Author: Scott Nelson
Monday, 28 August 2000 - 11:35 pm |        |
Hi everyone, I thought I'd begin on this board again with a discussion that occurred on the Casebook Notes discussion Board a few days ago. Jill De Schrijver and Steven Hill were discussing the Kelly wounds. Steven mentioned that he could see a curcifix cross on the top of MJK's torso near the neck with chain attached. Kind of a whiteish object with the long axis of the cross tilted towards the left side of the victim at a 2 O'clock angle. I reacted to this skeptically, until I looked closely. Low and behold there it is, although I couldn't see the chain clearly.
Steven also described the right cheek being slashed open and pulled (?) down to obliterate part of the nose and the mouth. This is why reconstruction of the head position as inclined to the left is so difficult and why there are so many different interpretations as to what facial features are actually present in the photo. I have to concur with his astute observation. As an exercise, I inverted the famous photo to see what I could make of the features of the head and the cheek wound. I saw a number "23" in dark letters across the cheek incision. Somebody tell me I'm not just seeing things that aren't there. It could be police annotations for whatever reason, distinguishing wound marks by a numbering system or whatever; or maybe just blood/shadow effects of the photo flash. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 29 August 2000 - 02:12 pm | |
Hi Scott,
I'll be looking at the picture with magnifying glass tonight.
I know I always perceived the right cheek carved up like a star, but that's memory speaking.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Steve Hill
Tuesday, 29 August 2000 - 02:43 pm | |
Hello Scott, All
Some thoughts and observations. These are an amalgamation of my posts on the whitchapel88 board so apologies in advance to those who have already seen them!
Photo #2 (View from foot of bed to table).
The item at the back of the table is almost certainly a ladies coat (ulster ?) . The left arm with it's padded sholder closest to the camera and the lower part of the sleeve draped over the edge of the table. The rest of the sleeve can be seen in Photo #1 as can the large rectangular cuff.
The object on the table may be a bit tricky to visualise, but there is a contemporary drawing of MJK outside No 13 published in The Illustrated Police News or one of the penny dreadfuls. If you have a copy of this it may be clearer as to the shape of the coat.
The 'crocodiles head' as somebody named it is the upper left sleeve. The radius of the 'crocs' head is the padded out top of the sleeve which then turns back to the shoulder.
What I'm trying to describe (badly!) is a sleeve that continues higher than the shoulder (puffed up for want of a better way of putting it).
The tapered sleeve is then draped over the edge of the table above the elbow point.
Photo #1
The interpretation of the MJK's features may have been confused by the the large part of the right cheek being partially detached (from the ear towards the mouth forming a flap of tissue in the shape of an inverted 'Y')and lying across the lower part of the face,covering the chin,mouth and lower part of the nose.
The head is rotated to what would be an unnatural position in it being turned onto the left cheek to an extreme such that the left eye can just be seen.
The curve of the right cheek bone can be seen above and to the right of the 'Y' flap.
There are two distinct 'fishtail' marks on the wound to the left upper arm . Are these caused by the knife dragging , the hilt of the knife conacting the skin, or by the knife being used with a sawing motion?
I don't think this is anything new but has anybody noticed the 'Crucifix' on MJK's chest still attached by it's strings to what remains of the neck? It seems strange that given the violence of the attack that this has remained intact and is place neatly on the chest.
Perhaps this may go someway to dispell the theories of occult or religious mania?
Although its difficult to get a comparaitve size I would estimate that its size and position would be:-
Length:- 1 3/4" to 2"
Width:- 1" to 1 1/4"
Thickness:- 1/4"
Viewed from above it's sligthly rotated clockwise so that the vertical shaft is at the about the 2 oclock position.
It looks to be more ornate than a simple cross and is attached by cord not a metal chain. How the cord could have survived such an attack intact is beyond me.
If this is new information and there is any interest, I'll try to get permission from the PRO to put enlargements on this board
The bright object under the table seen on some reproductions of the image appears to be a spot where the photgraphic emulsion on the print has datached from the paper base. A similar effect can be seen on the rail of he bed towards the foot.
The headboard of the bed is not parallel with the back wall when compared with the dado rail. This must mean one of three things.
MJ and Joe didn't follow human nature and square the bed within the room.
The murderer pushed the foot of the bed towards the partition in the attack.
The murderer moved the head of the bed towards the fire to provide better illumination.
This last option could explain coroner Macdonalds question to Elizabeth Prater."Did you hear beds or tables being pulled about"?It may also explain how the murderer was able to carry out the mutilations without blocking the light from the fire, as well as the possibility that extra illumination may have been gained from the lamp outside the door via a fanlight if one existed?
The wound to the right calf seems to show that it was made by a series of joined stabs as opposed to incisions. A very rough measurement indicates that in the thicker part of the calf three of the wound lines are approx 1" long and the wounds at the shin are approx 1/2". Unfortunatley we don't know the depth of the wound , however I would guess that this confirms that the knife was 1" wide with a rapid taper to a point ,rarther like a common carving knife.
Steve |
Author: Scott Nelson
Tuesday, 29 August 2000 - 03:49 pm | |
Sorry,
The police annotations could have been on the photo, not the body (!) |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 29 August 2000 - 11:17 pm | |
If Scott says there's a crucifix, there's a crucifix. But I can't visualize it. Can someone please help me? Thanks!
David |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 30 August 2000 - 01:05 am | |
Hi, David:
I must say I was skeptical about there being a crucifix around Mary Jane Kelly's neck in the famous photograph and was all ready to deny it to Steve and to tell him it was a matter of wishful thinking. However, I have looked at the big version of the photograph in Pam Ball's book and there does indeed seem to be crucifix on her chest. It is seen side-on, looking at the right hand arm of the crucifix (if such it be) and it is slightly angled toward the viewer. I do not see the "ornate crucifix" that Steven says he sees, it seems to be a boxy type crucifix circa three inches in height by two inches from arm to arm. There may be the figure of Christ upon it but I cannot be sure, although there is some shadowing that might indicate such. There does also seem to be a chain or cord holding the crucifix and running up to MJK's neck. Why no one else has noticed this previously or remarked on it (if that is the case, that no one before has remarked upon a crucifix on the body), I do not know. Thoughts anyone?
Chris George |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 30 August 2000 - 06:08 am | |
G'day All,
I scanned the Kelly photo from Pam Ball's book, made it so large that the area around her neck filled an A4 page and printed it out.
The only thing I see that could resemble a crucifix, does not look like one up close. If so would it sit the way it appears?
I feel that a crucifix on a chain around her neck, would dangle DOWN!
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 30 August 2000 - 06:22 am | |
G'day again,
Think! If Mary had anything on a chain or cord around her neck when Jack was slicing her throat, what are the chances that he would leave it there?
Even if it was too dark for him to see what it was!
LEANNE! |
Author: Steve Hill
Wednesday, 30 August 2000 - 02:57 pm | |
Hi All,
Sorry if my description has caused confusion. When I used the term 'ornate' this was used to distinguish it from a plain cross. The feature that I describe as ornate is that the ends of the horizontal parts of the cross appear to terminate in a cluster of three connected radius (or is that radii ?).
Steve |
Author: Grey Hunter
Wednesday, 30 August 2000 - 03:38 pm | |
 |
Author: Grey Hunter
Wednesday, 30 August 2000 - 03:51 pm | |
 |
Author: Grey Hunter
Wednesday, 30 August 2000 - 04:02 pm | |
I am getting rusty at putting these pictures on the boards!
The above image is taken from a print from the original negative of the Kelly photo (No.1), and is a clearer image.
In my humble opinion this is another case of seeing 'faces in clouds' and is an example how you may be able to read many things into such a photograph. I can see how the mind's eye is able to conjure up the image of a crucifix, and if you look closely at this photo you will see that what may be taken as the bottom of the cruciform shape is actually the upper part of a large zig-zag cut through the flesh on the upper left part of the chest below the left clavicle.
Of course, had there have been a crucifix present it would have been mentioned in the statements, especially that of Abberline. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 31 August 2000 - 06:34 am | |
Hi, Stewart:
Your expert opinion is always welcome. Thanks. Certainly in the image you have posted no crucifix seems evident.
Chris |
Author: Steve Hill
Thursday, 31 August 2000 - 02:34 pm | |
Hi, Stewart,All
I very much agree with your comments as to letting the mind make recognisable images out of random shapes.
I like you am using an 8x10 photographic copy of the original print , which is what I think you mean by the original negative. If the original negative exists that would be a great asset in research.
At the outset I based my observations on the basis of not looking for any particular pattern or object.
In this case however I am as sure as I can be as to the existence of the 'crucifix'. My observation is based on four points.
The object is three dimensional in the way it is lit and casts shadow.
The object is accurately geometric.
Further support as to the identity of the object is given in the form of the two thin dark lines running from the neck to the object.
The PM report by Dr Bond makes no mention of any injury in the area of the object.
Based on these I'll have to disagree with your interpretation.
As to why Insp Abberline didn't note the item. I would be surprised if he did.
I think I'm right in saying that this was the only time he was in attendance at the scene of the murder while the body was still in place. As in all the previous 4 cases the scene would have been handled by the local divisional Inspector.
I would expect that the scenario on that day went something like this. When the door was opened the local inspector and a PC entered the room to open the curtains and check the murderer wasn't in the room. The police would then leave the room to allow the Dr's and the photographer to do their work before the sunlight faded.
During this time Insp Abberline would have enough to do dealing with local enquiries and the gaggle of other officers,senior and otherwise who claimed to be there.
The body would then be removed to the mortuary ,this would be where any personal effects would be noted.
Given the state of the body it wouldn't seem unreasonable that the personal effects weren't noted at the mortuary. (Chemise 1 cut bloodstained,Cross 1?)
Steve |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 04 September 2000 - 07:37 am | |
Hi Steve, Scott, Chris, all
I've been looking and looking, and I find crosslike formations evrywhere on the chest, but not one that reminded me of a jewel. Because I want at least find out of which you were talking off, I've drawn a green and orange cross on the part of the picture Stewart posted on August 30.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Steve Hill
Monday, 04 September 2000 - 02:14 pm | |
Hi Jill,All,
The feature you are looking for is the Green object in your post. I have to admit that the photo posted by Stewart doesn't do the image justice. A lot of detail has been lost and some errors have crept into the image,due to the compression process.
When you say jewel, are you looking for a jewel in the precious stone sense,or a jewel in terms of an item of information? If it's the former I'm not claiming the existence of any.
I am applying to the PRO for their permission to reproduce some enlargements. If I get the OK I'll post the images ASAP.
As In my other posts I am as sure as I can be that the object is a crucifix , in fact I'm so sure that if I'm proved wrong I'll buy Stewart,Chris,Scott,David,Leanne and yourself a pint (beer only no exotic cocktails)!
On another point. In a previous post I suggested that the murderer may have gained extra illumination from the lamp outside the door via a fanlight. Since making that point I've checked this out and no fanlight existed over the door.
Steve |
Author: Grey Hunter
Monday, 04 September 2000 - 03:07 pm | |
A computer enhanced print from the second Kelly photo. |
Author: Grey Hunter
Monday, 04 September 2000 - 03:53 pm | |
This specious argument in favour of a crucifix seems destined to go on and on. First I will address a couple of points raised by Mr Hill in the foregoing.
As to my 'original negative' remark in my post of August 30, I did not mean the original glass plate negative made in 1888, and I suppose I worded it misleadingly. As Mr Hill rightly observes the original negative is not known to exist. What I meant was that the print was made from the original negative made by the City of London Police from the original photograph when it was found in their museum.
I see no shadow cast by 'the object.'
The "two thin dark lines running from the neck to the object" appear to be one in number only, and that a line or trickle of blood.
Mr Hill states that "The PM report by Dr Bond makes no mention of any injury in the area of the object." This, of course, is an error on Mr Hill's part as "the object" is on the top centre edge of the large area of exposed rib cage caused by the cutting away of the left breast and its attached chest muscles.
Inspector Abberline would most certainly have mentioned a crucifix had one been present. Since the early days of the police force more officers have landed in serious trouble or even lost their jobs over 'mislaid' property than just about any other cause. If a crucifix was that visible and in that position it would certainly have not been missed. The scene of the murder would come under the charge of Abberline on his arrival as he was the officer in charge of the on the ground inquiries in the case, and any local inspector, such as Beck or Reid, would have to relinquish the control of the scene to him. The police would not leave the room while the doctors made an examination, they would be present until the removal of the body which they would carry out.
Any property with or attendant to the body would be meticulously recorded, both at the scene and at the mortuary.
The first image I posted contains all the relevant detail and does not contain 'some errors that have crept in.' (?) There is no adverse effect caused by 'compression.'
The second image, above, is a computer enhanced image which goes to show that in this case there has been a loss of detail and a 'cleaning up' of the original image which makes it look more like a crucifix.
I have a couple of questions for Mr Hill.
He says he has an "8x10 photographic copy of the original print."
Where does this copy originate from and who made it?
What sort of paper is it on?
Which of the Kelly originals is it taken from? |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 03:50 am | |
Hi Steve,
I thought that was probably the one you meant.
Steve, this is no object.
Look out how the cross in perspective follows the curve of the chest (both accross and in length with Kelly's body). It has no dimensions at all, more like chalk paper cut out in a crossform and sewn on the skin.
Also the colour does not fit to be it an object. To have such a highlighted effect on an object that it loses its dimensions, you have to point a strong light spot on it. This is certainly not the case, because the whole area should then be highlighted too.
The only way to explain the whiteness, and the way it flows over the chest, is by accepting it is skin. Especially skin, because in a black&white picture the contrast of black (blood) against white (skin) enhances all this viewing of seperately looking objects.
Besides the physical interpretation, I have to back-up Stewart's argument. A Cross with these dimensions in its apparent position would not have been overlooked, instead it would have stood out against the mess underneath.
Sorry Steve, a Duvel for me.
Greetings,
Jill
PS. With 'jewel' I meant an object worn like a jewel, whatever the material, ornamented or not. |
Author: Steve Hill
Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 02:57 pm | |
Hi Stewart,All
Image taken from the copy I have.
Thanks for the message answers to your questions are as follows:
My mention of errors was not intended to cast doubt on the images you posted, it was meant simply to point out that due to the image compression process a loss of detail will occur along with an averaging of tones.The same will have occurred with the images I've posted
I agree Dr Bond recorded the injuries you mention but this is where we differ in interpretation of the photo. You place the object below the left clavicle ,I place it more to the midline over the sternum . Dr Bonds report doesn't make reference to injury in that area.
The print was supplied by the PRO Image library Kew.
The print is on Kodak professional B/W paper.
The print is of the print held at the PRO Kew.
As to police practice at the murder scene I bow to your greater professional knowledge of what occurred that day. My point from a layman's perspective is that something could have been overlooked given the size of the room ,the number of people there and the time constraint before usable natural light was lost. My comments were in no way intended to cast doubt on the ability of any officer at the scene.
Insp Abberline is on record as having made a list of items in the room, is there any official police record of personal effects on the body, the chemise for example?
To and settle this point one way or the other (I hope!) the PRO are providing me with photo enlargements of the area under discussion. As soon as these are available I'll post on the board.
One final point I detect a certain frustration I your last post .I hope this is not the case as I have no axe to grind or pet theory to put forward that hinges on the existence or non-existence of anything at the crime scene.The last thing I want is this discussion to decline as has occurred on some of the other boards in the past.
Steve
PS
Jill,
Keep the Duvel on ice for the moment! |
Author: Steve Hill
Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 03:18 pm | |
Whoops!
Try again.
Steve |
Author: Steve Hill
Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 03:48 pm | |
And again
No good will try later!
Steve |
Author: Grey Hunter
Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 04:07 pm | |
Mr Hill,
I have a negative made from the original photograph held at Kew. This was the photograph returned to Scotland Yard in 1988 (the first photograph was found in the City of London Police Museum in 1967). I have examined the first generation copies of both photographs and do not see any reason to change my opinion whatsoever.
We are discussing the same 'object' and if you examine the image you will see it is located slightly to the right of the sternum, and below the level of the clavicle at the point it meets the sternum. It can be clearly seen that the area where the 'object' is located is at the edge of the large wound made by the removal of the left breast and its underlying muscles.
Returning to the photographs. You may have seen the dissertation I wrote on the two Kelly photographs, and their differences. An 8x10 print is a considerable blow-up of the much smaller original print. The original in Kew is sepia and I wondered if your print has a damage line (or crack) showing across the top left hand side of the photograph. The fact that the photographs are not in colour means, obviously, that all the raw flesh and blood shows up as black or shades of grey (brown in the sepia version) and the skin and bone as white. Ergo various interpretations may be made of what is seen, as we have witnessed here.
I cannot agree with you and I guess we will have to differ in opinion at this impasse. I have examined the original photograph and it is only, in my opinion, flesh, blood, skin and bone visible on the chest.
Finally, you may not be able to post your images if you have not reduced your GIF or JPEG image to 90kb or less. |
Author: Steve Hill
Wednesday, 06 September 2000 - 01:33 pm | |
Stewart
Yes the copy I have does have the crack in the top left. As you say we will have to agree to disagree for the moment at least. Perhaps the photo enlargements may throw some light on my interpretation?
Anyway thanks for your input and good luck with the book.
PS The pint offer still stands pending developments (no pun intended)
Steve |
Author: Steve Hill
Wednesday, 06 September 2000 - 01:36 pm | |
The crucifix?
Steve |
Author: Grey Hunter
Wednesday, 06 September 2000 - 12:52 am | |
Mr Hill,
You are obviously a lot younger than me and have a much better imagination than I do. To call the image reproduced above 'a crucifix' requires more imagination than I am able to muster. All the enlargement achieves is a blurring of the image and further loss of definition. All that is shown is flesh, skin, bone and blood in my opinion.
As I said, I have both a negative and print of the same photograph you have, as well as the City one, and, as you say, we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
I did not imagine that you were making anything but the simple claim that you saw a crucifix. I did not suppose that you had an 'axe to grind' or 'any pet theory.'
For my own part I do not feel any frustration with what you have said, and I certainly did not anticipate that the discussion would 'decline.'
Thank you for the kind words, it is always nice to hear of someone else with a genuine interest in the facts. |
Author: Steve Hill
Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 02:18 pm | |
Hi All,
Since my last post I've received an enlargement of the 'cross' area taken from the original print held at the PRO. In my opinion this confirms my original thoughts that the object is indeed a 'cross'.
ENLARGEMENT TAKEN FROM ORIGINAL PRINT
To deal with some of the questions as to the position of the 'object' in the photo I've highlighted the features which gives a reference point in ORANGE.
These are:- The opening of the intercostal between the 4th,5th & 6th ribs. The exposed surface of the 4th rib.
The GREEN lines show what I believe to be the approximate positions of the other ribs and clavicle.
The RED line indicates the centre of the sternum.
The final image shows the 'object' and the shadow cast by it.
As can be seen in the first photo two diverging lines can be seen from the 'object' towards each side of the neck. I believe that these lines are the cord from the 'cross',the suggestion that these could be trickles of blood I find hard to visualise given their divergence and constant angle.
Anyway the ball's back in play! Look forward to your comments.
Steve |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 07:51 pm | |
I've only just stumbled across this thread, owing to it being referred to elsewhere.
Looks like Steve waited a while for some comments.
This thread was way before my time, but I notice that my old friend Chris T. George has posted here and was at one time of the opinion that the crucifix was there and at another that it may not have been.
I hope no one minds me dredging this up, but in Steve's last post there definitely looks like there is a crucifix present. It's not something I've ever heard referred to in ripper research before, I can't believe it's been allowed to lie here dormant for all this time.
Everyone should take a look at it.
Thanks
Peter |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 08:17 pm | |
Hey, Peter
I was just reading about the "crucifix" myself a couple of weeks ago, after having noticed it for the first time myself. There's some discussion from 1999 on the "Kelly Crime Scene Photographs" thread, \link {http://forum.casebook.org/messages/3/2214.html?FridayDecember1719990404am#POST9989, here}
Jim DiPalma posted a high resolution image of the area you're talking about. Myself, I agree with David Radka's observation that the crucifix looks two-dimensional, like something that's been drawn on the photo or plate itself, rather than something actually on the wall.
Cheers, time to gear up for Ward vs. Gatti II!
Dave
Doh--apologies, Peter; I didn't read the rest of the thread and thought you were talking about the crucifix on the wall. My bad. |
Author: Esther Wilson
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 09:44 am | |
I've just discovered this thread myself and am grateful for those who have posted pictures to point out a visual reference. I mentioned the other day that someone had posted about being able to see Mary's eye....would someone be able to post a picture here as a visual so I could get an idea as to where it is? I still can't make anything out of my pictures which I have. Thanks!
Esther |
Author: Steve
Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 08:51 am | |
Hello Peter,
Thanks for the reply, It's been a long time coming!!!!! I still visit the boards and look forward to joining in any exchanges.
Steve |
