Photo enhancements

[RichardH]

Here are some more images put through a special program to bring out the details. Link is to my website because they are HUGE!

https://jtr3d.com/2019/10/10/some-enhanced-jtr-images/

Feel free to point me in the direction of other photos that would benefit from this treatment.

[Dusty Miller]

I'm generally dubious about "enhancements", but these do seem to make a big difference in terms of clarity. In some photos sickeningly so.


Thanks for your efforts Richard.

[Anna Morris]

Interesting, Richard. Looks like the program enhances without creating artifacts. The terrible, full length picture of MJK does give more accurate detail. Several things are interesting. For one, the lines on the wall clearly show what I thought they were, a papered over door as described in some contemporary reports. I certainly do not see--nor have I ever really--any initials like FM. However in other pictures I thought what some take to be FM was actually arterial blood spray against the wall. I don't see any of that in this enhancement.

It appears she is lying on top of a sheet which is over a blanket. We have had discussions about whether she was wearing a chemise as some early reports claimed or if she was nude as other reports stated. What is the white puff at her left shoulder, a chemise sleeve or bunched up sheet the killer used to pull her body across the bed? I am still not sure but IMO it is unlikely that her bed was made up with a mattress pad/sheet/sheet/blanket. It was said she only had one blanket. If she is lying on top of the blanket which may be, or probably is, over two sheets, then perhaps she was not "in bed" as in sleeping or planning to sleep with her client. Did she lie down on top of her made up bed in order to service the client but not crawl under the covers with him?

I have also wondered--and done some enhancement myself--exactly the extent of the facial wounds. Patricia Cornwell has written that Mary's face was "defleshed". I and some others have thought we could work with enhancements to reproduce her face. After seeing your enhancement I do not think that is possible.

Speaking of Patricia Cornwell, I hink it is in her last edition about JtR that there is an extremely lifelike picture of Catherine Eddowes postmortem. Maybe "lifelike" is the wrong word but it is very realistic. We discussed some of that here somewhere. I thought lines on her eyelids were cuts from the killer but someone else had a different idea and I think he was right.

I have always wondered about something in the picture of MJK, to the right of her right foot...I guess that is her liver? The circulatory structure is very clear in this enhancement. It doesn't quite look liver shaped, at least not like liver from a deer, elk, sheep, etc. It is so round. Anyway, I have been unclear if this was a body part or something else like a garment or pillow. I have read and reread descriptions of the body on site written at the time and as I recall, her liver was said to be in another location.

I have always felt if we could see that terrible picture better, we might find further clues. Maybe. I think it is revealing that Mary appears to be atop the blanket which is clearly of a different texture and color than the white whatever it is that looks like a puffed sleeve. The latter looks so white, the killer must have moved her on the sheet before he got his hands bloody and filthy and he must not have grabbed the sheet afterward.

It also looks like, unless the program DID create artifacts, that part of her small intestine was drawn out over her left arm which was inserted in/on her abdominal cavity. That would indicate to me that the killer posed her arm and then continued with his "disgusting rummagings" as a writer once described JtR's work. There were some cuts to Mary's arms and I think at least one on her left, upper arm is depicted in the enhancement, unless that is a blood streak. Reading the postmortem description has led me to believe the killer slashed off her clothes. Maybe that accounts for the "quantity of women's clothing" (Abberline's testimony), burned in the fire. IMO the killer cut the clothing from her body and left cuts on her arms when he cut the sleeves. Throwing on the fire, the clothing with which he had struggled, makes a lot of sense. I bet after his risky escape from Kate's body in Mitre Square, excessive women's clothing sent him into a rage. If she was dressed when she laid down on her bed then there is less chance the killer was someone she would actually sleep with or snuggle with under the covers. If she was still dressed and lying on top of her made up bed then her last client must have been someone she planned to eject as soon as their business was completed. In my opinion. Others have other opinions.

If she did not undress, then there is less chance he did much undressing. That has been another point of discussion and I have had difficulty imagining, if she undressed, he must have to at least been expected to take off his boots and trousers...and what a waste of his time when all he really wanted was to kill her and get started on what really turned him on. If neither of them was much undressed then the killer wouldn't have to pretend to get ready for an encounter under the covers. (One reason I reject Mr. A. as the killer is, if Hutchinson told the truth, is he had too many items of clothing and jewellery. He would have needed a checklist just to make sure he didn't leave incriminating evidence behind. You know, like wearing light colored spats--probably with lots of buttons up the sides--to a gruesome murder is ridiculous!))

[Kattrup]

Thank you Richard.

I believe a handprint om MJK’s right shin/calf is clearly visible.

Please enhance so we can id JtR through fingerprint swirls

[RichardH]

These photo enhancements are obviously enhancements of copies of copies of... found on the internet. If I could get my hands on either originals or even high quality '1st generation' copies then the results would be 100% better.

Don't suppose anyone has some better quality versions in their archives, especially MJK1 & 2?

[Sam Flynn]

Thank you Richard.

I believe a handprint om MJK’s right shin/calf is clearly visible.

...and it's even more apparent that she's wearing a raggedy stocking on that leg, secured by a "garter" made from a bootlace or something similar.

[Kattrup]

...and it's even more apparent that she's wearing a raggedy stocking on that leg, secured by a "garter" made from a bootlace or something similar.

I disagree, I don’t think it’s apparent at all, sorry. To me it looks like skin.

[Sam Flynn]

I disagree, I don’t think it’s apparent at all, sorry. To me it looks like skin.

Why's she wearing a garter, then? Of do you think that's a perfectly executed circular cut?

[Kattrup]

Why's she wearing a garter, then? Of do you think that's a perfectly executed circular cut?

I do not know why she’s wearing one. I agree that she is wearing one, as the skin on either side is scrunched, as by a tightly or semi tightly bound string.

“The mark round the leg showed that garters were worn below the knee, a custom, I believe, more common among the lower than the upper classes, who either wear garters above the knee or suspenders.” (Hebbert, about the Rainham case)

However, it seems equally when examining the details that no fabric or stocking is present and the skin around the string continues uninterrupted until the wound around the knee.

So I cannot agree that it is apparent that she’s wearing a stocking. Perhaps others would like to take a look and weigh in.

[Robert Linford]

Why no garter on the other leg?

[Jon Simons]

So I cannot agree that it is apparent that she’s wearing a stocking. Perhaps others would like to take a look and weigh in.

Other examples of circular incisions going on here. The neck severed all the way around, and both breasts removed with circular incisions.

[Mr. Poster]

I cant see a stocking. The garter or whatever is obvious.

The hand print as well ssems evident.

But Im awful skeptical about such "enhancements". Its a bit like those daft Csi "zooming in" on photos type things.

If a detail is not visible in the original, then no enhancements can magically make evident information that wasnt in the original. Because the information wasnt there in the first place.

P

[Anna Morris]

I do not see a stocking and never did. It is hard to hold up stockings with garters especially before elastic was invented. My thoughts are that her stocking had slipped down before she took it off. She had been drinking and up all night. She may simply have left the garter in place.

Enhancements are OK unless they create artifacts. There was something like this done years ago and the accompanying explanation, IMO, was ridiculous. As I understand it, these enhancement programs work with pixels. If you go too far, the program focuses in on different patterns and creates things that are not there. I have done that with a simpler enhancement feature on my camera and on a phone.

Another possibility is Mary laid down completely dressed and the killer undressed her. I think that is very possible. I think that is an explanation for the "quantity of women's clothing" burned in the fireplace. The killer cut her clothes off and threw the garments in the fireplace. Provided the same killer killed Kate and Mary, that killer HAD to have been severely frustrated by Kate's many layers of clothing and IMO he barely escaped because he was delayed while slashing through multiple skirts, pockets, etc.

[Sam Flynn]

However, it seems equally when examining the details that no fabric or stocking is present

The "skin" to the left of the blue line seems smoother and paler than the (definite) skin to the right. To my eyes, it's as if the blue line represents the torn border of a piece of thin fabric; a piece of fabric which, moreover, appears to have some gentle kinks or "puckers" in it as the garter string tightens around it.



Image shown with and without the blue line for the sake of comparison.

[Kattrup]

The "skin" to the left of the blue line seems smoother and paler than the (definite) skin to the right. To my eyes, it's as if the blue line represents the torn border of a piece of thin fabric; a piece of fabric which, moreover, appears to have some gentle kinks or "puckers" in it as the garter string tightens

Yes, I see what you mean but in my opinion, the area to the left is skin, The are to the right is flesh. I don’t think it’s “definite” skin, rather the pattern of highlights and shadows etc make it clear to me that it’s skinless flesh.