|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Joseph Paul Jackson
Police Constable
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 12:06 pm: |       |
My hats off to Pamella Ball for the incredible restoration of the face! Stephen, Thank you for posting those pics....Fabulous! It looks like a very big glob of....hamburger meat..for lack of a better analogy. The perpetrator really took the term "disfigure" to the next level.
Paul |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 560
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 12:14 pm: | |
Hi Nthan
I have read somewhere that at least a dozen photos were taken in Millers Court ok some of these were outside shots,but I find it hard to believe that only the famous two were taken inside the room....hate to say it.but far too good a photo opportunity to miss.......even in 1888 There is a theory that a lot more were taken by a Doctor who lived in Chichester at the time...no more details on that but it's very tantalising....maybe there's some glass plates lying in somebody's attic in West Sussex!!!!
cheers
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2133
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 12:15 pm: | |
I do wonder how Barnett could identify her at all, barring birthmarks. But then, I once forgot what colour my own eyes were and had to check in the mirror.
Robert |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 90
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
Hello Leanne,
If you had a copy of our book you might be a lot wiser. (Only jesting).
Whereabouts in Aus are you? The reason is, I am part Aussie, so we probably are as illogical as each other!
You can e-mail us at: Asptenbells@aol.com
A&S
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 291
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 1:53 pm: | |
If you know someone well, as Barnett presumably did with Mary, you don't need a face to recognize them. You can often identify someone you know from the back of their head across a crowded room without ever seeing their face. I sincerely doubt that Barnett was at all mistaken or confused about the identity of the woman on the bed. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2135
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 2:38 pm: | |
Hi all
Andy and Sue, I haven't been able to read your book yet, but I'm looking forward to it.
Ally, there's McCarthy as well. How on earth did he identify her?
At the moment I still think it was Kelly on the bed, but the whole thing's got me bemused.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 299
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 3:32 pm: | |
Hi All,If you go to the Tate bookshop and look at Gary Hume"s 1996 catalogue you will see a painting of Kate Moss.If you can recognise Kate in a magazine you will immediately recognise her in this painting but there is only an "outline" of her face---no cheeks, no mouth, no nose no eyes
but still you know its Kate Moss.She does admittedly have strong cheekbones which helps
but my point now is that with the help of the squares and the photograph it should be possible to blank out Mary"s face on an enlarged photocopied sheet and by then shading in very gradually the eye areas,the nostril areas[not the whole nose] the mouth area in just a darkened patchy way[no detailed lips or eyes] you should have an image of Mary as seen from a distance and recognisable.I think its important to delete the bits of skin in the outline of her jaw in the photos and have the outline as clear as possible.
Given the recognisable image of Kate [which doesnt even shade in mouth eyes or nose areas]it should give us a reasonable likeness.I"m going to try itthis way in the next few days.Thanks Stephen for the squared up facial images----very helpful.
Best Natalie. |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 197
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 3:48 pm: | |
In Stephen's reconstruction, doesn't this give Mary a very high hairline - certainly compared with the model?
The mutilation is so horrific that the hairline is the only thing that seems clear to me. Could it even have been her "hair and ears" that she was identified by?
Chris Phillips
|
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 301
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 4:05 pm: | |
Yes Chris you have a good point.But it may be worth trying.And if it seems that the eyes for example are a bit higher than in Stephen"s reconstuction they can be reassessed and put a bit higher in her face.As its done new clues may emerge to guide the process in the right direction.Another "trick" is to nearly shut your eyes so Stephen"s image becomes blurred and hold onto the position of her mouth[lower lip] which I am almost certain IS her lower lip and gradually a facial image should start to take shape.
Natalie. |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2977
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
I agree with everyone that the "right eye" certainly looks like an eye - but the positioning still seems off to me, for some reason. In art class years ago I remember having it drummed into my head that a person's eyes should always be drawn in the middle of the head (not in the upper half, where most novices place them), as that is more anatomically correct.
Could be wrong! It definitely does look like an eye starin' right back at you.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 4:40 pm: | |
G'day Andy & Sue,
I was born in, and have always lived in Sydney's Western suburbs. I haven't set eyes on your book yet, but I think Richard has a copy and he thinks that if Mary was seen alive after her estimasted TOD then there are two possibilities: either her estimated TOD is wrong and she was murdered later, or she managed to escape all-together, (which I still think is wishful thinking).
He has still to send me some writing on Mary Kelly, so I think we will be looking at the POSSIBILITY!
LEANNE |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 303
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 4:51 pm: | |
Hi Stephen,yes I would agree with you that the right eye seems way off course somehow.Could you perhaps blank out all but her lip and using the overlay of the grid very lightly shade in the eye areas, mouth area and a hint of the nose/nostril area.The cheeks could be hinted at with very pale patchy shading.I would try and do it myself but I dont yet have the computer literacy to do it!
Best Natalie. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1185
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
G'day,
Dr. Bonds post mortem report said: 'The face was gashed in all directions, the nose, cheeks, eyeBROWS and ear being partly removed...' I think if the eyes were removed he would have noted that fact. I remember now that the organ that was seperate, was one ear.
ALLY: Don't you think that if Barnett was asked to possitively identify his woman on the bed, he would have searched desperately for some proof that it wasn't her? Unless he already knew who she was?
LEANNE |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2978
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 6:01 pm: | |
Colorization of Kelly's face, with eye colored as it appears to be located:
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 292
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 6:20 pm: | |
That is not the eye. I see what I believe is an iris and a pupil in the red circle that has been superimposed over the original picture. If that picture above is supposed to be her eye, then Mary had eyes on her temple...don't think so.
Leanne,
I think every relative of every victim when asked to identify body searches desperately for some proof that it isn't the person they knew. However, being able to positively identify the body doesn't mean the person doing the identifying killed them. |
Erin Sigler
Police Constable
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 8
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 11:24 pm: | |
I go with Ally on this one. The placement on the face (with all due respect to Stephen's recreation) is just too high to be an eye, unless Mary had an abnormally short forehead. Our brains constantly strive to make recognizable patterns out of the even the most random of images--hence the "Face on Mars" and the Shroud of Turin, among others.
On another, related, note, after discussing the issue of 19th-century photography with a professional photographer, I'm growing more pessimistic about the possible existence of further photographs of the Kelly crime scene. The photographer with whom I spoke mentioned the great difficulties in producing photos during this time period and given what she told me about the process, I'm frankly surprised that there are any photos of the scene at all. Of course, I didn't specifically reference the Ripper case, but if I get a chance I'll ask her about the state of photography in 1888. |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 12:27 am: | |
 
This is how I see the photo. I can see the left eye clearly (which is closed), also the right side of the lip. There is a line going down over her right eye which could possibly be hair (?) Sorry this is a bit morbid.
Rob H
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2141
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 3:30 am: | |
Hi all
Just a couple of tentative suggestions.
I can't comment on what can or can't be seen in this dreadful photo, but it seems to me that the question of whether or not the eyes were intact is important for our idea of what kind of killer Jack was.
A man in a frenzy, with plenty of time available, randomly stabbing and slashing a face, will destroy it totally by the law of probability. So IF the eyes were intact it might suggest
1. That the facial mutilations were calm, controlled movements - maybe in the nature of doodles.
2. He deliberately left them intact.
Also, and purely from memory, I believe the question of photographing a victim's eyes was first raised at the Chapman inquest. Could the inverted v's under Eddowes's eyes have been meant as arrows, as if the killer was saying "Go on, then. Do your worst"?
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 307
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
Thanks Robert House for the above.I will try myself tomorrow to get some squared paper and work on some shading in of a blanked out face using just the left eye the hairline,some of the rest of the facial outline,the nose area and the lower lip.It may take time and I know we do have another reconstruction of Mary"s face on this site
which although very well done appears to give her a slimmer jawline than the photo suggests.Myself I wouldnt attempt to detail the features just suggest them with shading.
Robert the before and after effect above is really good! Natalie. |
Camila Mattos
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 3:01 pm: | |
Hello!
This is my first post here, although I've been reading all your comments for quite a long time. The Jack the Ripper case has been one of my (greatest) interests for a long time - since I was very young, though I'm not old now (today is my 17th birthday). Mary Kelly's murder is my *favorite* (if one may use that word for such a dreadful thing) one, because it's the most mysterious one too. I've been wondering how her face would've looked like for years and years, and after reading what you guys have written and staring at the body picture for hours, I thought I'd finally understood what is what in her face - at least I thought I had. So I opened my Photoshop, got the HQ picture and started working. Here's what I got.
However, I had one problem.... When I was *painting* her face, I marked the areas where her left eye/nose should be (respectively, the blue & the red circles). When you compare it to the original photo, you can't see (at least I couldn't) any signs of a nose or an eye in those places....
Specially the nose, I can't see any protuberances
there and the dark mark that indicates a wound is right below my circle. But then I think her face would be kind of asymmetrical if that was the right place... Oh my, rebuilding her face is such a complicated thing to do  ! Any thoughts? |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 315
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 5:00 pm: | |
Hi Camila ,well you are getting near my own picture of her.As I said in the posts above
I dont think making a very clear eye or even drawing in the nose are necessary.I think its probably easier if you just sort of smudge in the eyes as near as you can to where Stephen has indicated inhis squares.A hint more than a detail
and then the same with the mouth -it doesnt need to be so clear just blotchy shadow-then the nostrils [again as indicated by stephen"s picture with squares].
The cheeks can have a bit of palest shading just to take away from the blanked out look and the hair and hairline need to be as near as possible to the photographs of her.
Its a really good image that you have so far produced though.Congratulations-I wish I could work my computer like you can!
Natalie |
Julia
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:11 am: | |
Hello, all,
Regarding the possibility of other photographs of the crime scene, there is a dissertation on this site entitled THE VICTIM PHOTOGRAPHS by Stawell Heard (http://casebook.org/dissertations/rip-photos.html). It contains a lot of good information about the history of the existing photographs and the likely case that others were lost. Regarding Mary Kelly, Heard states, "Once the photographer had entered the room other photographs were taken. These could only have been taken from inside. There was the second, rather surreal, picture taken from behind the bed, and there were rumours of further photographs. Walter Dew stated that 'Several photographs of the eyes were taken by expert photographers with the latest type cameras.' This was done in the 'forlorn hope' that the final image was retained on the retina. There were supposed to be specific lighting conditions under which such a photograph should be taken. Whether these were followed in the dim light of 13 Millers Court, it is now impossible to say. All we know is that, as Dew tells us, 'The result was negative'. There is no trace of these photographs anywhere in the files."
This seems to imply that the eyes were somehow visible enough for an attempt to have been made to photograph them to try to retrieve the image of the killer imprinted there.
If only we could locate the other photographs!
Julia |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 3:37 am: | |
Stephen is right that the eyes should be in roughly the middle of a head's face, but figuring out where that middle is on a two-dimensional respresentation of a three-dimensional surface without most of the regular visual cues can be a real pain. If her chin is pointing upwards than the middle line should arc upwards across the face (image holding a basketball with a horizontal line across the center, if you rotate the bottom up the front part of the line becomes a curve pointing upward). There's also the question of where the top of her head actually is, which is buried under hair and requires guesswork.
I took a go at it myself. I started with the large file Stephen has elsewhere, cropped the face, then did tonal adjustments so the color range in that area was exaggerated to try to pick up contrasts, and brought the image size down by 50% to try to smooth out artifacts from the JPEG compression.
I then got my base image. I figured I'd make guestimates off that. My results can be found at:
http://www.ripperology.com/gr/m/MJKfaces.jpg
(You probably want to have that open in a new window while reading this. And if Stephen would rather have them on this page directly he can post them here too if he likes.)
What I tried to do is rotate the face so it is completely upright and then sketch an oval around the form of the head. The top one (yellow) is a looser oval and the bottom one (black) is more tight. I then figured out the middle points based upon these ovals.
Because of the rounded nature of heads, the lines joining the middle point on either side could be arcs pointing whichever way the head is, so it's a guess. The vertical one I think should be pretty straight instead of rounded, judging from what looks like the lips. (Of course it could be that there's more to the lips that we just can't see properly, or, worse, that the muscles became so distressed that the lips and the flesh they are attached to are not attached properly and at the wrong location or angle.)
There are two features that looked like eyes to me, but unfortunately they both can't be as they wouldn't be part of a matching set. The first is the presumed right eye others mention seeing. The second is a spot of brightness, like possibly her left eyeball catching the glare of a light, that was very noticable to me when I open the large sized photo file. The glare appears almost to be too centered to actually be the eye though, unless enough flesh got moved around that I'm just not seeing things properly.
Because they were lining up fairly well with the mid points on the two ovals I drew, the larger oval got the commonly seen presumed eye and the smaller oval got the glint that might be an eye.
Personally, the top one with the same eye others see seems most likely to me. After drawing guidelines for where the other eye and nose should be, I think I can make out the other features. The more I look, the more obvious they appear to me, but then it may just be my mind playing tricks on me.
The bottom one seems like the hairline would have to be receding like nobody's business, and the features all seem too small in comparison to the rest of the head. And, heck, now that I "see" the face, the other one just doesn't match at all.
Whether anyone else see it the same way is another question entirely.
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 715
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:39 am: | |
Camila,
I think you more or less have it with that photo.
Stephen,
I don't think that Mary's head would have been in the position you suggest as the rest of her body was on her back and Jack would have had to have broken her neck to make it go in that position.
On the whole subject, it's a shame that we will never know for certain what her face looked like.
Sarah |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 404
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:54 pm: | |
Camila,
I think you've pretty well got it. Mary seems to have been a rather square-jawed individual, unless there is loose flesh in the chin area making it look broader than it really is.
As to the nose, you don't see it protruding because it is missing. It has been severed leaving only a triangular opening in the face. Frankly, it looks to me as if the whole face has been just about skinned to the skull.
Andy S. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
