| Author |
Message |
    
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 488
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 4:01 pm: | 
|
Since it was kind of taking over some other threads, I started one especially for it.
Some people think Mary Jane Kelly was found completely naked. One of the doctor reports said so.
Other people think she was wearing a chemise and that you can see the poofy shoulder of this garment on her left side in the famous photo. Others believe that this is really bunched up bedsheet, while a new poster said this are looked like something anatomical.
Since I've been working on enhancing the photo for an article I'm working on (probably won't see the light of day for a while yet, mainly since I want to get ahold of the third version of this photo) I thought I'd post the area in question so people can see it.
Here's an enlarged, tonally enhanced and sharpened version of MJK-1, the first of two versions of the photo that the Metropolitan Police has (grayscale):
Here's the same but with MJK-2, the other version the Met has in its files (sepia tone):
And here's a graphic that combines both of those two versions to hopefully bring out the details of each:
The debate starts below...
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 491
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
And for those who got dizzy from being zoomed in too close, here's the area that was enlarged above:
Note that the dark stuff in the lower right would be some of the parts on the table, which may be obscuring the view of an important area of the bed.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 213
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 9:17 pm: |
|
Nice one, Dan!
I've seen a much clearer image than even you've managed to do (and you have done some groovy work here I will quickly say!)
Both myself and the owner of said image agreed, with the clarity of the shot (I think it might have been in Lacassagne, but I'm not sure!) - and also the fact that this shot was so clear you could still make out traces of MJK's features - it really was a sheet corner after all.
This is an opinion, and an opinion only, based upon having had a very clear view of the image. I have made up my mind so am not really interested in argueing on this one unless we have conclusive proof my decision is wrong!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 495
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 9:41 pm: |
|
The Lacassagne photo is the third one I'd like to have. I'm eagerly awaiting Robert McLaughlin's book The First Jack the Ripper Victim Photographs.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 218
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 9:55 pm: |
|
I was right, then.
God, aren't we ALL waiting for that one?
C'mon, Robert!!!
Hee hee - I've seen it. It is markedly clearer than the now available ones. I don't know why (in spite of its rarity) it hasn't been reproduced before (the image, not the book - though that would be nice too).
I'd love Jane to be able to get hold of this image. It would help her in her grisly task of reconstructing MJK.
Do you know what the supposed fate of the Shoreditch 'eyes' shot was? Or even if they took any mortuary shots of the reconstruction?
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 10:19 pm: |
|
"Hee hee - I've seen it. It is markedly clearer than the now available ones."
A mixed blessings in some respects.
Sometimes I wish I'd never seen the MJK photos.
It is interesting that despite the passage of over a hundred years, and all the horrible stuff in the news every evening, that that photo still has the ability to shock.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1279
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
Hi Dan
I have been trying to weigh the statement of Dr. Bond that Kelly was naked with the idea that most of us have had, that Kelly was wearing a chemise. One thing I have noticed is that the alleged sleeve that you show above is actually the same color and texture as the white sheet to the left of the right arm as we look at the bed, as shown in the big scan Stephen made available. I am wondering therefore if this is in fact just some of the sheet or bedclothes that have been twisted round the arm. Possibly Kelly grasped the bedclothes as some type of protection against her assailant, or this is something that is a result of the killer's ritual, that he has twisted the bedclothes round her arm, giving an illusion that she is wearing a chemise.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3942
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Hi all
I have trouble imagining this as a piece of sheeting, because we know from Bond that the far corner of the sheet was on the other side of her head, with cut marks in it. So if there is sheeting on her left side too, then the sheet must be in the form of some sort of parabola, starting at the top, looping away and then coming back, which seems unlikely to me.
Robert |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 496
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 2:35 pm: |
|
Thanks to the power of the Casebook (this place is great) I also have the Lacassagne photo. It's clearer in some spots, less clear in others. The main thing going for it is it adds a different tonal range to the equation, which makes it easier to contrast variations in shades of colors in certain areas. So between the new one, the big one Stephen posted here of MJK-2, and a blow up of MJK-1 from Rumbelow's book I think I have the best files to work with without getting access to originals.
Honestly, I can't make up my mind on this thing. Coloration wise, it's clear that the thin bunched up material at the shoulder is different from the main covering of the bed. It does loop under the arm, which could be a sleeve or extremely twisted sheet. It's not really in the photos above, but the line going down along the left arm is cloth that bunches up at the waist. That could be sheet or chemise. The oddest thing about it is where this cloth appears around the legs. It seems to go down to her left knee, peeking out from underneath the side, but then nothing in the middle between the legs except near the right leg, where there are folds or corners of what looks like two separate pieces of some cloth material.
I just don't know. I haven't seen anything that decides it for me one way or another.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1280
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Hi Dan
I haven't had the advantage of seeing the Lacassagne photo as you have, although it seems that the material on the mattress is a gray or off-white, but the material at the shoulder and to the left of the hand is a brighter or white material, which again makes me think that it might be a twisted sheet. Again, if we believe Bond when he said the woman was naked, I think we have to begin to believe it is not a chemise.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 234
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
Hi all,
It really does look like a bed sheet to me. Even from the facsimile in Rumbelow.. I see what appears to be a sheet underneath Mary Kelly's foot, ankle and shin, left knee and thigh, continuing to her left elbow and upper arm, and wrapping around to the front of her left shoulder.
I tend also to go with what Dr Bond said at the time. If Mary Kelly had been wearing a chemise of some sort, why would he report otherwise?
I'm open to further suggestion, but for now I remain convinced that it is indeed a sheet, and not a chemise.
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3943
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 6:23 pm: |
|
Hi
Regardless of what is in this photo (the question is, when was it taken?)i have to ask : why would Phillips, who was the first doctor into the room, have said on oath that Kelly was wearing a linen undergarment, if she wasn't?
Robert |
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 236
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 7:03 pm: |
|
Robert,
You know I love you, right?
But, why would Dr Bond say otherwise?
Look at the photo again.. it clearly has a sheet underneath Mary's left foot and ankle, going up under her left thigh, and continuing on under her left elbow and forearm, wrapping around her shoulder.
I still love you, Rob, even if we agree to disagree (But I swear I'm right here!)
Love,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 237
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 7:11 pm: |
|
Rob,
Hon, I didn't realise that Dr Philips swore on oath that Mary was wearing a linen undergarment. I do still only see a sheet, though.. Honestly, if you look from the ankle up to the shoulder, it looks distinctly like a sheet.
I hate to argue with my best friends, though.. so I hope we can agree to disagree on this one!
Love,
Lyn
(A hug to Rob, a day late - I'm seven hours behind you!)
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3944
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 2:56 am: |
|
Hi Lyn
Don't worry about disagreements, especially between friends.
I do think we have an impasse here. Now, if you and the other posters who think that Mary was naked when she was left by JTR are right, then it seems that there are only two explanations :
1. Phillips was wrong.
2. The photo which shows, we'll assume, a sheet, was taken after the post mortem, or at least after the undergarment had been removed from the body by one of the doctors.
Anyway, it's no big deal. Now if you'd said "I hate Laurel and Hardy"...
Robert  |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3945
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 3:00 am: |
|
That last post was badly expressed. What I meant was, if Mary was left naked, then the only explanation is that Phillips was wrong.
Alternatively, perhaps she was wearing an undergarment when found, but it was removed before the photo was taken.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 5:56 am: |
|
Hi,
If Kelly was wearing a undergarment, i would not have thought that a lot of it remained after that amount of mutalation, but the puffed up sleeved on her arms might well have remained intact.
I have reservations about Kelly stripping naked even if she was with a client, she may well have been a prostitute, but i cannot imagine she would have fully exposed herself to a stranger, and if alone on the cold wet night would have retired to bed with some clothing on.
The picture of Mary slowly removing all of her clothing and the person with her removing his also, for a cosy love nest does not seem likely.
Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1446
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 7:31 am: |
|
Could today's definition of naked be slightly different from how Dr. Bond may have used it back in the days when a glimpse of stocking was considered more than shocking?
I wonder if the fact that all Mary's 'bits' were exposed may have led Dr. Bond to describe her as naked - ie in a state of nakedness - whether or not a flimsy undergarment was still doing its level best to provide a bit of dignity to her left shoulder - if you see what I mean.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 258
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Caz,
From looking at the photo of Mary on that bed, I still can see her as being completely naked. As I've said before, it looks to me like a sheet underneath her left leg, coming up under her left elbow and forearm and wrapping around her left shoulder.
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 498
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
I was expecting it to be a sheet. But the thing that makes me wonder is the fabric doesn't just look like it's tucked over and under the arm, it looks to me like it goes completely around the arm and joins with itself. That's more a feature of a sleeve than a sheet. I admit there's a spot of ambiguity where I can't be sure if it joins up or if it just ends under the loop, but I don't think a sheet wrapped in such a way would fold like that.
I think Caz may have a point when naked could be referring to completely exposed and not completely devoid of all remnants of any sort of garment. I mean, if someone were wearing a long short to bed today and it got sliced open so just a sleeve remained and scraps under the body, would that be naked or clothed?
I'm not convinced that it's really a chemise, and I in fact came into it thinking that it was probably a sheet, so I don't know for sure what we're seeing.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 259
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Dan,
Believe me, it's a sheet.
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 288
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 3:04 pm: |
|
If that's a sleeve, it's a mighty big one. I'd think that an under-garment would be much smaller.
Mags
|
Pat Hall
Police Constable
Username: Patti
Post Number: 3
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
If you look at where the bottom of the fabric touches the arm, it looks like it has gathering (like elastic in a sleeve). If she did have a nightgown on, it would have probably been muslin material and probably the same or close to the material used in a sheet.
|
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 118
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 4:15 pm: |
|
The "sleeve" looks poofy, but actually does not fit around the arm. Look at what would be the bottom of the sleeve and there is quite a lot of space between the fabric and the arm. A sleeve of that type would not have such a huge armhole unless it was made for an obese woman.
Where's Nina for this argument...calling the resident costume history expert!
-K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Pat Hall
Police Constable
Username: Patti
Post Number: 4
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Didn't women wear some type of "chemise" as underwear/bedwear? I assumed this was what she was wearing. Why rap a sheet around her arm backwards (outside in rather than from the body out)? If the fabric was a sleeve and was old, the elastic or whatever could have been out of shape and loose.
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 289
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Maybe the killer pulled her across the bed (from the right corner where all the blood was to the left side for easy access) using the sheet, and wrapped it around the arm for stability.
Mags
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 715
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Okay, I might be completely wrong but I think you have to step back and look at Stephen's scan that Chris referenced earlier. To me it looks like one continuous piece of material, wrapped around the left arm, going underneath the arm to elbow, extending across the hip into the groin area. Then it's lost in the wound (as if it's been plastered against it?); it emerges again underneath Kelly's right thighbone, past the calf, where it either ends or might, I think, narrow into a kind of rope which extends towards the camera and underneath whatever flesh that is on the lower end of the bed, near what looks like the big toe on Kelly's left foot. Is that nail polish I see? Detail of the left leg seems to be lost in the lighting?
Anyhow, I might be wrong. Looking at that picture is like looking at some sort of sicko impressionist painting from too close a distance.
Dave |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1629
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 8:52 pm: |
|
G'day,
Couldn't it be possible that Mary Kelly was wearing a chemise that was completely sliced open right up the middle by the killer's knife and thrown off her body, leaving only the sleeve on her shoulder?
A mere clothed shoulder could have indicated that she was dressed in a chemise at the time of the attack, yet someone (Dr Bond?) chose to report how her body was found on the bed -'completely naked'. Was it his job to report on how she was dressed just before she died?
LEANNE
|
Nina Thomas
Inspector
Username: Nina
Post Number: 221
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:51 am: |
|
Hi Kelly,
A chemise sleeve would not be as puffy as the image in the photo. It is almost the size of her head. Just imagine how difficult it would be to put clothing on over sleeves that size.
Looking at the material it doesn’t seem to go totally around her arm. If it is a chemise then it must have been cut, which would make it appear larger. You can see a fold in the cloth.
Nina  |
Nina Thomas
Inspector
Username: Nina
Post Number: 222
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 2:13 am: |
|
Hi Pat,
Elastic wasn’t sewn into clothing until the 1900’s, buttons or ties were used to secure clothing.
Below are some examples of chemise sleeves and the MJK photo.
Nina |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 186
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 5:07 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
I know his might sound totally mental, but could it be that the chemise itself was wrapped across/around her rather than actually on her. If so then that could be part of the chemise wrapped around the arm, not just the sleeve. If that were the case, then both observer's would have been right. There was a chemise 'on' her, but she was still technically naked. Perhaps she had it on when she was murdered and JtR took it off for better access.
Don't laugh at me I'm doing my best!
love
Jane
By the way I would do practically anything for a really good shot of Mary. I'm having trouble as you can imagine with the reconstruction. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2997
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 8:59 am: |
|
To me that definitely looks like a piece of the sheet.
I think it seems like it hangs together with the fabric that is underneath her, and then rolls over her arm. Look at the sheet under her, and surely it looks it's that that continues - and like Nina, says, it doesen't seem to go totally around the arm, but bungles together in puff above her arm. Not a chemise puffed sleeve.
And even if she HAD a linen undergarment, would it necessarily have puffed sleeves? I mean, as Richard once stated above, there wouldn't really be that left of it to be seen on the photo anyway, so it necessarily doesen't have to mean that Phillips was wrong if there was no puffed sleeve in the first place (it could have been an armless ones -- I know these were used in the 19th century as well, especially in lower classes).
Probably kicking in already open doors here, but anyway... just my views.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Pat Hall
Police Constable
Username: Patti
Post Number: 5
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:04 am: |
|
Thanks Nina -- I wasn't sure when elastic came into use. After listening to all your arguments, I'm more confused than ever. Why would he wrap a sheet around her arm? If she was laying on her back, she was stable for his uses, it wasn't used to hold her down while she was alive, and she would have left some clothing on. Something keeps coming into my mind. Remember La Dolce Vita(sic) Prostitutes keep as much clothing on as possible to save time between encounters. People were also much more covered at all times in the 19th and early 20th centuries, as well. (It is said my grandmother had eight children, but my grandfather never saw her completely naked). It's unlikely Mary was completely naked -- possibly whatever she was wearing was cut off. |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 119
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
Thanks Nina,
I knew that "armhole" was far too big, and I knew you were the one to ask!
Pat,
I think it is a possibility that Kelly had on an undergarment that was shredded or cut off, which could account for the disparity between statements that she was naked and wearing an undergarment.
If she had the tattered remneants of an undergarment beneath or around her then one could say that she WAS wearing an undergarment and that she was naked, and both statements would be true.
-K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 196
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:38 am: |
|
To me, this is all consistent with the theory that MJK was asleep and naked when attacked, and probably clutched the bedsheets to her defensively. In the attack, it got all twisted up and that's what we're seeing.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 418
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
In the Department of "It's snowing here again and I've got two sketches and songs to write for a revue that were due yesterday so I am desperately trying to avoid work" I offer the following inconsequential fact. In May of 1958 New York songwriter Gerry Granahan turned vocalist and released a novelty record entitled "No chemise, please."
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2998
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Well, I actually don't think she was asleep when she was attacked .. I think she may have been and woke up just prior to the attack, maybe, but there seem to be some things that suggests some sort of resistance (although possibly very brief and not strong enough) and not asleep during the attack as such -- and I do think the cry of murder derived from her. In my personal opinion, I believe that was her time of death.
It's all speculation anyway. If she let her killer inside or he gained access himself, is impossible to say.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 26, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1630
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 3:29 pm: |
|
G'day,
She may have went to bed wearing her chemise as it would have been too cold to sleep completely naked, and her killer struck her as she was taking it off and pulling it over her face.
Did these garments have buttons down the front, or were they put on/off by lifting them over the head?
LEANNE
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1301
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Glad to see you back on the boards, as it was mentioned recently, with my notable absense, at least for the time being, someone has to keep Barnett bashing alive, I sincerley hope that you keep that intrest alive, and add to it, we both are convinced that he is the number one suspect, and your enthusiasim is on a par with yours truely.
It however was unfortunate that our hopes for a publication on his guilt has died a death, I hope you and whoever wishes to pursue this venture, has success.
It is the same old story , convincing oneself of guilt, will not enter the same wavelength as others.
Sincere Best wishes.
Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1529
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 6:47 pm: |
|
Really I just wanted to compliment Nina on that artistic arrangement of chemise sleeves.It caught
my eye and I kept taking a peek at the thread because of it!I still can"t make up my mind.I doubt though that Mary would have gone to bed in
that draughty hovel without some kind of nightwear!
Best Natalie |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1631
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:53 pm: |
|
G'day,
If Mary Kelly did go to bed in her chemise, wouldn't that point to her retiring for the night not intending to go out to find another customer, and her killer letting himself in or knocking on her door?
If she was entertaining a customer that she'd brought in with her, wouldn't she have taken her undergarment off and hung it over a chair with the rest of her clothes?
LEANNE |
Nina Thomas
Inspector
Username: Nina
Post Number: 224
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 1:48 am: |
|
Leanne,
A chemise would have to be put on/off over the head because they had no buttons.
Natalie,
Thanks for the compliment.
Nina  |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3976
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 4:19 am: |
|
Leanne, I agree with you as far as her being attacked in bed by someone who let himself in is concerned.
We just disagree on who did it!
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1632
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 3:27 pm: |
|
G'day Robert,
OK, if you believe her killer let himself in after reaching through the window while she was in bed, why wouldn't she have had time to scream madly if she didn't know and think she could trust that person?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3981
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne
I'm not sure whether he'd have reached through the window, or simply walked through the door (if she'd left it unlocked).
If she was asleep, she may have been awakened just in time to scream "Murder." I'm not sure she'd have seen the killer's face at all.
I feel that the killer wasn't a customer she'd brought home. So that leaves your Joe, or Bob Hinton's Hutchinson, or someone else (Cutbush? Kosminski?)
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1302
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Hi,
Considering i have got the 'Sulks' mayby i should have more willpower, however we should not forget that Barnett had a nightime alibi, the Police were not fools, the fact should be if Kelly was killed in the night by a intruder then Barnett is as innocent as poor diddles.
what makes this case so frustrating is 'We were not there'
Richard. |
Robert J. McLaughlin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 7:57 am: |
|
A long gestation period, I know. You will have to forgive me; I am not a writer by trade. I want to thank everyone who has ordered a copy of my book. The small print run is almost sold out already.
For those interested in Alexander Lacassagne's Vacher l'Eventreur et les crimes sadiques (1899), which published the crime scene photograph of Mary Kelly, the book was reprinted by Elibron Classics in 2002 and may still be available from their website:
http://www.elibron.com/english/other/item_detail.phtml?msg_id=10045721
My book is concerned with the photographer, the photographs (and how they came to be published at least twice in France prior to 1900), and where the originals are now. Plenty of original research. Also, an English language translation of the JtR chapter from Lacassagne.
Dan,
You are actually waiting for MJK3a and MJK3b. Lacassagne was not the first person to publish the Mary Kelly photograph. It was published five years prior, also in France. The source for both photos is the same, but the reproductions are slightly different.
Philip,
I wouldn't exactly call the the Lacassagne photo of Kelly "markedly clearer". On the whole, most of it is less clear, owing to the fact that setting a photograph for a book is a several step process, and with each step (generation) some information is lost. It is interesting to compare the two known photos with the 'new' ones, though.
Sir Robert,
I agree. And I have spent much time looking at the photos and comparing them for my book. Some days the task is difficult.
All the best,
Robert
p.s. Will bring my 1899 edition of Lacassagne to Brighton.
p.p.s. Notice how I deftly avoided the chemise question! |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 5:39 pm: |
|
Hi all,
May I put forth the suggestion that I have mentioned before in days gone by;
The tuft of sheet at the top of the arm and also at the left hip, are from the body being pulled toward the closer side of the bed.
This is a method used to move heavy patients (or bodies) in hospital settings or in old age homes.
To me, this shows that Mary intentionally lay on the far side of the bed by habit from sleeping with Joe, or that she was awaiting someone to join her on the bed.
There are only two scenarios that I find reasonable for Mary to be completely naked.
One is at the special request of her customer, the other to pose as an art subject.
One suggests daytime, the other night.
The fancy fellow seen by Hutchinson carried a parcel, could it be art supplies as a cover for knives? And isn't that sheet awfully clean looking? It is like a dropcloth.
The sheet at the hip is flattened out more in the picture here than in the other angle where it is pointing up in the air.
I think the nudity could also suggest that Jack's last job on Catherine Eddowes had been torture because of all the clothing she was wearing, his cuts were all jagged and short.
Mary's naked body allowed for the sweeping circular cuts, the straight lines of skinning the body. Jack had perfected his methods of stalking, speed, silencing, killing, and location for this ultimate and final orgy.
Practice makes perfect, and his victims became younger and more attractive as his confidence grew.
Joan
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 3:38 am: |
|
Before the killer began the mutilation,it is reasonable I think,that he would have wanted the lower part of Kelly's body to be free of any encumberance.Therefore any bed clothes covering her would be pulled towards the bottom of the bed,while any clothes she was wearing would be pulled up over the upper part of the body.
If there was a rearangement of the clothes afterwards,I would expect a tidier arrangement than the photograph shows.
I believe she was wearing a chemise. |
Dennis Bailey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 7:17 pm: |
|
If you look under the arm you can see that this is a sleeve. There appears to be more sheet near Kelly's chin - thus ruling out that it is sheet wrapped around her arm.
She is in her under garment, most of which has been cut off and burned, rendering her naked.
Dennis
Australia |
