| Author |
Message |
    
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 89
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 2:05 pm: |       |
I don't think we are looking at Mary's lower body at all but at her torso. Why? Because when your hand rests on your body, your thumb is towards your torso. Since you can see Mary's thumb ( what I think is her thumb anyway) in the second photo, it seems like we are looking at a shot down her torso....not her legs if you know what I mean. Her legs would be to the left of the photo.
Just my opinion, worthless as it is. |
Christian Jaud
Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 39
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 1:34 am: | |
Hi Ally,
I don't think this is a thumb.
imo in pic2 we see a part of the hand which is visible in pic1 (about E6). So it must be the little finger.
Christian
|
Steven Atkins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 3:23 pm: | |
Hi Ally,
Don't sell yourself short.You are perfectly entitled to your opinion
Best regards,
Steven |
Mike E.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 10:23 pm: | |
Ally, that's not her thumb, it's the little finger of her LEFT hand. You would be correct if that was the thumb of her RIGHT hand, but it's not. You can clearly see this if you look at the first photo. |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 91
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 9:33 am: | |
The shape does not look like the little finger to me. It looks like a thumb unless Mary had a deformed little finger.
I understand that according to the body position one would have to assume that was her little finger, however, I have been wondering whether the photograph was inverted when it was printed. I don't know enough about photography of the time to decide whether this is a possibility--one day I will probably get around to researching it.
But the shape of that finger is a thumb to me, the shape and the joints don't match a little finger. So I am still thinking the photo was inverted when printed until I get off my lazy butt and find that wasn't possible.
**edited to add...we also don't know how much they moved the room/body in order to take that photo. They would have at least had to move the table in order to get behind the bed and stuff.
I dunno...just doesn't look like a little finger to me.
Ally |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 201
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 11:02 am: | |
Hi Ally,
I doesn't look like a little finger to me either. It looks like a thumb. However, it simply can't be a thumb. The table in the background and, more importantly, the cleary visible exterior door open just a crack, indicates the position of the bed and the body. The camera must be just beyond the "roll" of blanket or comforter we see in A5 of the first photo. This roll or swirl is seen at C8 in photo 2. It is blurred since it is in the extreme foreground and the camera is focused on the relatively distant body.
Therefore, although the image looks like a thumb it must either be a little finger or perhaps not a part of her hand at all. Perhaps it is a trick of the shadows.
Andy S.
|
Christian Jaud
Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 11:42 am: | |
Ally,
even if you invert the pic, the finger still would be the little one, only of the other hand, that's how I see it.Or am I wrong re perspective?
Christian
 |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 92
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 11:55 am: | |
No then it would be the thumb on her left hand. The problem is the table. Unless they moved it in order to accommodate the photographer getting behind the bed, it wouldn't work.
Of course, they could have lined up the table in order to get a shot of the stuff on it...and then it does work. Guess we just don't know.
IT'S A THUMB !!!
Ally |
Christian Jaud
Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 12:11 pm: | |
;-)
|
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 93
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 12:18 pm: | |
Sigh maybe not. But if that is her left hand pinky, then they definitely moved the body..that hump (possibly leg femur hump) wasn't so high in the first photo. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 202
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 12:28 pm: | |
Now that I actually see the inverted photo, I think it is possible. That certainly does look like a left hand resting on an abdomen, which means we would be looking at Mary's torso and not her legs. I don't think the appearance of the table makes this impossible. In fact, what I had always taken to be a lump of flesh in photo 1 may actually be the "pillow" we see at the right edge of the table in the inverted photo 2.
In any case, if the description of the bed being flush against the wall is correct then it must have been moved to get the camera in between the wall and the bed. Or...could the camera have been placed directly on the bed between Mary and the wall?
I'm reminded of a famous "autopsy" photo of JFK printed in a book dealing with the photographic evidence of that case. A theory was presented based on orientation of wounds as seen in the photograph. When I looked very closly at the autopsy photo I noticed some small writing on the bedsheet: a backwards "US". It was backwards! Either the sheet was inside out (unlikely because the printing was sharp) or the photo was printed backwards!
Andy S.
|
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 94
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 1:54 pm: | |
Also in 5 and 6 B you see what looks like intestines. This would match with the intestines being found on the right side.
|
Christian Jaud
Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 44
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 5:51 am: | |
Hi Ally, Andrew
they way I look at it is, that the pillow on the table can't be seen in the big sepia-pic (pic1). It would be to the right of the heap of "flesh" and thus outside the right edge of the pic.
So I think the inverted version of pic2 can't be the correct one.
For the finger in question to be a thumb, the part 'formerly described as split femur' must be the rib cage or something in that area. And the camera must have stood in the corner which can be seen in pic1 (basically in front of the "door" in the partition. Ok, there's a possibility that this very door was opened to give space for the photographer coming from No.26, but this isn't mentioned anywhere.
I admit that it looks a bit like a thumb, but I still think it shows a little finger, because no matter how I try, I can't figure out the perspective of the camera and the hand and the table etc. to make it possible that it's a thumb.
I think it's an illusion because of shadows a.s.o.
Christian
|
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 97
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 7:10 am: | |
Yeah, it's a little finger...but it sure looks like a thumb. |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2855
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 9:23 am: | |
Here's a blow-up and coloration of the first image to show what I believe to be the entirety of Kelly's left hand. This shows the bend of her pinky finger (assuming I interpreted it correctly).
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 3:53 am: | |
I am not sure on some of the other things we've been talking about, but I'm quite sure it's not a torso.
The reason that finger looks like a thumb is that it is bent and you are only seeing it up to the knuckle from that angle, and the rest of the hand gets cut off at the edge of the photo so you can't make a comparison of other parts of the hand. If you look at the first photo, the pinky is curled up into itself. The finger also looks bigger in the second photo because the camera is closer.
The bump of cloth looks higher in the second photo for a similar reason, the camera is down much lower. In the first it is from standing height, in the second the camera is down by the leg.
I'm going to have to try to get some more photos comparisons together.
Another thing I'm thinking of is getting someone I know to pose like that, with as much of the gore done with makeup effects as possible, and then take photos from all sorts of different angles. That'd take some time, but between the model for the photos at my Bloody Mary site saying she wants to be involved in more projects and her parents owning a costume, make up and special effects store, it may be something I could pull off.
And I didn't keep a copy of the tonally adjusted photo without the drawings on top, so I'll have to do it again. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 5:20 am: | |
Hi All,
From my wee knowledge of 19th century photography
it was common to print the 'wrong' side of the glass negative with regard to portraiture, since it did not really matter if one were looking right or left. This may be the case if one were not aware of the original orientation...I do have
some suspicion regarding this photo.
Rosey :-)
|
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 10:01 am: | |
Just wanted to say it looks like her little finger to me. Can't even see a resemblence (excuse the spelling) to a thumb. Also I always thought that I was looking at the lower part of her body so it did amaze me that some people didn't know what they were looking at in this photo.
Regards,
Sarah |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 11:53 am: | |
Actually Ally, you may be right here, even though I don't think it looks like a thumb. Look at picture 1, the table is by Mary's head end and look at picture 2 the table is in the background. This contradicts my last post but, well I was just studying the pictures again and thought the position of the table was interesting.
Regards,
Sarah |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 98
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 9:46 am: | |
Hee hee..I am just laughing because I know a certain someone who is yelling at the screen right now.. "It's not a thumb!!!"
|
Christian Jaud
Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 12:14 pm: | |
;-) |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 203
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 1:53 pm: | |
Thanks, Stephen, for the enhancement. Yes, her little finger is bent downward.
Dan wrote:
The reason that finger looks like a thumb is that it is bent and you are only seeing it up to the knuckle from that angle, and the rest of the hand gets cut off at the edge of the photo so you can't make a comparison of other parts of the hand. If you look at the first photo, the pinky is curled up into itself. The finger also looks bigger in the second photo because the camera is closer.
But that doesn't make sense either. A thumb is about the same length as a little finger. So if the visible portion of the little finger is only half the finger (due to its being bent), it should appear too short to be a thumb. Instead, it appears to be just the right length and in the right orientation (if the photo is inverted) to be a thumb.
Christian wrote:
they way I look at it is, that the pillow on the table can't be seen in the big sepia-pic (pic1). It would be to the right of the heap of "flesh" and thus outside the right edge of the pic.
That's the way I always saw it too. But if photo 2 is inverted that means we should be able to see the pillow in photo 1 on the camera's left side of the table, i.e. the side of the table closest to the foot of the bed (assuming nothing was moved). So what is that object that we see on the table in photo 1. I'll admit, it looks like a lump of flesh. However, it is curved in roughly the same shape as the pillow in photo 2. But it does appear smaller.
If someone could do some geometry and determine just where the camera was positioned to take photo 2, I think we might have some answers. My hyphothesis is that the camera was placed on the bed between Mary and the wall.
Andy S.
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2858
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 3:13 pm: | |
Rough estimate of photographer location for 2nd photograph. Note that the bed would have been moved slightly to allow the photographer to get in, thus making the bedside table closer to Kelly's left knee in the 2nd photo, than in the 1st.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Mike E.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 2:20 pm: | |
Maybe we should consider this mirror image of the picture. Puts a new perspective on the subject, doesn't it? Also makes the reasons for a door (as that looks like a door panel to me) being there a bit clearer... But then again, if they moved the bed that far to get the camera behind it, why would they also move the table to that side of the room? And it still doesn't make sense that we would be looking "down" her torso. |
Steven Atkins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 11:51 am: | |
Mary Kelly killed by Jack the Ripper? Rubbish!
The answer is there right infront of us in the smaller picture.
She was obviously attacked by the crocodile which can clearly be seen clambering over the table,its nose is in 4B,its eyes in 3A
Ahhh well,that's that.
Now does anyone want to discuss a mystery that hasn't been solved? The Mary Celeste anyone?
Steven |
