|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 169
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 3:23 pm: |       |
Kelly's face in the famous photograph has always bothered me, but not only for the obviously stomach-turning reasons, mostly because its almost impossible to tell what is what on her face. I can't even discern eyes most of the time. Or a mouth for that matter.
I know her eyes must have been intact since Barnett apparently identified her by either her hair and her eyes (or her ears and her eyes) but i wonder if she still had eyelids? Could that be the reason her eyes are hard to make out: because her eyes were closed?
And what about her mouth? Did she still have lips? I've always had this image of her face being cut away right down to the bone leaving only a grinning skull with eyes bulging out, but now I'm beginning to wonder.
The post-mortems that I have read seem vague about the injuries to her face except to say that he really did a number on it.
Does anyone know more about this?
Kris |
Birgitte Breemerkamp
Police Constable
Username: Birgittesc
Post Number: 1
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 3:57 am: | |
You can take a look at a colorized picture here: ../4921/8002.html"../../clipart/scatter.gif" border=0>
Birgitte |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 691
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 4:25 am: | |
One thing that had bothered me a bit is that someone on here, can't remember who, said that all the victims looked like Mary and so someone could have been trying to kill Mary but got the wrong ones. For the life of me I can't remember who said it so if they read this then I apologise for not being able to mention your name. I wanted to know why they thought this as it is impossible to make out what she looked like, so how can this person possibly know the other victims looked like her.
Sarah
P.S Birgitte, welcome officially to the boards as I see you registered!! Hope to hear from you on here in the future. You'll find it's so much nicer having your post appear straight away rather than wait. |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 88
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 5:15 am: | |
Hello All,
Re Kelly's??? face.
Serial killers like to leave the face of their victim intact. It seems to give them a 'kick' when people who are close to the victim see them.
(I have 2 relations who are both CID Inspectors one of whom is in the Met, they both state this).
Kelly's??? face was completely removed. This points to the killer not wanting her to be truely identified and therfore no one could be guaranteed to give a positive identification. Barnett could not identify her for a start. No I.D. would be taken on just 'her hair or her eyes'! (Or was it eyes?) This gives much credence to Caroline Maxwell's statement backed up by others that Kelly was seen when she was 'supposed to be dead'! And as for Abberline telling Maxwell she was mistaken, well that takes the biscuit! Dorset Street was only 18ft wide at the most! In our opinion whoever was in Millers Court cut to shreds was not Mary Kelly.
A&S |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 693
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 5:35 am: | |
Andy & Sue
I am so relieved someone else agrees that it might not have been Mary. I keep getting practically told off by some for that opinion. Sorry this is off topic and should be on the "Mary Kelly or not Mary Kelly" thread but just thought I'd mention it.
I agree about her face though. It makes you think why someone would want to hide her identification.
Sarah |
Birgitte Breemerkamp
Police Constable
Username: Birgittesc
Post Number: 2
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 5:59 am: | |
Thanks for the warm welcome Sarah  . It's sure a lot easier to participate in discussions now that I'm registered. It just took a while 'cause I live in Europe (the Netherlands to be exact) and the mail isn't so fast.
Regarding hiding the identification of murder victims, if you read about the case of the Cleveland Torso Murders http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/unsolved/kingsbury/index_1.html you can see that there are serial killers who include it in their modus operandi. So it's not always true that killers want family members (or anyone else for that matter) to clearly recognize the victim(s).
Birgitte |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1177
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 8:12 am: | |
G'day,
Serial killers usually like to leave their victims face intact, yes, unless the killer wants to 'disassociate' from his action.
'Disassociation' is the mental seperation of a person from a place/time/action. When applied to serial killers, it's their way of blending back into innocence and denying what they did.
Destroying Mary's face, to make her unrecognizable, I believe was her killer's way of 'erasing' what he did. This shows me that her killer knew her and didn't set out to kill her.
SARAH: If it wasn't Mary Kelly on that bed, where did she go, and what with?
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 695
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 9:20 am: | |
Leanne,
Why are you asking just me? Andy and Sue also think it wasn't her. I've already discussed that on the other thread which I think is where it should stay.
Sarah |
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 173
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:26 am: | |
Yeah, I couldn't care less whether the victim is really Mary or not, that wasn't my point. Wait, let me clarify that, I DO care whether it was Mary, just not here, on this thread.
All I care about is people's opinions on where her eyes and mouth are.
Do other people see them, or are most people seeing the same blurry area I am?
Kris |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 761
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 12:32 pm: | |
Kris,
For what it matters, for all its goryness, I do see Marys right eye looking straight back at the camera. This eye is open.
From locating her right eye obviously I can find the left one, which if I am honest, is harder to see. I feel this may have been damaged.
Its harder to spot funnily enough on the coloured picture. The black and white photo shows a clearer image.
Monty |
Michael Raney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 109
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 12:46 pm: | |
Kris,
I agree with Monty. Try looking closely at the black and white version. It's much clearer and it makes it easier to find her eyes. Right is wide open, not just barely as one might think. The other appears to have been cut.
Mikey |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 3:52 pm: | |
G'day Sarah,
I wasn't just asking you that question. In a way, I was asking everyone who thinks that Mary Kelly survived. I am not picking on you. Ok Sarah, Andy, Sue, I really feel there should be a shred of evidence that she escaped.
About her eyes: I think I remember reading that one of her eyes was in the socket, and the other one was elsewhere. I'll try to find that information!
This is partly why I think Barnett's formal identification, wasn't signed until later after she was pieced together at the mortuary.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne+ on February 20, 2004) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 706
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 4:11 pm: | |
HI,
I had a idea some thirty years ago, that Barnett, and Kelly, were both involved in the murders, and that she would lead the victims to prearranged locations, when Barnett would do the deeds.and the last murder was to be that of mary jane herself, but of course it was going to look like that, and she was going to vanish, and Barnett , was going to join her later, all good specualation, that fitted in with a lot of facts.
Unfortunetly that great paper , the news of the world, decided it was a good story, but space is precious etc.
For those of you , who believe, something along those lines, food for thought.
Richard. |
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 176
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 4:25 pm: | |
Richard,
Interesting, but to what end? What reason would they have for offing these lovely ladies? Surely not personal gain, Polly and Annie certainly didn't have a penny to their names.
K |
Joseph Paul Jackson
Police Constable
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 9:30 pm: | |
WOW!!!! You can see it! ive looked at that picture at least one hundred times and have never noticed it until Monty pointed it out. Good call Monty! The top part of her face is a lot more discernable than the lower part. She definitely got the short end of the stick on that one.
Paul |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2974
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:28 pm: | |
Side-by-side. Left, from sepia photograph of MJK (courtesy of SP Evans). Right, from b&w photograph reproduced by Pamella Ball.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2975
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:43 pm: | |
What I see in the above pictures:
Mary's "Right Eye"
I believe I see what Monty and Joseph are referring to as the "right eye", in grid spaces D5/D6 and K5,K6. Guys, correct me if I'm wrong. The eye looks open and almost like its staring at the camera.
However... the positioning of the 'eye' seems off to me, in comparison to the rest of the face. I'm not entirely sold that this is what it at first appears to be.
Mary's Right Cheek (Indented)
I believe one of the more telling features visible is Mary's right cheek, which spans roughly the areas 8-10/C-E, and 8-10/J-L. It is more apparent I think in the B&W image.
Mary's lower lip, right portion
I believe I see Mary's lower lip visible in the lower portion of boxes F9 and M9.
Mary's nasal cavity
One of the "landmarks" appears to be where the nose was shaved off, leaving a tell-tale triangular shaped wound in the middle of the face. I see this primarily in F6/F7 and M6/M7. In my mind this "nose", the "right lower lip" and the "right cheek area" all line up to be where we would expect them.
Where I would expect Mary's eyes to be (but still don't see them)
Using the above landmarks, I would expect Mary's eyes to be visible approximately in boxes D6/E6 and L6 (right eye) and boxes G5/G6 and N5 (left eye). There is a dark patch at the location where I would expect to see a left eye, though all I see at the expected right eye location is sort of a "checkmark" shaped wound.
Chin Flaps??
Ok, I must admit this is the first time I've noticed this, but does anyone else see two flaps of skin jutting out from Mary's chin area? I noticed them first in the B&W photo (boxes N9/10 and O9/10), also visible in sepia G9/10 and H9/10.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2976
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:56 pm: | |
A very rough representation of a modern woman in a similar pose, with her features (eyes, nose, lips) outlined and then exactly superimposed over the two images of Kelly's face, centered on the nose and lips (as I see them).
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 89
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 5:24 am: | |
Hello Leanne,
No 1, I cannot prove it was not Mary Kelly in Millers Court and likewise you or any one else can prove it was.
No 2, The statements by Maxwell Etc show she was seen after she was supposed to be dead.
No 3, The Police dithered and dallied before entering the room therefore loosing time for vital investigations.
No 4, The inquest on Kelly?? was the shortest of the 5. This is extraordinary given the way in which she was murdered.
No 5, No relations turned up at the funeral although she had a mother in Ireland.
No 6, Why was she allowed to run up 6 weeks in rent arrears? When 1 week behind would have meant cetain eviction. And have you noticed that the 6 weeks coincides nicely in her disappearance for a while and the gap in the murders?
I take it you do not have a copy of our book.
A&S |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1182
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 6:42 am: | |
G'day Andy & Sue,
No.1) I cannot prove it was Mary Kelly, the same as I cannot prove the Mitre Square victim was Catharine Eddowes, the Berner Street victim was Elizabeth Stride....and so on.
No.2) No, the statement of Mrs. Maxwell shows that someone THOUGHT they saw Mary Kelly after she was supposedly dead.
No.3)?
No.4) I know that Mary Kelly's inquest was too short!
No.5) That proves she was 'dis-owned', nothing else.
No.6) I don't know, why do you suppose she was allowed to run up 6 weeks in arrears? I don't understand the last question here.
No I don't have a copy of your book. Care to discuss it? I'll read your reply first thing in the morning!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1183
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 7:02 am: | |
G'day Andy & Sue,
Just before I go to bed: The 'Illustrated Police News' 17 Nov says: 'if it be true that the murderer and victim were drinking together in the public-house between nine o'clock and half-past nine, then the people at the house should be able to partially corroborate Mrs. Maxwells story and description.'
Do you know if the police spoke to the public-house owners, and if so what they said?
Good night, LEANNE |
Gary Adams
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:34 pm: | |
This is my first post, but I've visited this excellent site many times and have read just about everything worthwhile that has ever been written about Jack the Ripper. I have always looked at the remains of Mary's face as Monty is doing. However, as he points out, in some photos her right eye is not nearly so apparent. The description of the placement of her body says that she was lying on her left cheek. After looking at the photo dozens of times, I suddenly saw something completely different. It now appears to me that the socket for her left eye is partially visible just off of the surface of the bed and that what at first seemed to be her left eye socket is really the right. Instead of lying face up, I believe she is lying facing the bedside table. Is it possible that her eyes are not even their sockets? I don't know. Monty may be right.
Poor Mary. What I think of most when viewing these pictures is a lovely, homesick Irish girl singing "A Violet I Plucked From Mother's Grave" in a cold room on a rainy night, selling herself for sixpence, neatly folding her clothes and opening her arms to a monster. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 535
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 9:54 am: | |
Hi Stephen and Leanne
Stephen-Your representation including the model appears correct except for the position of the right eye. If indeed I am looking at the right eye in D-5,6 and K-5,6. The right eye can only be placed properly if the models face is turned up and to the right. Once this is done, the other features don't line up unless we are mistaking flaps of skin cut from the face and shadows caused by cuts down to the bone as certain of the features.
Leanne- I have never read that one of the eyes was found to be out of the socket in all the descriptions of the face that I have read by numerous authors. Neither does the autopsy mention this as I recall. If you could find the source which notes this information I would be very grateful.
You didn't read it by any chance in one of the newspaper accounts did you?
All The Best
Gary |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 559
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 11:24 am: | |
Leanne
G'Day!! have spent the last half hour studying these Mary photos am very impressed by the juxtaposition on the three but,like you, am a bit worried by the eye positioning.... Bearing in mind that Joe did the eyes and ears thing.....makes me wonder how he managed that!!!!Also Mrs M was'nt daft and if she said she saw Mary out drinking between 9 and 9.30 then I reckon she did !!! also there's this plate buisiness come on!!!!!!!!!!!!! women remember these things!!!! Think I may have posted on this one before..if I have forgive me!!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Nathan F.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 10:44 am: | |
I think this whole thread is a moot point because if you find her eye balls, eyelids, whatever...we still don't know what she looked like so it really doesn't matter, at least in the terms of indentifying her. I guess it only matters in the fact that we would, more or less, know what JTR did to her face.
As for the victim not being MJK, I think its ridiculous not to think it was her. Barnett identified her. I don't know why people don't believe it. Imagine if it were your husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, whatever and he/she was mutilated. You just know its them. Even with a messed up face, you could identify them. It was her.
Regardless, nothing will probably ever be proved.
One question though: has there ever been any mention of how many pictures were actually taken at the scene? Could there be more out there that are missing/lost? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
