mutalated? |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 890
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 4:51 pm: |
|
mjk
Not as far as I know....thinking about it though......why should there be,..very few unfortunates in Whitechapel; had their pix taken except maybe by accident for some maybe charitable reason ie Barnados etc etc
Sad as it is I think that's the truth
Suzi
Suzi |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 84
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 7:55 am: |
|
Hi Marie,
There is a sketch of Mary here Victims/MJK, but I do not belive that it would have been drawn prior to her death. It's impossible to say how good a likeness this might have been.
Scotty.
|
marie jeanette kelly
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 7:14 am: |
|
I was just curious if there was because in the film from hell she has a portrate by her bed. I thought this was wrong and I was just wanting to double check. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 896
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Scotty!!!!........That pic with the hat is something else!!!! especially as Mary was known to have never been seen wearing a hat!!!......specially one like that!
Cheers
Suzi |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 101
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 10:17 am: |
|
Hi Suzi,
Yeah the hat is wierd. Actually the thing that sketch first made me think of was the white apron. I think she was famous for always wearing a white apron which was apparently a common thing among the Irish ladies. She seems to wear a white coat rather than an apron in the sketch.
Marie,
To the best of my knowledge no such item was found in her room, I think we can assume this was artistic license on the part of the film makers. They also got the layout of the room wrong, the bed was on the right of the door as you entered not directly across from it.
(Message edited by Scotty on June 26, 2004)
Scotty.
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 901
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 10:48 am: |
|
Scott -Thanks for that!
If you look at the famous Dorset St pic you'll see that almost everyone's wearing an apron, and that they're bigger and longer than you imagine.....dont think it was purely an 'Irish' thing....maybe just a practicality!!! or maybe a clean pinny which would be easy to wash would cover up a multitude of horrors of the skirts various underneath (see Kate's skirts!!! for this ref!)
Cheers
Suzi |
marie jeanette kelly
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 7:11 am: |
|
I thought that was the case. I didnt notic the layout of the room was worng before but now you mention it... There was alot of things such as the bedside table that appeared n the film but werent really there to my knowledge anyhow. |
Recon
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 10:43 am: |
|
Looking at her bones in her face they look scandinavian, which could mean west irish or possible Scottish also since vikings had settled in these areas. The Scandinavians(and west Irish) have square jaw lines and prominant cheekbones, as morbid as it sounds she was probably pretty before she got butchered by that nutjob. |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Hello,
I have been prompted to write something here simply because i feel that time and time again,people are just not seeing MJK's face correctly.
Now, once and for all,Mary Kelly's eyes are SHUT!
When you can actually see her face correctly,two things happen.
Firstly the face suddenly looks real and secondly it looks far less alarming.There are no silly "Cow eyes" staring in opposite directions!
I have produced a diagram to aid visualization
the strangest aspect of which must be the location of Kelly's upper lip.
I believe,the killer cut the upper lip,forming a flap of skin.He then peeled the whole thing back,diagonally,upwards towards Kelly's right eye.
The curvature of the inside of the lip runs underneath and roughly in line with the upper eyelid.
It is even possible to discern individual teeth in the lower jaw.
Kane
 |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 10:27 pm: |
|
Hello, everyone!
I just wanted to mention two things. One has to do with the artistic license that is used when making films, especially about JtR. Nothing irritates me more than when I am talking with someone about the case, and find that this person has taken what was shown on a movie as absolute fact. I realize that for the purpose of drama and the limited time frame that certain things are left out, or changed, however I do hate the idea that so many people are left with an impression that is actually inaccurate. Whew! Second, about the sketch of MJK. Considering that there is a very good possibility that the sketch was made after death, I wonder how many people volunteered their information as to what she looked like. We know how obscure and inaccurate witness accounts can be. I'm wondering if the sketch actually resembles Mary at all. Just a thought.
Sandy |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 344
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 3:59 am: |
|
Which sketch are you talking about, Sandy?
If it is the one with the link above, then I have always been of the opinion that that has no basis in fact.
It is a press artist's idea and nothing more. Some press sketches DO appear to have taken morgue photographs or visits as a basis, but I do not believe so in this case.
Before anyone speculates on whether this is what mary looked like, let us first have evidence that the sketch has any basis in fact - ie references to information being given for such a purpose and by whom.
Phil |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Phil,
Yes, I am talking about the sketch from the link above, as well as some others that had been made at the time. The point I was trying to make is that the sketches would probably have been done after her death and the artist would have had to rely on eye witness accounts of what she looked like. Perception can be a very subjective thing, and there may be a good chance that the sketches done of Mary may not be true, accurate depictions. Also, since there are conflicting accounts by some witnesses as to having seen Mary alive at various times on the morning her body was dicovered, there could be a chance that some of the witnesses that gave discriptions as to what Mary looked like, could possibly have confused her with someone else. This is just a thought that I am throwing out and I may be stepping way out of line here. Any sketches taken at the morgue would have probably had a hell of a time trying to reconstruct what her facial features would have looked like because of the extent of the damage that had been done. This is just a thought, I am most certainly no expert on this, but I am intrigued as well as interested enough to push forward with some ideas. I definately agree that the sketch found in the link above probably has no basis in fact.
Sandy |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 347
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
...there may be a good chance that the sketches done of Mary may not be true, accurate depictions.
I am absolutely sure that they are NOT.
Any sketches taken at the morgue would have probably had a hell of a time trying to reconstruct what her facial features would have looked like because of the extent of the damage that had been done.
Is there any evidence that reporters or artists were allowed to see MJK's remains?
Regards
Phil
Add Your Message Here
|
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 12:52 am: |
|
Phil,
No, as far as I can tell there is no evidence that reporters or artists were allowed to see MJK's remains. I mentioned this only to stress that (as you have mentioned earlier)since there have been times when reporters or artists have been allowed to view morgue photographs or make visits to the morgue in order to draw sketches, in MJK's case, this probably did not happen. In other words, I am agreeing with you.
Sandy |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1385
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 4:05 am: |
|
Hi,
As far as i am aware all sketches made were from descriptions given by kellys associates.
She seems to have been of somewhat stoutish appearence, but one must take in account the definition of stout in 1888, the average woman was extremely small compared with todays standards.
My grandmother told me that when she was a young woman[ born 1879] her waist was about 22inches and just over 7stone in weight.
So if kelly was for eg. over 8stone she would have been considered stout.[ a lightweight nowadays].
It is hard to determine weight and height from the corpse although judging by the width of kellys thighs and calfs I would hazzard a educated guess 5'3inches , and no more then 8stone 7lbs[max].
My opinion only.
Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1774
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 7:29 am: |
|
This weekend I painted a portrait of Mary using the mortuary photos including the enhanced one above and the one by the other Rob sketching out the position of her eyes and mouth.
I also used the drawings this time which are in Donald Rumbelows book[page 85-latest edition].
These are police illustrations by the look of them and besides the one of Mary is written,"from descriptions given by her intimate friends".In the drawing she looks as though she had a heavy jawline[as indeed she looks to have in the mortuary or rather death bed scene].
Her eyes look as though they have been described as being "close together" rather than "far apart".Her nose looks normal to very slightly large,she has a dimple in her chin and
altogether a rather heavy featured young woman and plump-not huge or anything.On top of all this she is depicted as having a very heavy Victorian fringe,crimped out -Queen Alexandra style-and of a mid blond colour or maybe auburn or mid brown.
I think its fair to say that this is how her friends must have then described her.
I will post the painting in a few days-obviously I dont know whether it even gets near how she looked but I did a number of mortuary sketches to try to envisage the outline of her face as well as using the above photos and the police depictions.It was worth a try.We"ll see
what people think-or dont think!
Natalie |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2334
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Excellent Nats!
Looking forward to it My Mary is way too elfin I know and is probably more how Mary saw herself rather than the Rumbelow 'Carthorse!!!'
Go Nats...will do one too I reckon
Love
Suzixx |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1775
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi,the problem with using the "death mask" for want of a better term to describe the photograph of JtR"s wreckage of her face in death-
is that her expression is always so grim and dour.
Her mouth turns down so much!But then she hardly had much to smile about---she would have needed a very black sense of humour to have contemplated his work with anything other than anger and disgust!
However whats come out of my palette is a tad
disconcerting and despite it all I want to say to her,"Come on ,Cheer up Mary!"---ridiculous I know!
Looking forward to your next Suzi.The one of Annie
was wonderful!
Nats
xxx |
Eric Stedman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 9:02 am: |
|
So as I sit here reading the Jack the Ripper message board late on a lonely Saturday evening when I can't sleep, I start apparently channeling Mary Kelly and she says to me, "What's all the fuss about someone who has no idea how to treat a lady? Let those who'd gaze on my bones see me as I was in life! I know you can do it!" So what you see here is the result of our past few hours of otherworldly conversation. She says her hair was dark and she had more to her eyebrows than in the picture but that it's a fine likeness and if you must look at her, look at this instead of those others; she didn't spend most of her life looking like something from a butcher shop.
The portrait was reconstructed starting with an enlargement of the familiar photograph, with the goal being to fill in details, not alter foundational structures of the face. Even though her features were almost destroyed, there was enough left to work with. I was surprised to see how young she may have looked.
 |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
Hi Richard
I'd say that she weighed in at a little bit more than 8 1/2 stones
If you look at the two photos of her(either side of bed)she seems to have big and sturdy wrists and hands
Just my opinion of course
Regards Cludgy |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 668
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Nice post and a beautiful picture, Eric! Thanks for sharing that.
Cheers,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Monica Gaba
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
I agree, it's a beautiful picture of MJK! She's seems so young and very beautiful. It's a shame there are no picutres of her before she was murdered. |
M G
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:53 am: |
|
She seems to have been very young and beautiful. It's a shame there are no pictures of her before she was murdered. |
