Author: Rebecca A Bonell
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 07:32 pm |        |
thank you david.
i'm going to try the other boards now for an answer for my original question.
by the way simon how did you get the picture onto the chat board i would not know how to do it.
thanks again
rebecca |
Author: Grailfinder
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 09:04 pm | |
Hi Rebecca
My recontruction of Mary Jane can be found at,
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: The Kelly Crime Scene Photographs
I don't think however, that they will be of help to you, your post seem to be asking for the colour of hair/eyes etc, and the work of mine referred to, shows none of these features.
The MK photo was an attempt to reposition the facial features using the computer and graphics tools. The post that contains the picture of MK, explains how it was produced, so I wont repeat it here, although you might have to go back a month, (in the archives) as the post has been split in two.
cheers |
Author: Joseph
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 10:41 pm | |
| Thank you for that info Grailfinder. |
Author: Paul A. Smith
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 12:41 pm | |
Hello All
I've been peeking into the message boards whenever I can,
just to attempt to keep up with anything new that has been happening . . .
. . .any new nuggets of info . .
and I stumbled across this section on photo
reconstruction.
Hmmmmm . . . . .right down my street, as it were.
I had responded to Grailfinders efforts previous to this, and I applaud the efforts . . . .
digital reconstruction, especially in the example
of MJK, is typically quite a daunting task.
There is ineviteable invention, as these poor people didn't have the opportunity
to sit for a photographer. We just have to guess.
Plus I cheered loudly at Grailfinders efforts at
restoring the humanity to the victims . . .that's part of what my current site is all about.
So. Duly inspired by Grailfinders ( . . .and others . . .)
efforts, I thought I would take a swing at this myself.
Please follow the link to the recreation of Liz Stride. I'd post the pictures here, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet!!!
(By the way . . .how DO you get the images in here???)
http://www.usinternet.com/users/psmith/JTRLiz.htm
What you will find is a color recreation, next to a
simulation of an older black and white version, next to
the morgue snap of poor Liz. I worked with several
known ideas about mortis . . .when the body is lying flat, as Liz
is, the neck will appear compressed and wider than
if she was standing . . . in death, the mandible
will invariably sag open, lowering the position
of the mouth slightly, and I've compensated for that.
The eyes, as Grailfinder has already pointed out, are the
most difficult. Fortunately, there is sufficient detail
in the morgue photo for adequate measurement of the
orbital socket, and even given the apparently wider zygomatic process on Liz,
a fair assumption could be made of the size of the eyes proper.
I guessed as far as eye color . . .some one needs to correct me if they are wrong . . .and I think they are.
And Grailfinder is also correct in that doing this reconstruct
helped me feel a little better for this woman,
at least in a small way giving us a glimpse of how
human she really was, and also seemed to underscore the brutal depths
of the monster that we're chasing.
So. What do you think, guys?
Best to all
Paul Smith |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 01:49 pm | |
Hi Paul,
Not bad at all. I looked at the drawing and almost had an instant reaction of recognition. Great job. There's maybe only one thing I perceive different. Her eyebrows look lighter and more broad to me.
Greets,
Jill |
Author: Grailfinder
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 03:51 pm | |
Cool work Paul,
I have visited your website a few times, and admire your style and work, your attention to known facts and your search for accurate visual reference material, is most commendable.
From your recent private E-mail that you sent me, I know how you appreciate critique of your work, Comments made by fellow members allow you to alter or hone the image until, hopefully, we are left with a piece of work that is an accurate visual representation of the event in question.
I agree with Jill's comments regards the eyebrows, but feel I maybe guilty of being subconsciously swayed by racial stereotyping, the fact that Liz Stride was born in Gothenburg, Sweden, suggesting these blond/fair traits belonging to Swedish people. Perhaps (hopefully)other members will voice there thoughts on this matter.
Keep up the good work Paul, and thanks for your comments regarding my own Artwork.
cheers.
PS With ref to your problem of putting pictures up on the boards?
It is a simple process, follow the FORMATTING link in the lefthand (GREEN) panel, Scroll down until you find the heading,
Images, Attachments, and Clipart
This gives you all the info you need to include Artwork with your post. |
Author: Paul A. Smith
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 06:14 pm | |
Hi ya Jill and Grailfinder
Thanx for the feedback, as always! And you both picked up
on one of the biggest problems I faced in doing this
reconstruction. I wanted to show Liz as if she was
sitting for a photographer. Most women, I'm reliably led
to believe, get made up for this event. Furthermore, Begg, Fido and Skinner
reported in "JTR A-Z" that Inspector Walter Dew remarked that
"there must've been a time when she was exeedingly proud of her curly black hair."
Couple this with the reported facts that Liz was "out and about" that ill fated night, and I'm left
to assume that she was made up. Of course, it wouldn't have shown in the
morgue photo, I realize that. And when I started to push
the pixels around, I have to admit to falling for one of the oldest myths surrounding these women . . .that they were, for the most part, prostitutes, and
I started leaning to rendering her se tres maquillage . . . but these women were poor,
and wouldn't have had access to any beauty products like eye shadow, lipstick and the like.
Right? Or am I wrong in assuming this? Once I realized my error,
I went right back in with the dodge and burn tools
in Photoshop and removed a lot of the made up appearences.
But the hair and eyebrows, normally would match, make up or not.
Can you comment on Inspector Dews remark? I guess
that's why I made them so dark.
And thanks for the tip on inserting images, Grailfinder . . .I promise to learn to read instructions!
Good to hear from you too, Jill!
I also would like a comment or three on the remake of the Hanbury Street illustration. I finally
got a chance to see one of the contemporary sketches from the time,
and was appalled at how far off I was. I've since corrected it . . .I think.
Let me know!
Paul |
Author: Rebecca A Bonell
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 01:18 am | |
paul
your pictures are fabulous i especially like the one done as a old photograph. liz looks an ordinary woman again, which given that her only other known photo is the morgue shot makes it especially nice.
simon
how did you get the image of mary onto the chat board?
everyone else
decided to go with the majority on the hair and eye color. went back and checked all sources and counted up the most popular colors for each lady.
the winning colors are-
polly - graying brown hair and brown eyes
annie - wavy dark brown hair and blue eyes
liz - dark brown curly hair and light grey eyes
catherine - dark auburn hair and hazel eyes
mary - eyes blue but hair color tied between blond and dark chestnut.
any final votes on mary,s hair.
rebecca |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 08:55 am | |
Dear Paul:
Excellent effort ... seeing Liz with a smile was a pleasant surprise. A few suggestions:
1) I agree that Liz probably couldn't afford to buy cosmetics ... but women back then were more knowledgable about making their own from food stuffs ... still I doubt she wore much make-up.
2) Her eyebrows should be just a bit broader.
3) Make her ears a little Spock-like (Star Track).
4) Detective Inspector Reid examined Liz's body at the morgue and listed her eye color as light grey ... They look blue-green in your photo to me--you might want to lighten them a bit.
5) Reid described her hair as dark brown and curly--so I think you got the color right.
6) Her hair isn't short--just matted with blood and maybe mud. Possibly you've been influenced by the journalist's drawing--which should be flushed down the toilet in my opinion. That drawing looks like a man--possibly Oscar Wilde with a perm.
In the morgue photo there's 2 ringlet type strands of Liz's hair lying on her right shoulder. Long hair was the norm in the Victorian age, although most women wore theirs pinned up in various loose bun styles. See the street scenes and Martha Tabrum's photo in the A-Z and other books.
A photographer friend of mine said there's so many variables that you have to use your best judgment/guess on--so 10 dif folks using photo software on one picture would come up with 10 dif reconstructions ... But I still find this an interesting undertaking and highly appreciate your hard work.
Thanks,
Ashling |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 10:05 am | |
Great picture Paul!
I definitely agree with Ashling's points 1) and 6).
Another point about make-up is that you need a mirror to apply it (unless you don't mind looking like Co-co the clown). For these women, moving frequently between poorly-equipped lodging houses etc, I would expect any rudimentary cosmetics, small pieces of looking glass etc, to be carried about with their other meagre personal possessions, but I don't think anything like this was found, was it?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Davidoz
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 02:32 pm | |
| What this section has to do with identifying either "Jack the Ripper" (which incidentally is NOT his/their name) or understanding the sequence/ series of events in the EAST END 1887- is a mystery to me also. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 07:32 pm | |
Rebecca , to put a picture on the boards you need to scan it into your harddrive and then follow the instructions in the Formatting section on the green menu to your left.
The picture needs to be saved as a jpg.
Simon |
Author: Paul A. Smith
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 07:33 pm | |
Hi All
Thanks again for all the feedback . . . I've duly noted
all remarks and made some corrections. I've just finished
posting the new version of Liz . . . enjoy!
http://www.usinternet.com/users/psmith/JTRLiz.htm
Paul |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 08:46 pm | |
| I liked the pics too and they got me thinking. I have commented before on the odd configuration of Liz's lips and your pics make me wonder if she had a repaired harelip. |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 08:54 pm | |
| The one question I had about the Hanbury Street drawing was the amount of light. Wasn't it just barely dawn when she was killed? Wouldn't it have been ah -- dimmer? |
Author: Ashling
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 07:27 am | |
Paul: Just viewed your adjusted version of Liz ... Wow! I think you've captured the essence of a faded beauty ... which is the impression I formed of her looks, based on the coppers' descriptions of her + Michael Stride not realizing Liz was several years older than himself.
Diana: I'll leave it to our online Docs to say for certain, but I doubt such surgery was commonplace for the poor in the 19th century. To say nothing of the speech lessons Liz would have needed to reduce the lisp to a non-noticeable level. I used to date a guy with a repaired hairlip ... he had a very faint, but noticeable lisp. I can hear the lisp in the actor Stacey Keach's voice--and speech lessons go with the territory of his career.
Several folks commented on Liz's intelligence & ability to speak unaccented English ... Surely, they would have mentioned any lisp.
It's much more likely that any deformity you notice resulted from Liz not having any front upper teeth. Speaking as a denture wearer--this will make your mouth and lips cave in. Just my two pence.
I agree with you about Paul's Hanbury St. drawing--it definitely needs the dimmer switch flicked on. :-)
Ashling |
Author: Ashling
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 07:30 am | |
Oops! I meant Michael Kidney--not Michael Stride.
Ashling |
Author: Rebecca A Bonell
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 05:26 pm | |
could any one tell me what type of bonnet polly nichols wore. i know it had black velvet on the brim but is there any description of the rest of the bonnet. material it made of? did it have ribbons still or just strings to tie it on with?
rebecca |
Author: Rebecca A Bonell
Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - 02:42 am | |
hello it's me again
scratch the bonnet question i'm leaving it out.
ok this it my first template of polly nichols, based on her photo and paper illustrations.
does it look anything like her? i can't tell any more i've been looking at it too long.
rebecca |
Author: Rebecca A Bonell
Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - 02:48 am | |
SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY!!!
i have never used a scanner or anything before now.
next time i'll make it smaller i promise!!
rebecca |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - 08:14 am | |
I like the picture , its not bad !
When I scan smallish pictures they come out really large as well , Rebecca ; I wonder if an expert with scanners out there can tell us what we're doing wrong.
Simon |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - 09:35 am | |
Simon -
I think what's happening is that your scanner is probably set up to scan at a resolution suited to printing the results - maybe 300dpi or similar. The images, when displayed in a web browser , are assumed to be at a lower resolution (most likely 72dpi), and so are enlarged to nearly 4 times their previous dimensions. If you're scanning purely for on-screen display, then you should make your original scans at 72dpi, otherwise make lo-res copies by lowering the resolution in Photoshop (or Paint Shop Pro, Graphic Converter, whatever you've got).
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - 09:37 am | |
..or indeed, more than 4 times their previous dimensions. Sorry, bad maths day.
Guy |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - 05:06 pm | |
| Grrr ! This new fangled technology ! |
Author: Rebecca A Bonell
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 01:48 am | |
thankyou gentlemen
and now for my second attempt at presenting my template of polly.
rebecca |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 05:11 am | |
Perfect!
Well done Rebecca. I love the expression you have given Polly.
And thanks to Guy for the great tips. I'm learning fast.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul A. Smith
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 10:12 pm | |
Hi All
I've been urgently waiting all week to get some time free to come and see Rebecca's drawing.
It certainly was worth the wait! Very nicely done, Rebecca!
I pulled up the copy of the archive photo I have
and compared the two side by side in my graphics
program . . . That is one TOUGH photo to work from.
I know, because I'm doing the same thing that you are doing . . . I had fun recreating Liz Stride,
and would be doing these recreations anyway for the presentation of "Through Jacks Eyes" on my
web site. So I have an immediate empathy for the difficulties you have encountered
doing this drawing!
I wonder why you call it a "template"? I'm a professional
artist, and work in the digital and traditional methods, and the only time
I employ a "template" is when I'm going to either do multiple versions of something, or use
the template to continue with a fully rendered, or painted version.
Does that mean that you will favor us with a full color painted version? (Hope, hope!)
Again, very nicely done!
Also, Guy, you are right on about the scanning thing . . .most scanners are preset to 300 dpi, and of course most web art is represented at 72 dpi.
This is becuase of our monitors . .they are designed for 72 pixels per inch. The bigger the dpi, and the video card will diplay it on the monitor one pixel line at a time, eventually showing ALL 300 . . .
. . .which is why Rebeccas first attempt resembled "The Attack of the Collosal Woman" (Ha!). The video card will show every pixel line, forcing the image to appear enormous on the screen. You had it right on.
Paul |
Author: Paul A. Smith
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 11:22 pm | |
Hi Again
Just a note concerning the facial disfigurement on Liz. Apparently, she was not above
stretching the truth concerning her past. She had claimed that her lower palate was damaged by
being accidentally kicked in the face by her companion during the sinking of the H.M.S. Princess Alice,
a steamer that sank off Woolwich in 1878 (JTR A-Z). She said her and her husband were employed on the vessel, and when it went down, it killed her husband and two children. While it had been recorded that a woman going by the right name identified the remains of a man and two children during the recovery of the accident, there is no known record of her ever being
on the H.M.S. Alice, nor is there any record of her applying for compensation from the government
as victim's of this kind of disaster were want to do. In fact her husband, John Thomas Stride, died in Bromely in 1884. (JTR A-Z) Odd, to say the least.
Or maybe not so odd. It's a more probable scenario that Liz was the victim of domestic abuse,
being beaten by her husband or companion, or ( . . and this is more probable yet . . .) she fell victim
to an abusive and violent client on the streets.
Either way, it makes perfect sense that she would not want the embarrassing truth to come out
about how she was damaged, preferring instead a more sympathetic and noble cause like the
sinking of the H.M.S. Princess Alice. And once scarred, she would never have had the means to get the damage
repaired . . if that could even be done in those days, which seems unlikely.
Also, I paid attention to all the suggestions concerning the Hanbury Street illustrations,
and "hit the dimmer switch" (Ha! Ashley!). I've posted the lighter version as well, along
with a small inset of the original 1967 photo I worked from.
The link:
http://www.usinternet.com/users/psmith/JTRHan.htm
Again, I welcome any comments, critique or suggestion!
Ahbientoh
Paul |
Author: Rebecca A Bonell
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 01:02 am | |
thank you all
i'm still fussing with polly's mouth and hair style. so any comments in that direction would be welcome.
also i used the word template but 'a rough' would be a better description at present.
rebecca |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 05:56 pm | |
| Its probable that Liz Stride got the idea about the Princess Alice disaster from the ' Princess Alice ' public house , where I believe there was a model of the ill-fated ship on display. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 06:42 pm | |
Hi, Simon:
True enough about the "Princess Alice" pub, although I don't think Liz Stride necessarily learned about the disaster with the ship through the display in the pub. There was no need to. The disaster only happened only ten years prior to the murders, on September 3, 1878, when the pleasure steamer Princess Alice collided with the collier Bywell Castle in the Thames just east of Woolwich, not far from the East End, so it would have been on people's minds anyway. For Liz to tell the tale of her having been in the disaster and losing a husband in it would have been a way for her to elicit sympathy from people who, as she was, were well aware of the recent tragedy.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Diana
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 07:06 pm | |
| Paul, I loved your recreation -- especially the spooky music. It made me wonder if the structure to the left of the steps was a coal chute? If so it would be tempting to ponder about any evidence Jack would have wanted to hide or get rid of. Of course we'll never know now. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 11:40 pm | |
Diana
Are you talking of the backyard of #29?
The entrance you describe as a coal chute was an entrance to the cellar which was padlocked by the Richardsons I believe. John Richardson was checking that very padlock on the morning of the murder, as he did every morning while on his way to work.
Regards, Jon
P.S. coal chute's would be on the streetside of the house, out front. |
Author: Paul A. Smith
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 11:50 pm | |
Hi all
Thank you kindly, Diana! From what I've been able to gleen (and I've dropped everything to glean it) the structure was actually a celler entrance. As can be
seen by the 1967 photo, and compare it to the rendering, it had undergone some changes, as
buioldings usually do over a period of time.
At the inquest, John Richardson, he of the sitting-on-the-porch-and-trimming-my-boot story,
explained his presence in the yard shortly before the discovery of Annie's body by saying
that he had stopped by to check and see if the cellar door had remained locked. Apparently there
had been a minor break-in a few weeks before, and some hand tools were stolen.
The "door" presented some problems . . .and still does. I had to attempt to imagine from the '67 photo
how the door would have been placed. It could have been two ways:
1. A small series of steps down to a verticle door, as indicated by the shallow arch above the opening. Or . .
2. A hand fashioned "cover" that would have lain over the opening of the same series of steps, with no door in the verticle opening.
The contemporary drawing of the scene, done directly after the murder, shows the
canopy AND what appears to be a flat covering, Hence the flat door in my rendering. But caution is needed in my assuming this, as the drawing isn't THAT accurate, just a newspaper sketch,
but it certaily did indicate that SOMETHING was laying OVER the opening. So I chose the flat door.
But cellar it was, according to testimony.
Rebecca: The mouth could be rendered expressionless, as many "posed" photographic portraits
of the time didn't allow for the person to smile and hold a pose for as long as the exposure time needed for those
old cameras. You might consider cleaving to just the mouth position in the photo. Which I
know is hard, it's not a clear image at all.
I have also been corrected as far as hair style, and it's been pointed out that while long hair on women was
the norm back then, it was also customary to wear it up in a bun, like it's shown in Martha Tabrums
morgue photo (Kudos to Ashling for that observation)
But at best, what normally works best for the artist is to cleave to your artistic heart . . .after all, you are the artist of record. You know best what you can and cannot accomplish. Follow your muse!
Paul |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 09:35 am | |
Hi, Paul:
I believe I e-mailed you about this before but thought I would bring it up again. Your recreation of the backyard of Hanbury Street seems based on the 1967 photograph. Yet you do mention in your recent posts here the newspaper sketches. I am thinking particularly of the illustration "Rear of No. 29, Hanbury St." in The Penny Illustrated Paper of September 15, 1888, which clearly shows an awning over the cellar steps, on two stilts, as well as a smaller awning over the doorway to the passageway. The same awnings appear in one of the sketches in The Illustrated Police News of September 15 ("29 Hanbury St. ... where fourth body was found"), although neither illustration agrees on the number of steps leading into the yard or on the evenness of the fence. Is it at least possible to make modifications to your scene to include the awnings and make it more like it looked in 1888 rather than 1967?
Thanks.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 09:54 am | |
Hi, Paul:
Looks like I miswrote. You have added the awning over the cellar steps. Great. A small awning is still needed over the doorway though I think and I am not sure about the way you show the cellar steps blocked up--I think as Jon indicated, they would have been open so Richardson could go down and check the padlock. I think generally the backyard looks scuzzier and more rundown in the 1967 photograph than it actually was in 1888. The pieces of wood in the area over the cellar steps may be the remains of the awning.
Chris George |
Author: Paul A. Smith
Sunday, 21 January 2001 - 07:51 pm | |
Hi Christopher
Very interesting coments. And believe it or not,
I'm not quite happy with the way the structures are
represented in my rendering either. Part of the problem is
that there dosen't seem to be any clear cut consensus
on how that cellar door actually was.
In the 1967 photo, a fairly large number of planks lie
in front of an opening in the wall, that is slightly arched. The
slight arch and the planks lying in front of the opening
led me to surmise that there was probably a small series of
steps leading down to the vertically placed cellar door.
However, I then finally got to see one of the contemporary
drawings, the one featured in "The Companion", and
found that there needed to be massive adjustments to the scene,
in particular the awning over the cellar door,
the positioning and the appearance of the fence just to
name two.
Unhappily, the drawing did not allow for any clearer judgement on the cellar structure itself.
In fact, it muddied things further. In the drawing, it does not appear to be ANY declining steps
to a basement door at all! Merely an awning over
what appears to be an entrance to a "crawl space"
type of opening. Which, I imagine, could still be
referred to as a "door". Hence the dilema.
I don't know how much drawing you've ever done, but it is
my forte. And I've spent a huge amount of time drawing not
only the human form, but archetecture as well. As an illustrator,
I attempt to get as much detail as I possibly can,
and render the scene as accurately as possible, but
I have to say that it's VERY difficult to render ALL
structural details with photographic accuracy.
Some of the accredited masters, like Singer Seargent or Degas excelled at rendering architecture.
And I've personally got to view some the cathedrals
and buildings they drew . . .and was amazed at the accuracy.
I'm willing to bet the journalist/artist that did those drawings
not only had to work fast, but probably did not
possess the skill level of the aforementioned masters.
My point is to not be too scrupulous about a drawing in the Police Gazette. I can tell you
from long experience that the very real possibility exists that the artist that did that rendering
simply forgot to indicate the downward steps IF THEY WERE REALLY THERE. It might truly have
been a small crawl space entrance.
The drawing was also very misleading about any
awning over the doorway itself. What it did indicate
was rendered very poorly, leading me to suspect the artists
skill level with detail.
And as far as the "grunginess " of the scene, I assumed that
Whitechapel was not a well landscaped part of London, basically skid row,
and kind of surmised that it probably did look as
bad as the 1967 photo, in fact was probably worse.
But again, this is subject to my interpretation,
and that makes it very important to be open to astute observations
such as those you have forwarded to this board. Thanks Christopher, perhaps between all of us
we can get this thing right!
Paul |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 21 January 2001 - 11:16 pm | |
Hi Paul:
I am an artist myself and am interested in all illustrative matter. I know exactly what you are talking about trying to get a scene right. I have not seen the drawing of the backyard in The Companion and would be interested in seeing it. I do note that one of the pictures I previously cited, in The Penny Illustrated Paper of September 15, 1888, just shows a mass of shadow under the cellar awning, which does not answer the question about whether there were steps going down there or not. In terms of your observation of the state of Whitechapel of 1888, I still would think that the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street and back of the building might have been better repair at the time of the murders than in 1967. The Richardson packing case enterprise occupying the premises I should think would be one reason why the property might have been better kept up than latterly.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Rebecca A Bonell
Monday, 22 January 2001 - 01:35 am | |
okay i'm back, this time with four pollys, but i'm thinking of going with either D or A, (which is the first one i put up).
opinions on which one looks the most like polly please.
rebecca
|
Author: Rebecca A Bonell
Monday, 22 January 2001 - 01:42 am | |
OK it didn't work
sorry
i'll just have to try again later when i have a little more time.
rebecca |
