|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2668
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 12:01 am: |       |
Another thread exists to discuss the longitudinally-split femur, and yet another to discuss the circumferential slice on the right leg, but what else do we see in the second Kelly photograph?
Has the body been moved?
I do not believe this second photograph shows us Kelly exactly as she was found on the morning of 9 November, for two reasons. First, it seems to me the bed would have had to have been moved at least a little bit for the photographer to be able to obtain the shot at this angle. Secondly, more importantly, I believe Kelly's left leg was physically moved - posed, if you will - by the photographer and/or by the police. In this second shot, her left knee (D4) is high in the air; higher, apparently, than the surface of her bedside table. Certainly her knee is higher than her left hand (A4/A5). But in the traditional Kelly photograph (below), her left knee looks as though it is flush with the mattress - certainly lower than her left hand, and possibly (though you can't tell for sure) lower than the surface of the bedside table.
The angle of the left thigh is also different. In the traditional photo, the left thigh is (exactly as stated in Dr. Bond's report) perpendicular to Kelly's trunk. In the second photograph the angle is more like 45 degrees from the trunk.
What exactly is on the table?
We know that various parts of Kelly's body were placed on the bedside table, but what is it that we see in squares A2, A3, B2, B3, B4? This has the appearance of fabric to me - pillows, or some kind of fluffy garment or garments. Do we have any statements on record about this/these item[s]?
What time was the photograph taken?
A relatively minor point, but might we be able to discern the time this photograph was taken by the shaft of light streaming through the hinge (C1/C2)? Of course I am assuming that this is indeed the hinge to Kelly's door, and that the door was apparently open at the time this photo was taken (it opened towards the table and actually would knock against it when fully opened). The stream of light seems fairly focused, as a sharp beam can be seen crossing the table. To my untrained eye, this gives the appearance of direct - as opposed to ambient - sunlight. The line of sight from the point-of-view of the photographer, through the hinge would be roughly north-west in direction, which, considering the time of year, would probably indicate a late-afternoon (circa 3.30/4.30pm) photograph... or am I just nuts? 
Can we discern what's in the foreground?
In the foreground of the photograph (A8/B8/C8/D8) is a blurry mass which corresponds to the fabric seen in this portion of the room in the traditional Kelly photograph. Is this the chair with the "neatly folded" clothes? Or are these bedsheets rolled off to the corner of the bed?
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Diana
Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 8:21 pm: | |
I didn't think that the arched thing 4C, 4D was the knee. It seemed to me that this was the exposed pelvic bone. You can just see the edge of Mary's hand A4,A5 and the distance between it and the arched object seems to be too small for it to be the knee. The whole object is dark like the skin was stripped off and there was a lot of blood. The left knee in the other photo looks white. Or am I way off? |
Diana
Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 9:53 pm: | |
See www.rst-art.com/ana-t78.htm
or www.scoi.com/hipanat.htm |
Diana
Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 37
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 9:55 pm: | |
Is the thingummy in the pic too big to be the ileum or could the camera angle account for the apparent size? |
Neil Williams
Police Constable
Username: Neilw
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 7:04 am: | |
It definitely looks like a pillow in the upper left portion of the 2nd photo - probably the one normally used on the bed, and maybe removed by the murderer to ease the job of doing the really grisly part of his work. Mary seems to be lying on either a very shallow pillow, or none at all.
Another slight difference between the two photos is regarding the pile of flesh/organs on the table. There seems to be a definite spherical shape (almost like the lid of a large roasting dish) on top of the pile, yet the first photo shows just a randomly shaped pile, as you would expect. Or is this feature further behind? |
Chris Scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 7:43 am: | |
Hi all
If you look at the main Kelly photo I think there is some doubt that the section of white cloth which protrudes over her left shoulder is actually part of a chemise, which is one interpretation I have read. If you look at the left edge of this section of cloth it does not appear to be encircling the upper arm but rather laying across it. Similarly if you look at the loop of cloth that protrudes to the left of her left elbow this seems to link up beneath the body with the aforemetioned section around her shoulder. A plausible interpretation to me is that what we are looking at, rather than a chemise or other garment, is a sheet she was laying on. The loop of cloth to the left of the elbow is a protruding loop of this under sheet and it could well be this that we are seeing from the other side in the 2nd photo in the form of the strange arched object in C4 to D4. It has always seemed to me that whatever this object is, not only is it backlit but we can see light through it. Bloodsoaked and streaked cloth would make more sense to me in the appearance of this section than bone or any other anatomical feature.
Chris S |
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 59
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 11:11 am: | |
Hi, Stephen:
You wrote: "In the foreground of the photograph (A8/B8/C8/D8) is a blurry mass which corresponds to the fabric seen in this portion of the room in the traditional Kelly photograph. Is this the chair with the 'neatly folded' clothes? Or are these bedsheets rolled off to the corner of the bed?"
No, sorry, Stephen, I think you are on the wrong track entirely here. This was previously discussed on the old boards. I believe we are looking at Kelly's right leg, that the leg extends from A6 to D8, that as was also discussed, she appears to have a swirling pattern of some sort on her stocking, and that she has a dark garter holding up the stocking at B7 extending into A8. The garter can be plainly seen in the main photograph. Her left leg appears to have neither stocking nor garter, which does bring up the intriguing possibility that Kelly might have been in the act of undressing when she was killed.
Stephen, maybe it would help to section the big photograph into squares as well for extra ease of comparison? Thanks.
I have no reason to think that the smaller photograph was taken at a substantially different time of day than the larger photograph. I had always thought the two were taken in the same session, and that, yes, the photographer had to move the bed somewhat in order to get his camera tripod between the wall and bed to shoot from that angle. There is as you know a newspaper sketch, for what it is worth, showing a photographer with a tripod camera taking a picture from that side of the bed (as I recall there may be two such drawings, one showing the photographer on the wall side of the bed and the other from the door/window side of the bed).
In terms of the light coming through the crack in the background, yes, I would say this is the crack of the door, although it could also be conceivably a sliver of light from the window, still partly blocked by the material that Bowyer had to ease aside to see inside the room. If I am right in the latter idea, it seems strange that the police and/or the photographer would want the material still over the window. The more light the better to see the crime scene, one might think. However, perhaps the material was left in place to stop the prying eyes of the public.
I don't think the matter of the light is necessarily helpful in determining the time of day the photograph was taken. If I know November in London it probably would have been a gray day with diffuse light all day so the direction in which we are looking may not be of significant consequence.
Best regards
Chris |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2675
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 11:27 am: | |
No time to post at length but here is a grid of the traditional Kelly photograph, which was posted elsewhere:
There is a high-res version here: http://casebook.org/images/kelly_trad_HUGE.jpg
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Kevin Braun
Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 24
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 11:37 am: | |
Stephen,
Could you possibly section the high-res image?
Thanks,
Kevin |
Christian Jaud
Police Constable
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 12:54 pm: | |
Hi Christopher,
you wrote "The more light the better to see the crime scene".
Yes, but that second photo would've been taken against that source of light. Taking pictures against the light is quite difficult nowadays, maybe it was even worse in 1888. So the photographer might have asked to close that specific door / window on purpose, and the other window was left open.
Just a thought.
regards
Christian
|
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 60
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 3:18 pm: | |
Hi, Christian:
Nice to see you, my friend. 
Will I see you at the Liverpool convention in August or will I have to come to Munich to meet you? 
You of course might be right when you say "that second photo would've been taken against that source of light. Taking pictures against the light is quite difficult nowadays, maybe it was even worse in 1888. So the photographer might have asked to close that specific door / window on purpose, and the other window was left open."
We have had previous discussion of whether the photographer used a flash, which of course in that day would have been the flash powder you see in old films. The other option might be that he used a time exposure, which might well have been the case since it would account for the light coming in as seen the second photograph as compared to the better known big photograph.
Here's some information from a site on vintage fashions that might indicate that I am correct and that is a pattern on Mary Jane Kelly's stocking:
"The fashion for plain white or flesh–colored stockings was quickly to change, however. By the 1820s, black was not uncommon (being the most practical of all stocking colors), and black net stockings worn over flesh–colored ones were considered quite fashionable. In the 1850s and 60s, women realized that so long as only they (and perhaps their husbands) were going to see their stockings, they could at least have fun with them. New shades of red appeared, as did heavily embroidered versions. When skirts went 'short' (revealing a bit of ankle) in the 1870s and 80s, the craze for elaborate stockings subsided—but women were not willing to revert back to plain white, black, and flesh tones. Respectable women often chose stockings that matched the color of their dress—usually white, red, or a pastel shade. By the late 1890s, creativity was on the rise again, and as soon as the turn of the century, any woman who desired could buy ready–made stockings elaborately decorated with silver snakes running up her legs (this was an especially popular motif and could be found in a variety of styles), butterflies swarming round her calves, flowers boldly growing from her ankles, or any number of other decorative varieties."
All the best
Chris |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2678
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 3:38 pm: | |
Chris -
Your first post mistook me. I agree we are looking at the leg, the "blurry mass" I was referring to was what was in the foreground in front of the leg. These I took to be the fabric/clothing seen in the traditional Kelly photograph, behind the bed (possibly on a chair). I've outlined what I view to be the "blurry mass" which I believe is in the foreground, in front of, and obscuring part of, Kelly's right leg.
This correlates with the fabric/clothing seen in the traditional photo, outlined below:
I do not see the 'garter' extending into A8, except perhaps just a very little bit. What remains in A8 and in the squares to the right of it I take to be that mass of fabric. Do you mean to say you believe all this area on the second photograph is Kelly's leg?
I'd always assumed it was agreed that this was indeed the piled fabric at the edge of the bed - but maybe I was wrong! What does everyone else see?
And I'm also interested in knowing if there are any accounts of what this piled fabric was - its indisputably there, at least in the traditional photogrpah. Were these the "neatly folded" clothes, or perhaps bedsheets, etc.
The problem I have with the patterned stockings idea is that close-ups of the right leg in the traditional photograph clearly show pure skin - or at least a pure, invisible sort of stocking. Can you point out - graphically if possible - what you view to be the patterning?
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 9:03 pm: | |
Hi, Stephen:
Well I think that pile of clothes is on the famous washstand which I maintained previously on the old boards was beside the bed, as shown in one of the newspaper sketches, but which as I recall others insisted was in the corner of the room by the fireplace. We can assume that there was a narrow gap between the bed and the wall and that the bed was not, as I understand it, jammed up against the wall. At least there was as I just said sufficient space for a washstand to be there but not sufficient space for the photographer, his tripod, and washstand to be there all in a line. The photographer in all likelihood would have pushed the washstand with its pile of clothes to the side and would not have shot over it. The swirling pattern that I see on the stocking is the round wavelike pattern that fills square C8. But it sounds like you are contending, Spry, that MJK is not wearing a stocking, or that it's an invisible type stocking with no pattern. Hmmmmm.
All the best
Chris |
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 9:30 pm: | |
Hi Spry et al.:
Here's another aspect that we should consider in comparing what we see between the two photographs. As Christian and I discussed above, it seems as if photograph number 2 is taken against the light using, as I think, a time exposure. Thus it possibly has the capability of showing more detail than the other photograph which, taken with the light, shows the scene with the light shining on it, and thus with the light over-exposing or blanching out many of the details of the bed and the victim. Thus, if you look at the bottom of the bed, toward the lower left hand corner of the big, more famous photograph, little detail of the bedclothes is seen, it's almost all washed out, as is much detail on Kelly's left leg. Similarly, this could be the difference between what we are seeing on the right leg. That is, the smaller photograph is capable of showing more detail, indicating, as I interpret it, a pattern on a stocking, while the larger photograph, blanching out details as it does, shows more a blank area. Are we on the same page yet?
Best regards
Chris |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2680
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 9:49 pm: | |
Hi Chris -
What I see in C8 is far and away not a pattern on a stocking, or even part of MJK's leg. To me it seems obvious that the section I outlined in red in the post above is a completely separate entity in the foreground of the photograph - most likely the pile of clothing/fabric. I would be interested to hear the general consensus on this, however - try as I might, I can't visualize what you're visualizing, CG.
If you view the high-resolution image of Kelly's right leg, in the traditional photograph, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of a patterned stocking. The skin on her right leg looks perfectly smooth. Are we agreed on this, or am I again not visualizing what you see? And if we are agreed on this, are you suggesting that the stocking is only visible on one side of Kelly's leg?
I placed a grid over the below image in case anyone wishes to reference specific points within it.
CG - would be interested in carrying this conversation over into email so we don't drown out everyone else with our back-and-forth. I really do want to understand which parts of the second photograph you take to comprise Mary Kelly's right leg.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 63
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 11:53 am: | |
Hi Spry:
Well there are some pale blotches in the large photograph in what I would interpret to be the stocking area, at D4, D5, E3, E4, E5, F3, F4, F5 that might correspond to out of focus, blanched out patterns on the stocking, seen close up in C8 in the little photograph. Or else I am talking about canals on Mars as per that debate some century ago!
Now you say that you believe the top part of the fabric in the background in the large photo is what makes up the swirl on a stocking that I see in the small photo. You mean you don't buy my argument that there wouldn't be enough space for the photographer with his camera and the washstand with the fabric on that side of the bed? Why would he shoot over that fabric when he could just move it aside, or have a friendly bobby move it to the side?
All the best
Chris |
Brenda Love
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 1:48 pm: | |
That can't be a garter...its too flimsy looking. Didn't the old fashioned garters have little clips to attach the stockings to? I firmly believe what is seen beneath the knee is a cut, although I can also see how Chris is seeing a stocking too. When looking at the right leg of the most well known photograph, the flesh directly above the cut seems to be more "white colored" and that white color seems to extend down the rest of the leg, giving the impression of a stocking or light sock. The last cut in the series on the back of the knee can give the illusion that you are looking at a piece of fabric.
I think it is a bare leg that has been cut probably the whole way around. The reason for the whiter color is that there is still blood present in the lower leg. The entire knee area has been decimated of blood, the blood-starved tissue has started to turn dark, and that is why the flesh there doesn't match up with the whiteness on the rest of the leg.
I honestly don't think that is what women's garters looked like back in the day, but then I wasn't around to know for sure either. The ones my grandmother had was an actual belt and it had these strap thingies that extended down and clipped to the stocking at thigh level. They were ugly and bulky. But maybe there were other types of garters back then, too. I really feel like doing garter research, maybe someone else would be?
Also, the way the flesh has darkened around the knee indicates to me a time of death for MJK no earlier than 5 or 6:00 p.m., that's just opinion though. But that's a whole other can of worms.
|
Diana
Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 8:53 am: | |
I am old enough to recall the type of belt and garter you describe, but what about the decorative garter that brides wear and is customarily removed by the groom at the reception? |
Brenda Love
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 1:04 pm: | |
Yes, I suppose it could be a decorative garter but it sure is ugly. Poor Mary Jane, not only was she a Ripper Victim, but a Fashion Victim too. |
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 9:14 am: | |
Well, here's what I can see when comparing the two photographs. I didn't highlight the left leg in the second photo, because I know where it *should* be, but I just can't make out a definite outline.
It could very well be a circumferential slice I'm looking at, but I'm hesitant to commit to that belief. Wouldn't the skin be more split apart, if that were the case? I suppose it could be a garter, but I can't really make out a stocking.
 |
Chris Scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 5:45 pm: | |
Hi all
IN the sketch that was made looking into Kelly's room (the one showing part of the fireplace and the whole of the bedside table from just inside the door) there are two distinct piles on the table and one of them could be clothing of some kind. I posted this sketch on the old boards - if anyone wants it reposted here let me know
Chris S |
Brenda Love
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 5:48 pm: | |
Sorry I missed this but I meant a time of death for MJK of 5:00 or 6:00 a.m! So much for my editing skills. |
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 24, 2003 - 12:52 am: | |
Hi, All:
If it is a garter, I am not talking about a belt and garter with clips as worn by women in the twentieth century, but rather a garter like a thick rubber band, like men wore on their sleeves in the 1920s when they played cards, etc. See below for an example of a lady's garter such as the type I mean from an earlier time.
All the best
Chris
 |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2684
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 7:46 pm: | |
Many thanks to SPE for the above image... much better resolution.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Diana
Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 8:13 pm: | |
The arched thing which I thought was a pelvic bone appears to have scrape marks on it. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
