|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 2:04 pm: | 
|
I have to say that Mary seems to be somewhat of an enigma because JtR took away more than her life, he took away her identity, and I want to say that I applaud everyone who has the artistic capabilities to try to give her identity back. There are so many frustrating aspects to this case. Hats off to everyone who spends the amount of time necessary to try and reconstruct and recapture this woman! I am curious about the type(s) of software you all are using for this process. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Sandy |
Bwian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 3:12 am: |
|
ERIC STEDMAN
If you have indeed been conversing with MK on the other side, next time you talk to her would you be kind enough to ask her who it was that killed her. thanks for that if you can.
|
jenn b
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 03, 2005 - 7:29 pm: |
|
i noticed someone mentioning "mourge photos" of mjk. where sre they? the only photos i ever saw of her are when she's on the bed. could someone point me in the right direction to see them>
thank you |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3672
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 6:51 am: |
|
Jenn,
There exists no morgue photos of Mary Kelly (so far) -- only the famous crime scene photo in situe.
The pictures of the other victims, however, were taken in the morgue (on the other hand, in their cases we had no crime scene photos). Morgue photos were taken for the purpose of easily identifying unknown dead individuals.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 453
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
HI Eric,
Just found this thread, and wanted to say what a great job you did on the portrait of Mary......... not a pleasant job reconstructing her.
I think most if not all portrait painters do use very strong intuition when painting a subject, it goes with the territory.........maybe different artists pick up on different facets of her character.
I don't know if you have seen Natalie and Suzi's portraits but they are superb as well, just showing different aspects of our ladies.
Anyway, it's a really beautiful portrait of her, I like it a lot. Please have a go at painting some of the others, I would love to see how you interpret them.
Nice airbrushing by the way.........very light touch.
Jane
xxxxxx |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 454
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 10:46 am: |
|
HI Sandy,
Just saw your post, I don't know how Eric works obviously, but I suspect he uses a similar technique to me looking at his work.
I literally paint the pictures as you would on a canvas, but using the mouse instead of a brush.
The hard part is coordinating that hand and the eye to begin with, because you are looking at the screen and your hand is moving the mouse on the pad. It's a bit like rubbing your belly and patting your head at the same time, but you soon get used to it.
I use a programme called Photoshop, which has paint tools in it, like airbrushes and fine hair brushes, the same as an artist would use. You have palettes of colour the same and you can smooth and stroke the paint across the 'canvas' just the same as any artist.
The good thing though is that you can blow it up large so that you can see the fine detail.
Sorry, not much to do with Mary's face, but as Eric was kind enough to post that lovely picture I thought it was the right place to put this.
Hugs
Jane
xxxx |
Ken Proctor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Gizmo
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
Hello Eric, I concur, your attempt at reconstruction is indeed resulting in a beautiful piece of artwork. Far be it from me to have any talent of artistic creativity but i do believe that if 100 artists were to do as you did, their artistic licence would produce 100 totally different likenesses. If by chance one of those artists had also a background in forenscic facial reconstruction, i would favour that work more than others. GOOD JOB none the less. 
"Hey Rookie----You were good" (Field Of Dreams)
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 455
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
HI Ken,
Unfortunately I have to agree with you, I say unfortunately because it is an awful shame we don't have more to work with where Mary is concerned.
Eric has really done well with what he had to work with and there has to be a certain amount of personal interpretation in such cases.
I have been a museum reconstruction artist for over 30 years and usually the method would be to use the skull to build over with either clay or with a plastelin, and you can be reasonably accurate if you have hair and eye colour and a few other details. If no skull is available and photographs are being used then it is much harder because you only have two dimensions to work with.
Obviously in both cases a good knowledge of anatomy is required or the face becomes 'boneless' and unreal, and you need to know about racial features. In Mary's case of course she was Irish and there are certain characteristics associated with that race. (very pleasant generally)
The task was almost impossible with Mary because the flesh has been pulled away from the face obscuring the natural curve and the features are almost obliterated. What appears to be her lip is almost certainly her teeth, and I do agree that her eyes do appear closed.
I'm afraid that short of a photograph turning up of her in life, then we are going to have to be satsified with the interpretations from artists like Eric. Blooming shame though, I would give anything to be able to work from something more substantial and do a really accurate portrait of her. I do think that Eric has done a very beautiful interpretation of her though.
Love Jane
xxxxxxx
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3675
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 6:43 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
I agree about what everyone has said about Eric's interpretation too; it is very good indeed and a fine celebration to her I think she would have liked herself -- and let's not forget your own wonderful contribution, Jane, which is unforgettable.
With the little information we have, I'd say you have done as best as you possibly could as well, with a stunning result.
No one can of course claim total accuracy in a very difficult portrait case like this, and considering the tricky circumstances, personal artistic interpretation will always play a part in it to some degree, regardless how scientific the approach.
It is indeed a pleasure to see so many interesting attempts being made. So good work, Eric.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 05, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 671
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 12:36 am: |
|
Hi,
Not being much of an artist, I've not tried any "reconstruction" here. However, I'm wondering if I'm seeing the photo correctly?
In the image below, I've outlined some areas in different colours to make it easier to indicate the areas I'm talking about.
It looks to me like the area outlined in green might be some sort of material, and not actually part of Mary. This would explain why her mouth (outlined in red), which looks to me like closed lips, suddenly seems to end about half way.
The dark blue line indicates what could be her right eye, closed from what I can tell.
Now, the purple and light blue lines highlight what appears to be the results of a cut to the nose. And, if the flesh has fallen away and down, then these two lines indicate which two bits would have to go "back together". That would suggest that the area outlined in yellow would be her nose, fallen away from the face and distorted due to camera angle and, of course, due to being separated from the face. It's angle upward (rather than downward, which one would expect through gravity) is due to the "green pillow" material underneath it.
I don't know, I find this picture so hard to figure out what's what, and I'm sure I'm just seeing things. I have to keep reminding myself that we're looking at a zoomed in portion of a very old technology camera, and some of the "distortion" may simply be due to the method of photography, etc.
Anyway, does any of what I'm suggesting make any sense, or am I the only one who sees things this way?
- Jeff |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 760
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 9:25 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Yeah, it's definitely difficult to make out what it is exactly we are seeing. Based upon the photo enhancements I've done and having stared at the face for hours over the past year or so, here are my responses to the color zones you indicated.
I would very much doubt that the green area is some foreign material attached to her face. I think what we are seeing is the outer layer of her face completely separated from the tissue behind it and hanging so that we see it largely from the side instead of the front. I believe you are right on about the lips being in red, and I think the rest of them were either shredded or are hanging in such a position that we can't really see them.
The dark blue line might be a closed eyelid, but Walter Dew stated that she had a "look of terror" which haunted him, and I've taken that to mean her eyes are open. I think you have the right basic area though.
The remaining areas you colored could work out the way you suggest, though I wouldn't bet on it. I think displaced cartilage would be a more likely candidate to distort the shape of the nose than some side material pushing up from underneath it, which I don't really see being there anyway. My personal hunch is that the top of your green area should match up with the purple line (being the torn off eyebrow area mentioned in the report) and that at least the lower yellow area isn't twisted nose but the flesh that should be connected to the darker line to the left. That whole black area on our left but her right looks like exposed muscle and shadow from a split in her face, the lower (real life lower, so more right side from this angle) section drooping downward toward the bed, leaving a gap. But, if I'm right, that gap doesn't even compare to the huge displacement of flesh on her left, our right.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 456
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
Hi All.
I think the green area is flesh and not fabric as Dan says, but so mutilated that it is unrecognizable.
The way I did it was try and ignore what I wasn't sure about altogether and just concentrate on what I knew was absolute...the hair and hair line is complete so that is a good start.
You can follow the line of the jaw round using the tiny part of the lower jaw that is there to get the shape of her face fairly exactly.
The height of the forehead can be measured reasonably as it does seem fairly certain that is her eyelid, with the eye closed. I really cannot see and open eye there and the eyes may have been closed by the police,
That is probably the bottom lip, although it maybe distorted by death... The nose, or at least the nasal cavity is clear so that gives a good indication of where the nose should be.
Other than that some things can be filled in with what features usually go with certain other features, People with squarish jaws often have high prominent cheekbones and this does tie in with the fairly short forehead.
Her eyes are not far apart, and not large if that is her eyelid. Her nose is quite fleshy again judging by the width of the nasal cavity, although that is harder to judge.
The hair was difficult, but I would say it was a dark blond, bloodstained in that picture, but I would go strongly against it being black or too dark because of the tones in it.
Dan is right I think about the nose still being more visible than the section you have marked, and that is probably flesh peeled back from her forehead,
Poor Mary.
Love to all
Jane
xxxx |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 894
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
|
Let me try my hand at this gruesome task of verbal reconstruction. This is very difficult since a black and white photo requires a lot of interpretation under the best of circumstances. You really have to be familiar with what you are looking at in order to interpret it correctly. Since I am not familiar with cut up faces I can only do a lot of guesswork.
Our best frame of reference is the triangular dark shape in the middle of Mary's face. This, I feel sure, must be her nasal cavity (the skin and cartilage of her nose having been removed). Looking below that is a horizontal line which would correspond to her mouth, the left half (her left) being obscured and the right half visible. Looking up and to our right of Mary's nasal cavity is a large dark area. I believe this is a huge gouge in her face beginning at the top of her nose and extending across the eyebrow and down to her left cheekbone. All the flesh here has been either removed or reflected back. I believe the irregular and indistinct area we see on her left cheek is the exposed underside of this reflected tissue hanging down and covering the left half (her left) of her mouth. There is a dark area (at N7 of Stephen's original grid image) which I think is the left eye-fold or opening in the facial skin viewed from the underside of that skin. Within this large area of missing flesh, just about where I would expect her left eye, is a dark spot which I think is part of the eye socket in her skull with some tissue remaining around it. The eyeball itself appears to be missing. It may be hidden under that reflected flesh.
The right side (her right) of Mary's face is largely intact but displaced. It is pushed to the side (toward her right ear) and slightly upward. Therefore, we see her right eye appearing to be higher than her left eye (what remains of it). There is a deep horizontal gash which was probably originally below her right cheekbone (skin now displaced) and a more or less vertical gash to the right (her right) side of her mouth.
I don't see either eyeball present but from Dew's comment and especially from Barnett's identification "by her ear and her eyes," I conclude that they must have been there. Perhaps the medical examiner or mortician was able to piece things back together before Barnett saw her.
Andy S. |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 672
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Hi,
Thanks for the descriptions. I've had trouble reconciling what I depicted above with seeing "other" things as well. For example, the area described as "probably her nasal cavity" is how I usually see it as well. In my above outlines, however, I've cut that area in half trying to follow the line of the "pillow". Because the "pillow" is so hard to destinguish in places, I figured I would make a guess, and see if anyone either "corrected the line" or simply indicated that there's no "pillow" to follow. The latter appears to be the consensus.
I would love to be able to produce some sort of counter arguement, but really, I just can't tell what it is I'm looking at in this photo most of the time. Especially the area of her face next to the bed.
Anyway, I agree that the "nose" area could easily be flesh from the forehead reagion. I thought the apparently "bumpy bits" at the end might be her nostrils and the bump at the end of the nose, but distorted and "flared" because they are no longer connected. However, that was just a guess, and flesh from the forhead works just as well.
Anyway, thanks a lot for your very detailed descriptions. I suspect next time I have a look, I'll see something else (like the Capital letter G, on the "pillow" between her lips and "nose"). Isn't it great what you will see when you struggling just to see anything at all!
- Jeff
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2159
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Hi,
I have just a few thoughts to add here.In the drawing of Mary from the Illustrated Police News ,
depicted in Donald Rumbelows books," The Complete JtR,I gleaned that the police artist had had conversations with Mary"s friends and obtained "descriptions" because written just below the drawing is the following:"from descriptions given by her intimate friends"
This then helped me with my "reconstruction"- which I then painted in oils and posted the other month on the Art and Victims of Whitechapel thread.
I used the above photo as well but tried hard to "hear" what these friends had told the police about Mary"s facial features because I assumed that one of these "intimate friends" would have most likely been Joe Barnett and possibly one of the women who she let sleep in their room possibly John McCarthy as well as she used to chat with him a lot.
What I deduced was that they had agreed upon a
type of "photofit" which depicted her as having the following features:
)a strong ,squarish jaw[as also noted by Jane whose excellent "reconstruction" portrait is on the Art and Victims of Whitechapel thread and may be a near likeness.
)chubby/very rounded cheeks[all sliced off by JtR]
)quite deep set and fairly close together eyes
)a strong,fleshy nose[again also picked up by Jane]
)a heavy Victorian fringe[in the drawing she has her hair off her face drawn into a kind of bun, but we know she wore it long and loose as well from the photo and from others who knew her.
I believe we can learn what she looked like from these verbal descriptions from her intimate friends,even if we dismiss the image
the artist drew.
I also think the police artist would have ben encouraged to speak with those who the police believed knew her best-her ex boyfriend and people like John McCarthy and Elizabeth Prater who lived above Mary"s room in Millers Ct.
Natalie
|
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 24
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Jane,
Thanks for the information. I have ArcSoft PhotoImpression and it contains the brushes and options for editing, cropping, and magnifying. However, I have found that if I magnify the photo of Mary, it becomes nothing but a bunch of little squares (pixels?). I have found that I can save the cropped picture of her face, save it, and then bring it up on a printing software that I have which will allow me to have the cropped photo enlarged to fit the page nicely, and without distortion. Unfortunately, once I get to this point, I don't know where to go from there. I'm not sure if ArcSoft PhotoImpression is the same as Photoshop, but it does sound similar. Do you have any suggestions for how I can enlarge a section of the photo without it turning crazy on me? I would most definately appreciate any tips. I cannot tell you how many times I have looked at her photo and tried to look beyond the mutilations, trying to see what she may have looked like in life. Then again, I am sure most, if not all the people on these boards can say the same thing. It really can be frustrating...and sad.
Sandy |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3680
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 8:49 pm: |
|
Hi Sandy,
I have been in the business of graphic design and illustration now for at least 15 to 20 years and I must admit I have never heard of ArcSoft PhotoImpression.
Photoshop and Freehand are the most common used by professionals, in order to obtain some form of format standard but there are a large number of similar softwares out there -- although smaller and with less options.
The quality really depends on the original picture and how it's been copied or scanned. If you've used a picture that's been scanned from a book or taken from a website it is generally quite hard to make it look good because the resolution isn't high enough.
Preferably the pictures should be saved in TIFF and not jpeg, as is the case on websites, but TIFF is to large for web purposes.
So there really are limits to what you can do in order to reduce pixels in such cases. There are tools in Photoshop that has this function, but with that also comes the risk of losing details and information in the picture. So if you want a better result when you're blowing up the picture, you need to get a better original -- unfortunately.
Here on the Casebook Message Boards -- in the Victims: Mary Kelly section (and the thread High Resolution picture) -- there is a VERY large version of the crime scene photo, and with high resolution (see the link below). It is still in jpeg, but at least there would be less traces of noticeable pixels in it, since it is scanned so large and contains such good quality.
http://casebook.org/images/kelly_trad_HUGE.jpg
Hope this helps.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 06, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 9:01 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Thanks for the info. I clicked on the link and the picture flashed full-screen for half a second, then went to a little less than half the screen. Is this what I should be seeing? I'm just curious because you mentioned "VERY large version", and part of the link states HUGE.jpg. I'm still learning when it comes to computers. I am surprised (and nervous) that you haven't heard of ArcSoft PhotoImpression. It actually came installed on my computer. Maybe it's just something "cheapy" that Windows threw in. Anyway, I am going to look into Photoshop. As far as a better copy...I'll have to work on that one. Thanks again for the advice!
Sandy |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3681
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 9:21 pm: |
|
Hi Sandy,
"I clicked on the link and the picture flashed full-screen for half a second, then went to a little less than half the screen. Is this what I should be seeing? I'm just curious because you mentioned "VERY large version", and part of the link states HUGE.jpg."
If you mean that the picture suddenly became smaller, I have no idea why. That never happens to me and that is not what it should look like.
If you mean that you only see a part of the picture, you have to scroll in it to see the rest because it is do large.
But I assume you meant that it became small. Are you sure you didn't press anything on the window? Or is it something in your settings? Because the picture is really very large and you actually have to decrease it in size with the zoom tool in order to see all of it in full screen.
As for softwares, there exists loads of ready-installed programs for photo editing that comes as a bonus when you buy a computer or an additional hardware like a scanner or something similar and I assume ArcSoft PhotoImpression is such a program. Sometimes you can come across a bonus software that's called Photoshop Elements when buying a scanner or a printer, but it is very far from the real Photoshop when it comes to options and possibilities, and it is not a professional program.
Photoshop, manufactured by Adobe, is not such a program; it does not come together with a computer or another additional hardware and is VERY expensive. You won't find that among those that are installed with Windows. The same goes for Macromedia Freehand.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 06, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 26
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 9:48 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Yes, it is the entire picture that gets smaller. All I did was click on the link, and it came out full briefly, and then went smaller. I will check out my settings to see if there is a way that I can clear it up. I'm not very computer savvy, but my partner should be able to help me out. So...define VERY expensive (bracing myself).
Sandy |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3684
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 10:08 pm: |
|
Hi Sandy,
Strange. I have no idea why the picture does that in your end.
"So...define VERY expensive (bracing myself). "
Well, of course, everything is relative depending on your personal situation and priorities, but the new Photoshop CS2 costs $600 (appr. £335 GBP).
Photoshop used to be even more expensive, but it is still quite much -- if you get it legally.
It is directed towards professional photographers, graphic designers, artists and editors and mostly companies. Still, it has become more and more popular for private use as well, for those who can get it or afford to buy it.
If your needs are not too high, maybe Photoshop Elements would suffice and fit smaller purposes -- it costs about $99, unless it comes with a hardware you buy. But in my opinion it's not really the same.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 06, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 10:53 pm: |
|
Glenn,
$600, huh? Well I suppose that will be put on the back burner for now. As far as the picture is concerned, I have no idea why it is doing that. I have two computers, and the same thing happens on both. Perhaps if I print the cropped picture using my printing software that does allow the picture to be blown up without distorting it, then scan it back in, save in a folder to bring up again...I'll be able to use the photo software that I have. This is sounding complicated, and I want to apologize for using up the boards with my technical difficulties. Thanks again for all your help. I guess I have now found something to do over my vacation! 
Sandy |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 761
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 11:50 pm: |
|
Hi Sandy and Glenn,
The reason the image gets small when you load it in the web browser is that most of them shrink an image to fit the window so you can see it all once it is done downloading. It doesn't affect the quality of the original, you can still save it and then open it up like normal and see the whole thing full sized in your paint program.
If you want more information on how these things work, we can start up a thread in the pub talk section somewhere.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2160
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 4:17 am: |
|
Dan,
I,for one would be very grateful for a thread on how all this works.
My own training in fine Art ,and then mostly in oil painting, didnt include any work with computer imagery,and only very little on illustration/graphic design which dealt with pens and fine brushwork but not "painting with a mouse"
as Jane puts it!
I would be fascinated to learn how to do it anyway!
Natalie
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3685
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 5:04 am: |
|
Dan,
That's a good idea, so that the subject of the thread don't get lost here.
We could use that thread for other similar problems.
Ah yes, stupid me, I forgot, there is such a function in the settings of Internet Explorer, that shrinks an image in order to make it fit the window. It's just that I've never had that enabled. Thanks, I guessed that solved the problem, then.
Sandy!
Go to your browser and then Tools and Internet Options. Go to the flab Advanced and disable the function.
OK, back to Mary.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 07, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 116
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
One reason why the photo may appear to get smaller could be due to reolution.
Try scanning the photo at 72 dpi,with a large physical dimension.Then re-size to 300 dpi,It should come out as a smaller photo.In other words,divide the physical dimension by the dpi.
Resolution is what is difficult to understand. |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 28
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Glenn and Dan,
It worked!!! Thank you so much! When I saw that it worked, I was so excited, and then as I looked over the picture, I found myself feeling bad while looking at Mary all torn up. As I mentioned earlier, I apologize for using up the thread this way. Thank you all, and as Glenn said, "OK, back to Mary".
Sandy |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
Hello Jeff,
You are spot on with Kelly's right eye,and yes it is is closed.
The area you have maked in yellow is,I believe,a piece of flesh which includes Kelly's upper lip.
It looks like the killer cut a large flap of flesh which included the top lip.He then peeled it diagonally up towards Kelly's right eye.
The yellow curvature that you have traced under the eye is,I believe the inside of Kelly's upper lip.
The nose or what remained of the it is almost totally obscured by this large flap of flesh.
Kane |
Cheryl Waddington
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
There is a reason why there are no crime scene photos of the other 4 victims. The reason is that the first crime scene photo was taken at the scene of MJK murder. This was because of the severity of the attack on Mary Kelly. |
jewels kish
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 5:01 am: |
|
hi all ,i dont that was mary kelly in that room.i am all most convinced,that she escaped and staged her own death.the barbaric and grizzly carving that was done to her face and the only her blue eye was showing.and from that they think its her. but then there is alot of with blue eyes,
barrnet was not too sure at the end either. i realy think that she lived out a normal life somewhere else .maybe in irland, stats,or france. |
jewels kish
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 5:00 am: |
|
hi all ,i dont that was mary kelly in that room.i am all most convinced,that she escaped and staged her own death.the barbaric and grizzly carving that was done to her face and the only her blue eye was showing.and from that they think its her. but then there is alot of with blue eyes,
barrnet was not too sure at the end either. i realy think that she lived out a normal life somewhere else .maybe in irland, stats,or france. |
jewels kish
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 4:30 am: |
|
hi you all,i am almost convinced that mary kelly did escaped.and she staged her own death.why all the barbaric and grizzly way of removing her features ,so know one could really claim that is her.except her blue eyes. well alot of women have blue eyes. i truly think that she out lived her normal live,somewhere else. jewels |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Hi Jewels,
I will bite because I am bored. Why would Kelly stage her own death? Was she the reason that the murders were commited? Did she kill the unfortunate woman herself, or did she have some accomplice kill the woman for her? Was Mary the ripper? Was Mary an accomplice to the ripper?
If Kelly did stage her own death then she would of had to kill the woman found in her room, or she would of had to know the person who did kill the woman. People who suggest that Kelly staged her own death usually do so because they believe Kelly to be a tragic victim of fait. In fact, Kelly would of had to have been a cold blooded killer to let another woman take her place in the bed.
Hi Eric,
Great Job! I am amazed at the talent level on the boards. I would like to think Kelly did look the way your picture suggest. I think she may have been a bit heavier. I am sure she is happy with the way your picture turned out.
Your friend,Brad |
Eric Stedman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 6:12 am: |
|
I had not visited this board in a while; how appreciated I feel now that I have read so many kind comments. Thank you.
Unfortunately I haven't felt any further late-night "communications from the netherworld," recently. I get the feeling that if Mary could talk the last thing she'd want to talk about would be the person who did her in and if indeed she did have anything to say about him it would be unprintable.
To those who wondered what methods I used to make the picture -- the process is mainly intuitive but based on clues existing in the photograph which are subtle but do provide the locations and hints to the shapes of some of her features, as well as basic principles of anatomy, musculature, portraiture, color and light and shadow.
If you have a basic face shape and feature locations that is most of the battle, and though much has been pulled away from the surface of her face you can still tell where her eyes, nose and mouth once were.
The shape of the forehead was easy; it's almost all intact and was easily smoothed over. As far as some of the other features, if you've got one side of something, you have a strong clue what kind of curve to give the other. I drew the left eye while looking at the right one.
The biggest interpolation of my own here was the lips; it's impossible to tell how full they may or may not have been. They may have been thinner or flatter as they appear in the earlier stages of the reconstruction.
Another interpolation was her smile; certainly this is not appropriate to imposition on this particular photo; in fact, if you look at picture 3 you do get a sense of a look of terror that she may have had when her face was still able to express it. In fact when I got to this stage in the restoration I got spooked and had to stop for a bit and take a break before I was comfortable continuing. At that point I felt it might be nice to consider thinking of her as at least a person who COULD smile; certainly she didn't spend her whole life preparing to be a murder victim. So I tried to turn back time a bit to a moment before the unpleasantness and continue from there.
Thank you again for the positive feedback and I am posting also now a colored version of the complete unrestored murder scene which perhaps defeats the purpose to some degree of the portrait but I know will probably be of interest anyway. I worked on the original first to see if it might give any clues to how the the portrait should be approached. I didn't really get any except that she appears to have been fair of complexion and does not appear to be at all "stout" as described; her arms and legs are fairly thin from what can be seen of them. I am thinking it's possible someone might have used that word to mean she had a fairly full bustline.
 |
Catherine Ann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Hi Eric! I think Mary Kelly must've been a very beautiful woman before the ripper sliced her up if she looked like your imaging. I don't believe unfortunately that she escaped to live happily ever after in Ireland. That seems to be just a story for films simply because the body was so badly mutilated one can "imagine" it being a possibility. But I'm one of the few who can't.
I also can't work out how to get the huge photograph of Mary, but having just scrolled down to the bottom photograph of poor Mary sliced up - the blood seems coloured in now - I'm sort of glad. As fascinated by the ripper and his barbaric work as I am, I also sometimes find it really disturbing. |
Thomas R. Cranton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 2:20 am: |
|
it is, at best, most difficult to even imagine that such events has acually happend. eventhough the event's of the "jack the ripper killings" accured such a long time ago, it's a pretty damn good reminder of how sick, deminted and soul-less people can be.
i find it most difficult to see the image of poor Mary lying on the bed in the most grotesk settings i could ever imaggine. but as i said, it's a reminder.
i have a wife of my own. and the thought of such events happaning to my wife is unbarrible. it causes me to fear her going out alone when i know that there are people just like "jack" still out there. so we learn from what we read, or see on t.v. to be cousious and aware. to be safe so events in which accured in the past doesn't happen again. |
o.c.r
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 12:08 pm: |
|
i just wanted to make a post reguarding Eric Stedman's on his reconstructive image of mary kellys face...it made me want to cry...so beautiful and he ripped her to pieces.
i only wish she could be remembered for her beauty and not for what 'he' did to her. |
jvtr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 3:05 am: |
|
For Eric Stedman:
She is pretty, all right. But I didn't like the shock effect when I scrolled down to see the "butcher photo" in color. Why the hell did you have to make that? We all know very well how she looked like after the "treatment".
So young and so pretty... that makes me think that maybe she was a minor at that time. And maybe that's why we all have traced her origins from the wrong end? |
|
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