|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 741
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 8:25 am: | 
|
Don't forget the Victorian idea of pretty was considerably different from ours. They thought the ideal woman was much plumper. |
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 41
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 8:48 am: |
|
Diana,
Pretty was also a lot paler, because a deep tan was considered very working class.
Martin
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2014
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
Hi AP,
Your post nearly made me spit out my gin and tonic!
You always conjure up an image for me of a cop with size thirteen feet and five o'clock shadow who got dragged up to tempt the ripper, but started enjoying himself (or by then herself) a wee bit too much.
And I mean no offence whatsoever - I've never fancied Adam Wood quite so much as when he wore a frock for one of the Smoke and Stagger Christmas meetings - very fetching and not a little disconcerting. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2821
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 1:36 pm: |
|
Just picked this up am going to have to read it all through Must say I like Davids' work tho
Well.......... saw this in the Picasso Museum in Barcelona well its good but cant get the brute to post!!!!!!grrrrrrrrrrr
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 440
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Just jumping in to say that as soon as I saw it I thought--yes that's it.
That's the most realistic and likely version I could imagine. Great work!
Mags
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2392
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
No offence taken, Caz.
And just a reminder, the only thing I shave is me legs.
All four of them. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2291
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
I am very much looking forward to meeting you at the Brighton Conference ---in
whatever shape or form AP!
I do hope you are in your wolf suit because then we can be sure that you will make plenty of mischief one way or another!
Natalie[who sometimes puts on her wolf suit to rock that boat a bit!]
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 257
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Yes, like pale skin, plumpness was seen as a sign of affluence in the nineteenth century. Today, it's just the opposite. A tan is a sign that you've been to the Caribbean and plumpness is seen as sign that you neglect your health.
Best wishes,
Stan (pale but slender) |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2397
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 6:44 pm: |
|
You might be disappointed, Natalie, as I have not booked or anything yet... these things pass me by as I am always in the LVP these days.
I intend to go, just like I intend to give up brandy and fags.
In my dreams.
Perhaps I'll go to Ameriki, a Boston Tea Party. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2296
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 7:08 pm: |
|
No AP -the Conference needs you!You are one of our "Brightest Stars" after all!But ofcourse in true celebrity fashion , shine brightly as you may, you can be OH!-- so maddeningly allusive and vague at times!
Just please get cracking and book !
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 650
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 7:49 pm: |
|
I see a thread slowly, slowly, disappearing into the ether....
Harry - SPOOKY work. No idea if it is accurate or not, but it's dead eerie!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
David Shields
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 10:04 pm: |
|
Hi folks,
Thanks for the advice. I think I could get a bit obsessed with this! Jane, thanks for the links - love the work, what medium is your portrait in?
I've taken on board a lot of whats been said and tried a softer, more feminine approach to Mary. Perhaps a bit too pretty? I'll keep trying anyway.
David. |
Squeek!
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 2:36 pm: |
|
You know I always pictured mary Kelly to look somewhat like Sandys version of "Helen" mixed in with Dianne Kruger, cause she has a vey square shaped face: |
Gloria
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 9:29 am: |
|
Actually what David has come up with is quite similar to the Illustrated Police News in many aspects.
Its very amusing how uncomfortable the men seem to be when presented with evidence that Mary was anything less than a supermodel. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 7:45 pm: |
|
Mary was actually described as having a "fleshy nose" - whatever that means - by one of her neighbours, so the yellow picture with its "Victoria Beckham" nose looks a bit optimistic.
Also, Glenn, you mention the "square jawline", but if your assumption is based on the deathbed photograph then I think you - and others - are mistaken.
What we see between Mary's left cheek and the pillow is not all of her jaw. I tend to think that a flap of skin and/or one of her organs placed under her head is hanging down/poking out, which merely gives the appearance of an extended jawline, as below:
Whereas I think that her gaze is tilted upwards a bit more and that she has a more "vee-shaped" jawline, as in the next picture:
Original photo below for reference:
 |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 225
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 3:57 am: |
|
Jeez,
It's so amusing to see how the gals always think we guys are so hung up on wanting Mary as a pin up!
David, outstanding effort. Now I'm not sure if I dare to comment on the last one lest I be accused as a male pig (this is Irony! Bring em' on)
Actually the first one you did was outstanding as a "mortuary" type effect picture. This one certainly is Mary alive! And, even if I risk stepping on people's toes, I have to say it is the most realistic rendering I have ever seen.
This is a subjective impression, obviously!
Features such as the nose for example can only be guessed at, and maybe it IS too delicate. But it works for me.
I hope you stop there, actually. Not because I fear you would make her "less pretty" (that would be a subjective impression anyway), but because we can never know exactly how accurate any changes would be.
What you have done IMO is to give a realistic and at the same time respectfull depiction of Mary. Thanks!
(caveat: and that did NOT mean I meant to say that other depictions of Mary have been disrespectful nor unrealistic)
Helge
now turned art critic.
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 525
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 5:20 am: |
|
Hi David,
Okay, that has really freaked me out.........truly incredible work........
I can still see points of similarity between our two portraits, bearing in mind that as you well know that even the tiniest almost indiscernible change in measurements can totally change a face beyond all recognition.
I think the real difference is that I went for a slightly longer distance between the eyes and the tip of the nose, and thus shortened her forehead. But in view of the damage, your guess is as good as mine.
I use computer graphics for all 2D work nowadays. I am a museum artist, restoration and reconstruction, which of course is mainly 3D, sculpting and working in plastilin, but now I am a bum in seat girl and use Photoshop for practically everything.
Mary was done totally in Photoshop and it took months to get anything I was happy with.
I love what you've done.......really amazing stuff. Now there were a few other ladies that you might like to turn your attention to when you have time. You are right, it is totally compulsive once you get started. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about!
Hugs Jane
xxxxx |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3924
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
David!
Great stuff indeed! Amazing.
That could definitely work.
Gareth,
No, I am not basing the comment regarding a 'squared jawline' on the crime scene photo - personally I think it is too difficult, at least for me, to see anything in there more in detail. It's others who have stated she might have had a square jawline, and since some of those have worked with reconstruction and skulls in a far greater extent than I have, I see no reason to dismiss what they say.
And as you yourself point out: the damages makes it pretty much anybody's guess anyway.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2298
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 6:07 am: |
|
Hi David,
Superbly done and a very impressive reconstruction.
Now as it happens I defer to Jane regarding the "reconstruction" work which she has professional expertise in over many years and photoshop giving such astonishingly realistic results Jane" "creations" are awesome indeed.
However I am going to stick to my guns here despite the general skitting and guffawing[to say nothing of the uncalled for sexist and fattist sniding from one male commentator on the police illustration]
Like Gareth I believe she may have had a "fleshy" nose rather that a Kate Moss tip tilted one.Also the police illustration -apparently done in response to these descriptions by friends and intimate aquaintances,most definitely shows a woman with full round cheeks-not angular,model type cheekbones.
Ok lets picture the questioning:
Qu:Was she "full faced or thin faced?
ans:full faced
qu:Did she have an turned up nose or a straight [aquiline] nose?
ans:straight.
This is all I am saying about that particular information from a contemporary source.
Having Mary as a high-cheek boned ,wide mouthed,full lipped beauty with a little turned up nose may make us happier[I fell into that trap too]but it aint going to get us any closer to how she actually looked IMHO
Whereas your last portrait of her albeit in death, struck such a cord somehow!
As I said at the beginning I accept Jane"s great experience in reconstruction [for a start]and will defer to her over this but surely the nose and cheeks are areas that have been so obliterated on the original post mortem photo as to make it impossible for anyone to be an authority on it from just looking at the photo alone?She was a hefty woman by most contemporary accounts-buxom call it what you like....
Natalie |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 527
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
Hi Nats,
You are totally right, unfortunately because the photograph portrays a face that is so badly mutilated it is almost impossible to do more than guess.
Usually in reconstruction a plaster cast of the skull is used, or at least very precise measurments used to rebuild the skull. Then flesh can be laid over the top in clay and something like a shape can be formed. Even then a lot of it is guesswork and a reliance on knowledge of certain racial types and general features attributed to those races.
Just having a very poor quality photograph makes it almost impossible a task. I actually spent months like you trying to get a feel for what she was like. In the end I fell back more on the racial characteristics method than on what I could actually see there, although of course I used what I could.
Something that really threw me a curved ball is that if you look at her limbs she was not plump as we would call it. Her upper arms and calves show an average build and the overall frame suggests someone who was if anything slightly slimmer than what anyone in this day would call plump.
I could only think that the word buxom should be substituted for plump and that it was mainly cleavage and body weight rather than limb substance that caused people to call her plump. My daughter is typical of this. Her limbs are almost identical to Mary's but she is very buxom, most of the 'plumpness' being in her body.
Her face is wide but her cheeks not at all podgy, in fact her bone structure as far as I can see is similar to Mary's as well, so I did take some guidance from that. (The poor girl is always being roped into my madness)
Mary's face itself doesn't have the feel of a very plump woman. In plumper women the neck hangs beneath to some extent, I can't actually see that in the photograph, although of course with the mutilations it might well have just been removed or distorted.
I do think though you are right about a slightly fuller nose..........I went rather on the fleshy side in the portrait I did, and less full lips because I personally couldn't see the mound that should have been there if she had very full pursed lips. Mind you they were possilby drawn back in a death grimace which would account for that.
I just went with what I felt was right on that. I also went with smaller eyes and wider face generally , but didn't feel comfortable with making the cheeks any plumper although I did try it. I settled instead for a full face. Actually I think if I remember rightly your portrait was along the same lines for face shape.
I honestly think that no -one can be any more certain than anyone else about what she looked like. In the end I just tried to capture her personality as you did and hoped for the best.
Having said that I do think that David's work is absolutely stunning.
Hugs Jane
xxxxx
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3927
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Hi Nats,
I can't understand how you can place any trust whatsoever in the illustration in the Illustrated Police News!, especially not when we know how they 'portrayed' the other victims. It is a complete disaster! The woman on that picture doesn't even look like a human being!
That artists should have stuck to sketching buildings and atmospheric scenes, which he was quite good at, not people.
I mean, we know the Illustrated Police News 'portrayed' other victims, like Stride, and that is an even worse example. And in her case, we at least have a relatively decent photograph to compare with. So does their interprpetation of Stride look like her with any strecth of the imagination? No, it doesn't. And that probably was based on 'witness information' as well to some extent.
It means nothing if the so called portrait was based on witness information if the artist in question cannot draw people!
Do you actually mean that that particular sketch of Kelly, where she is round in the face as a football and looks completely weird, and where the proportions of a human face appears to be totally distorted, is helpful in any way - or even realistic?
I may not be an expert, but I know that no human being looks like that at all.
And who said Mary was a full-lip beauty? I certainly don't think she must have been and I don't think Jane's portrait to such an extent shows such a woman either, although that is of course a matter of personal preferences, nor an idealised interpretation.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 15, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2300
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I have only just come on here and just read Jane"s post which I agree with,especially about the body type Mary may have had-fairly slim legs
but a fairly well fleshed frame etc.
I mean I can have a chuckle too about her over plump cheeks etc in this Police Illustration[which by the way specifically talks about a "likeness" which is not the case in those other illustrations you refer to].But I see your point and the artist has rather "over egged the pudding" so to speak-pudding being more than apt here!!!
Nevertheless in this country up until very recently police "reconstructions" were very like this.Thus if a witness described a suspect the police got their artists to produce an "identikit" which never ever looked like a human being!
What it did do though was exaggerate
facial features such as a low forhead ,a hooked nose,a crew cut,a long chin,square jaw,lantern jaw etc putting each feature given by witnesses together so that someone who knew them or had seen them at or near the crime scene would fasten onto these slightly "exaggerated" features and be able to identify them by such features.Its a bit like a caricature where an artist fastens onto a dominant feature or a couple of features and exaggerates them for fun and we recognise them because of those features which are usually unique to them.
Also it is still the case that in the Central
London Art Schools , along with the old fashioned "measuring" techniques, the tutors in Fine Art/Portraiture still often encourage their students to take the most characteristic feature of a sitter"s face and "exaggerate" it slightly in order to better capture likeness![If you want me to quote chapter and verse on this I will by private email-you can check it out for yourself then!]
So OK no tutor in his right mind would be encouraging their students at St Martins or the Slade to produce portaits like that of Mary in the Police News Illustration but they too would
still be quite likely to encourage the "overstatement" of a dominant feature
or expression to capture likeness.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2301
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
Thanks for the fascinating information about your work.Certainly there is a lovely sculptural look to it and possibly Mary"s face was like that rather than her having the "plumped out cheeks"of the police illustration.In my own painting more modelling can be seen than can be reproduced here
so I didnt rely on the illustration totally but as rather as you yourself did I studied her closely in the photograph.
Somehow I feel that though you are very close indeed and your portrait of her is absolutely superb and gorgeous too -there is something in David"s that resonates through the shadows of her dead and mutilated facial image...some echo however far away that hints at this being the lady herself----warts and all!!!
Love
Nats
xxxx
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3928
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
Yes, after all, Illustrated Police News has a bit of a character of a tabloid paper, and I think the pictures seen in there is merely meant to grasp the reader's interest and attract readers to buy it, thus making the picture a bit sketchy and catchy.
I think it's fair to assume that the portraits seen in those papers more or less must be considered charicatures of some sort. It is true that in art classes one is encouraged to exaggerate the main features of the model in order too reach simplicity (I have myself gone experienced this). I think that particular Police News sketch of Kelly is so distorted, though, that it is very difficult to use for anything. Even if you are exaggerating the most important features, the ground proportions in a face must be correct, which that particular artist didn't seem to manage that well, unfortunately. The length of the nose etc. is not really corroborating with other parts of the face and so on.
To be frank, I don't know if the artists really had any real connection with the police at all, or if they just were hired in to do job for the paper, like some kind of free-lancers. S I am not sure if we in this case can speak of 'police artists' as we know it today (I could be wrong though).
However, I must say, that I've seen other illustrated tabloids, with very good artists - there were a bundle of different illustrated penny papers and they seem to have varies quite much in quality. Some were very good indeed, making beautiful pictures, although often idealised and romanticised and maybe not that corroborative with the truth. But quite neat as art anyway.
As for police sketches and 'phantom pictures', I am often astounded how bad and unnatural they look even in modern times. I recall several cases where the police has done some sort of sketch from descriptions - done by hand or in a computer, and where the criminal looks like something from outer space. Sometimes one wonders what they think the point will be by using such a picture.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 743
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Dont forget that the lower limbs had a lot of flesh hacked away. Any judgments about plumpness must take that into consideration. |
Ms C
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 2:42 pm: |
|
Just a couple of thoughts in response to this very impressive reconstruction and the thread.
- To describe someone as 'buxom' in the 16th C was more a way of saying they were of a warm, loving and generous nature than a judgement on their physical attributes. I wonder if the word might still have been used this way in the late 19thC ?
- I agree that the photograph of what is left of MJK's face doesn't suggest this, (though betweeen the mutilations and quality of the photograph I think it's impossible to tell definitely), but both the contemporary illustrations posted by Jane Coram (which I am also inclined to think pretty valueless as portraits) look to me to have a suggestion of a dimpled chin. If they were worked up from crude descriptions, that is a feature her aquaintances might mention, but I wonder if it is one an illustrative 'artist' (however poor) would include without prompting? Or was it just a common detail or an artistic convention of the time, that conveyed some kind of judgement or inference of character?
Purely by the by, the first 'potato faced' picture (which I agree with Mr Andersson scarcely looks 'human'), strangely reminded me of a photograph I came across of an 1880's prostitute called 'Big Nose Kate'. It doesn't improve the quality of the sketch at all, but I think had the subject been this woman (or one very like her) then one would have to say it did reflect something of her appearance.
As the lady was American there is no real connection to this case other than as a ‘curiosity’. And no, I'm not suggesting MJK did look anything like her.
I don't usually follow the 'art' threads, but it was a real pleasure and revelation to follow the links posted to some of the original artwork on this site. What astonishingly talented and creative people contribute here!
Best,
Cate |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3930
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 6:44 pm: |
|
Hi Cate,
A lot of interesting thoughts there.
As for contemporary artist's conventions... well, who knows? I believe the potato-shaped Kelly portrait and the Stride picture in Illustrated Police News stands out a bit, but it is interesting to study the depictions of females in that particular paper's cartoons - look at Emma Smith and all other female figures appearing there, and one will find that they all to some extent, at least in my view, looks quite alike and seems to be created from a certain mould.
Other penny papers seems to have gone for a more realistic, detailed style, but also more idealised and romantic. The second contemporary picture, with Mary Kelly standing by the door in Millers Court seems to belong to that category, and that is probably not based on any true source at all but pure Victorian convention. The same can be said abut a cover picture from one of those papers (can't remember its name at the moment), where Mary Kelly is seen walking together with a man with a black bag in an alley (he is looking away from us into another alley and Mary is looking at our direction). Here Mary Kelly is dressed up in a hat and rather semi-posh clothes as well. Very Victorian indeed.
Although Illustrated Police News seems to have been quite uninterested in romanticism and idealisation, they appear to have gotten caught in a route of their own, with their own conventions displayed, more focusing on charicatures and action-related and very describing, atmosphere-creating (and sometimes even crude and humourus [!]) cartoons of the events. Clearly they were trying to sell papers rather than committing themselves to accuracy in most cases.
Thanks for that interesting photo, by the way. I have seen similar ones as well in photo books from the police at the time, although they generally are showing individuals 40, 50 or 60 years old.
If Mary Kelly looked anything like that, I think she would have been described as heavy or very round rather than anything indicating slightly plump.
But a very interesting picture nevertheless.
And indeed you're right; these Boards just seems to be littered with talented people.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 15, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
David Shields
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Hi again all, Once again thanks for the feedback and diverse viewpoints.
I agree with a lot of what has been said about the perception of beauty then and now. I think it
important that contemporary descriptions of Mary as attractive have to be taken in context with the world
she lived in - beauty seen in terms of not only Victorian England but the streets of Whitechapel.
For that reason I very much doubt the more attractive visions of Mary (including my own recent effort)
and would tend to imagine it more likely that my earlier attempt (however rough) was nearer the mark.
The truth is that we'll never know for sure, and it's nearly impossible to glean information regarding
the structure of Mary's face from the one image we have to go on, but every attempt I've made so far has
taught me a bit more about how I feel she should look, and at some point it'll hit the mark for me
but like jane and Natalie etc everyone has and is entitled to their take on Mary.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with Gareth on the tilt of the head, to me the hairline indicates a more face on
view and it seems more likely that the killer would have posed the head in this way, facing towards her
discoverers just as he seems to have positioned her left arm for added shock value.
Regards to all,
David. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 528
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 9:55 pm: |
|
Hi David,
You know that is something I have never thought of before, about Mary's face being turned towards the discovers for maximum effect. It would not have had nearly the same impact if her face had been turned to its side. The arm too was definitely posed. Scary.
I found this photograph of my grandmother's cousin (whatever that makes her to me). The picture was taken in the 1890's and Winifred was considered a great beauty in her time. She actually came from the same area as Mary, but of course you can see from the photo that they were quite well to do. He was a sea captain and they weren't shot of a few bob. Apparently Nan always told me that Winifred won beauty contests at about the time this pic was taken. Surprisingly enough they did have beauty contests at that time, although Heaven only knows what form they took. Still I thought it was interesting in terms of what would be considered beautiful at the time. She does have quite a full face, but I do think she was rather lovely.
Hugs Jane
xxxxx
 |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 831
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 1:54 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
"I found this photograph of my grandmother's cousin (whatever that makes her to me)."
In Ripper terminology that makes her your -- wait for it -- Uncle Jack! (OK, Aunt Jill maybe... Actually, somebody needs to call up Tony Williams and get his ruling on that.)
She looks quite pretty to me, and would probably be moreso if she were smiling, or laughing and joking. A lot of it is attitude, and Mary Jane apparently had a lot of that.
And, actually, the hairline and hair color seems about right, so that photo is just as good of a guess as any other for an approximation of what Mary Jane might have looked like. In fact, the way some people are, it wouldn't surprise me if that pic turns up later being offered up as if it really were Mary Jane Kelly in life.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3933
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 6:24 am: |
|
"She looks quite pretty to me, and would probably be moreso if she were smiling, or laughing and joking. A lot of it is attitude, and Mary Jane apparently had a lot of that."
Indeed, Dan. I certainly agree with that.
And yes, go figure. It wouldn't surprise me if she popped up somewhere else as Mary Kelly.
Jane,
Wonderful pictures. And yes, I agree, I think she looks rather pretty.
I think people are making too much out of the context these people lived in; you didn't automatically look like crap just because you lived in an unhealthy environment. As I mentioned before, I have seen numerous police photos of prostitutes living under similar conditions and some of those certainly didn't look rough or torn in any way. I think we are dealing with prejudices here to some extent.
Neither do I see a reason for why the female ideals about beauty (if it is even possible to speak of such generalisations) at the time might have been that much different from today, if we disregard things like clothing and bodily constitution (the ideal in the Victorian age was actually the 'hour-glass' shape, since especially women from the upper classes tormented their bodies and destroyed their internal organs with those horrendous corsets).
What is fair to suggest, is, that if Mary Kelly was referred to as 'quite attractive', she would have stood out from many other of her collegues. The question is, how much this is empathized.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 16, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2307
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
Lovely photograph of your grandmother"s cousin.As an example of what Victorian"s found attractive
I think its very good.I think they loved ringlets and lots of curls too.
I read an account of the "courtesan" Marie Duplessis or La Dame Aux Camelias not that long ago.She lived a little earlier in the 19th century
than Mary Kelly and was dead of TB by the time she was 23 years old but her beauty apparently took Parisian men by storm.Interestingly those who bought her favours described her as being on the skinny side even a bit bony and with not much bust.However reference was made several times to her "dainty wrists and ankles"-and "long slender legs"!!!
Her face was described as being "gentle but easily animated and with quickly changing expression".She had pale skin and black glossy hair that fell in "ringlets" about her "perfect oval face".Her eyes were described as being large and dark with thick lashes.
Altogether different from the version I saw of her on film played by a blond Isabelle Huppert some 15 years ago!
But in the main I think from looking at paintings of most women considered attractive at that time,most were admired for their "hour glass"
figure,and womanly curves rather than the coltish beauty of Marie Duplessis.
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
David,
Having re-examined the photograph I tend to agree with you about the tilt of the head, however I think that Mary's head was arranged so as to force her to "gaze" at the mess on the bedside table, rather being so positioned merely to shock the discoverers. There were plenty of other sights to shock the discoverers, without going so far as to point Mary's head at them, although I'm not saying that it's unreasonable to think so.
The positioning could have been entirely random, of course, given the severed neck, but if there were any purpose to it I believe JTR's primary aim was to humiliate Mary even in death by having her soulless eyes fixed on her genitals and entrails arranged on the bedside table [1]. Perhaps the organs placed under her head were only placed there so as to prop it up?
The fact that the door and window are on broadly the same line drawn from MJK's eyes through the viscera on the table may be almost incidental.
Remember that poor Tom Bowyer, who first discovered the murder through the window, only reported seeing "two lumps of flesh [NB]" and a "lot of blood" at first, seconds later noticing Mary's body. This would suggest that, from his vantage point at the broken window, Mary's face was occluded behind the bedside table and its grisly payload.
Furthermore anyone entering by the door into such a tiny room would've had to have been very short for Mary's gaze to have alighted on them, or the head would have had to have been tilted even further upwards to achieve that sort of effect. Chances are that Dr Philips (the first through the door) would have been looking down on Mary's right ear and right eye as he entered the room.
[1] See also my noticing the (probably artefactual) lettering spelling the word "SEHE", apparently daubed on the right thigh, in the "A clue left at the crime scene" thread. NB: I've no intention of revisiting that discussion here, so rest easy!
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 659
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 9:40 pm: |
|
Has no one thought of the probability that Mary's face was turned to the open side of the bed so JTR could exact the mutilations? SURELY this is the most obvious answer? Even if he could easily have done them with the head facing upwards, it is still far more likely the face would be towards him as he took away parts of her features.
However, Gareth, I think you make a very good point that her head was probably obscured by the artefacts on the table.
Jane - that old family photo is a gem.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page