black-eye-photo | Justice for Twiggy

PHOTO EVIDENCE?

In late January of 2023, yet again a new claim was added to Jessicka's accusations. This time with "photo evidence." Let's take a look. Not only is it weird to start with, that these allegations keep being added to despite it being over five years since they were made public and Jeordie not at least reportedly doing much of anything publicly since, but also there's a lot of stuff that's off about this once again.

So here's the tweet, sorry the screenshot I was sent of it cuts it to pieces but you get the point:

So, it's stated that this photo was taken after Jeordie has beaten her, and that she had been "made to pose" for a photo to send to her family, and that this pose was purposefully so that her black eye can't be seen.

Multiple issues.

First. Let's look at their facial expressions and general appearances.

Jeordie's eyes are closed and he seems to be in the middle of saying something, or doing a quick disoriented laugh. The kind you'd do if there was a sudden flash you weren't expecting? You can see from the harsh shadows that this photo has been taken with a flash. It seems that whoever took the photo took him by surprise and the camera was close to his face. His hand is lifted up in a gesture almost like he's instinctively lifted his hand in reaction to the bright light? He is not posing. If this photo was staged for a purpose, like some sort of a "Everything is okay I'm definitely not being violent I swear" photo, he would be posing wouldn't he?

Then Jessicka. That is a very unnatural position to be in. That is not... That is not hiding a black eye, come on. A black eye as a result from a punch to the face, would have bruising and swelling that extends down from the eye, over the cheekbone or towards the nose. What's going on there is eyeliner under the eye. If Jeordie had "brutally beaten" her, it would most likely not be something that would only show under the eyebrow in a way that could be hidden with this kind of an angle. The angle of her face actually brings forward the area below the eye, which would be bruised and it's not.

If this was really a "staged" photo in which the purpose was to hide a black eye with an angle like this, maybe a way more natural pose where she doesn't look possessed would do much better? A photo taken from the side in such a way that the bridge of the nose is in the way?

Actually the expression and pose she has looks more like some sort of a "spooky scowl" expression that people would jokingly do in photos. Like, you've seen The Exorcist right? The girl's eyes are all white in a scene. Many times I've seen people try for that effect by rolling their eyes up as far as they can go, then leaning forward so that the eyebrow makes up for not being able to fully hide the irises. Maybe something close would be what apparently is known as "the Kubrick stare"

It was not unusual of her to do something like that in photos around the time.

What the "bruise hiding" photo looks like though is something like a scenario like this: A third person is fiddling with a camera while Jeordie is talking about something. Jessicka notices the camera and decides to do a "spooky" pose behind Jeordie, who's unaware that a photo is about to be taken. Doesn't it?

Then, another issue is the cameras they had back then. I can see from Jeordie's hair look that at it's earliest this photo would be 1995. Cameras in the mid 90's were film cameras with no digital screen. There was a small lens through which the photographer would look. And you wouldn't know what the finished photo would look like until after you went to develop it. There would probably be multiple tries? This looks like a quick snap taken randomly, not a planned photo.

And also if the purpose was to hide a bruise, why wouldn't they take a photo from a longer distance away without a flash? In daylight?

Why didn't Jeordie just take a photo of Jessicka himself? The "made me pose" explanation is strange also considering that not only is Jeordie in the photo with his eyes closed, he isn't facing Jessicka either so he can't see what she looks like. Wouldn't he be anxious to see what kind of a pose she's in, considering the limitations of technology I mentioned above.

The purpose also suggests that this was to hide something or give a more positive impression of the relationship. Then why is a 3rd person taking the photo? Wouldn't this person question what's going on?

Some understood this in a way first that this was supposed to be a selfie. Jessicka didn't say that, but it's unclear if that was meant. That's actually pretty impossible though:

Jeordie is right handed and his right hand is visible in the photo. So he'd take a photo of himself, not seeing himself or Jessicka or even if the camera is pointing in a reasonable direction, lol, with his left hand, with a bulky camera. I don't think so.

Yet another thing is when and where was this photo taken? I said that by Jeordie's hair and the fact that he's shaving his eyebrows, this is around 1995 which would be after all the things alleged in Jessicka's 2017 statement. In the 2017 statement Jessicka says that she moved out of their shared apartment somewhere before or during the fall 1994 tour that Jeordie went on with Marilyn Manson to open for Nine Inch Nails.

This photo seems to be taken at some sort of an apartment. If you look closely, there seems to be a shiny curtain of some sort and a window. But Jessicka says she had at this point moved away from their shared apartment months ago. The statement of 2017 kind of leaves the impression that the relationship ended in fall 1994 after which she tried her best to avoid him but then we have a photo of her doing what seems to be a spooky pose around him after the alleged events?

Where did Jeordie "brutally beat her" without being noticed or interrupted, intervened with? A friend's house? They didn't live or tour together at this point anymore.

"Send to family" too, it would take time to first go and develop the photo and then mail it. From where to where? Were they in Ft Lauderdale mailing a photo to family that's also in Ft Lauderdale?. This is a bit "camera phone era" of a claim?

Then if we go back to the beginning of her allegations... What she said in 2015:

In 2015, while playing some reunion shows with the original line up of Jack Off Jill, Alternative Press Magazine asked me in an interview “What would older, wiser Jessicka tell her wilder, 19-year-old self?” My reply was:

“Don't allow anybody—especially your current boyfriend—to verbally ridicule you, psychically abuse and rape you, fat-shame you, break your spirit, make you second-guess yourself and ultimately steal your identity. Don't worry: He’ll get trapped in the green dress he stole. It becomes his curse rather than a gift, trust me."

There is no mention of physical abuse or being beaten up. Well, there is the word "psychical" but I'd take that to mean "psychological". This is an excerpt from an interview someone else wrote based on things she was saying, there is a big difference in the pronounciation of "physical" and "psychical". That and the emphasis is in words that point to emotional abuse; verbal ridicule, making you second guess yourself.

If you were to look back to an abusive relationship, what would you remember most clearly and think as important to say? I would guess physical violence. Emotional violence is something much harder to explain and even detect and understand, whereas a physical hit is much simpler. There's multiple examples of emotional abuse in this statement but not a single mention of a beating, being hit? It seems that the instances of physical violence were and are added to the story as time goes on, when in comparison if I look back to my personal experiences of toxic people, physical violence is on top of the pile in the mind whereas emotional and manipulative behavior is something that I'd realize later on over time.

And we're still talking about a story that allegedly happened in the early-mid 90's, there's been decades to think things through too.

Then there's also the way she has used photos in a misleading way before. An example from a while back:

Here's her using a photo of herself seemingly drenched in blood and looking helpless in context to discussion of the allegations and people questioning the story.

Yes, she states in both the tweet and the photo included that this photo is from 2015 from after the last JOJ concert. She's washing off fake blood in the shower and her hand is pressed against glass, she seems to be emotional over the show.

But these things are last. To an observer, what comes first is a mental image of someone whose life is in danger, someone who's reaching with her hand in self defense? The mental image stays.

So... Yeah I don't think that was much of "photo evidence" there.

March 2023 update: More photo evidence! So once this claim of there being existing photo evidence was brought up, of course there supposedly is even more. This one just "isn't public" and it's brought up by an account that is pretty obviously Jessicka writing about herself in the third person, as if it's not her, saying she's seen a photo.

So the publicly posted photos are stuff like the "hiding a black eye" photo and then conveniently there's all this "not public" shocking evidence "seen by the people" and posted "by an admin".

You know what is suspicious in this. The defensive way it's stated. This claim is stated in a way that is already responding to questions of it's authenticity by pointing out weird things, insisting it's true, and stating the obvious.

The "people who have examined it" and the use of the medical term "contusion" for bruise? Like, just to sound totally legit. Who examined it and for what purpose? Why was there several people "examining" it?

And I'm not sure if you can tell from a bruise where it came from so specifically like that? You know? You can probably tell if the force comes from a blunt or sharp object but more specific like that might be hard to tell especially from a photo as opposed to seeing that in real life. It'd more likely be, had there actually been some sort of an "examination" to a photo of a bruise, something like "a bruise like this would match the alleged story", not "I can tell from the bruise it's totally from so and so." ? Not a forensic scientist though.

Maybe the "people examining it" are "so sure" and relevant to add to the story because the person tweeting this knows that a photo of a bruise would not prove that a specific thing was the source of the impact, only that there was a bruise. I could show a photo of myself with a black eye for example, and you'd have no idea what hit me if I didn't tell you. Here it's being stated so that the people "examining" could tell "obviously" from seeing that photo. Riigghhtt.

Then it's stating the obvious. Of course a photo from 1994 is a hard copy. Of course you can't photoshop a hard copy. The fact that the option of it even being photoshopped in this context comes up is strange? Once again would a friend who believes her even be looking at such a photo with that sort of an option in their mind. I have never seen anyone suggest she'd photoshopped injuries in the first place, - because she's never posted photos of her injuries. This being stated without anyone asking is so telling.

So "the bruise was totally real it was a contusion it has been authenticated by professionals for real and also the photo isn't photoshopped I swear it can't be the photo totally exists the people who have seen it have also seen it the photo is legit and the thing photographed too is totally legit."

So basically 90% of this tweet is trust me bro. You know, to make up for how we can't see such a photo. And what was said above about how originally there was no mention of physical abuse to start with also stands in relation to this claim.