Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MJK1 and MJK3

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Below is a selected piece from R. Harding Davis' interview with Inspector Henry Moore.

    A HORRIBLE SITUATION FOR "JACK THE RIPPER."

    "This was about the worst of the murders," said the inspector when they reached Dorset-street. "He cut the skeleton so clean of flesh that when I got here I could hardly tell whether it was a man or a woman. He hung the different parts of the body on nails and over the backs of chairs. It must have taken him an hour and a half in all. And when he was ready to go he found the door was jammed and had to make his escape through the larger of those two windows." Imagine how this man felt when he tried the door and found it was locked; that was before he thought of the window - believing that he was locked in with that bleeding skeleton and the strips of flesh that he had hung so fantastically about the room, that he had trapped himself beside his victim, and had helped to put the rope around his own neck. One would think the shock of the moment would have lasted for years to come, and kept him in hiding. But it apparently did not affect him that way, for he has killed five women since then. We knocked at the door and a woman opened it. She spoke to some-one inside, and then told "Mister Inspector" to come in. It was a bare whitewashed room with a bed in one corner. A man was in the bed, but he sat up and welcomed us good naturedly. The inspector apologized for the intrusion, but the occupant of the bed said it didn't matter, and obligingly traced out with his forefinger the streaks of blood upon the wall at his bedside. When he had done this he turned his face to the wall to go to sleep again, and the inspector ironically wished him pleasant dreams. I rather envied his nerve, and fancied waking up with those dark streaks a few inches from one's face.


    There has to be other pictures of this crime scene, I would think. Unless of course, the Inspector is telling fibs. But, why would he?

    jerryd

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
      Hello GUT,

      Am intruiged. Could you be kind enough to explain or perhaps answer a few questions I have? Thank you.
      G'day Phil

      I'll try please understand I don't claim to be an expert however once made a buck with a Camera and taught photography so have studied a bit of photographic history, so no guarantees and and happy with anyone has more accurate information.

      I presume we are talking about the old plate camera's, rather than the new fangled device that Mr Eastman released in, from memory, June 1888.

      From memory the camera was affixed to a tripod of sorts. Am I correct in saying that the legs of the tripod were of a fixed height or length? i.e. non-retractable?
      There were generally two types of tripods in use, one a fixed tripod with no height adjustment, the other was a bit like wooden crutch if that helps. Basically each leg had two pieces of timber with a third [with a slot cut in it] between them, the three were sandwiched together with wing nut(s) holding the three pieces together, by loosening the nuts you could slide the middle piece up and down to adjust the length. Total height adjustment was probably only about 1 foot (30cm)

      Also- approximately what was the weight of the camera when detached? I would imagine it to be quite heavy?
      How longs a piece of string, it really depended on construction material, plate size and lens, but yes heavy as ... I have never actually weighed one but have handled quite a few and would guess about 10-15 kg or say 20-35 lbs.

      Were camera hand held photographs a normal occurrance?
      Cameras that could be hand held were available, but where very much a rarity. This really only started to change with the introduction of film [as we knew it before digital, and some of us still use it]. Mr Eastman's Kodak company only released the first "Mass Market" camera as I said in '88. That came pre-loaded with, from memory about 100 shots and then the whole thing had to be sent back to the factory for processing. It was only in 1900 that "The Brownie (or box Brownie)" was released. Realistically photography only became available to the working man with WW I.

      Do you happen to know if it were common for a photographer to carry around with him oh- say 6 or 7 glass plates?
      Yes they would carry a number of plates and had boxes to carry them in. There were two types of plates, wet and dry. Dry only improved to the extent that it could be considered a genuine alternate to wet, in terms of quality in the 1870's. One real disadvantage of wet plate was that it needed to be processed pretty much on the spot, where as dry you could take the exposed plates with you and develop them at a later time.

      I might mention here that prints were, almost without exception, made be contact print that is the plate would be placed directly on the paper and then exposed, so the print was the same size as the plate probably 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 or 6 1/2 x 4 1/4 [I think they are the right measurements but if I'm out it's close], remember those photos you might have in a shoe box or album they are probably 5x3 or 6x4.


      Your answers would be most appreciated. Thank you

      best wishes

      Phil
      I hope that was some help, but yell f you want more and I'll actually pull some books out.
      G U T

      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jerryd View Post

        There has to be other pictures of this crime scene, I would think. Unless of course, the Inspector is telling fibs. But, why would he?

        jerryd
        Well, Inspector Moore should have known what was known by police on the day of the murder. That the door was only locked from the outside, that a latch opened the door from the inside.
        So why would he offer such an incorrect story?

        Also, the larger of the two windows was not broken, it was the smaller one, and no-one (McCarthy, Barnett, Bowyer) appeared to mention that either window slid open.
        Moore is also credited with suggesting that Mylett, Jackson, MacKenzie, Pinchin St. & Coles were also by the same hand?
        Altogether the article is at the very least untrustworthy.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Say what you will about Amanda (and many of you have), but that woman can sure hold her composure while dodging some pretty big bullets.

          Yours truly,

          Tom Wescott

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            Hi Brenda.
            Actually, I thought it was the larger body photo which showed her right femur, just by the hip there is a dark line barely visible.



            Didn't Nick point this out as part of his evidence for the use of a hatchet?
            The femur appears to be broken right at that dark line.
            I think it's a trick of the light, but regardless, I thought this was pointed out by Nick.
            Here's a 2003 casebook discussion thread about Nick Warren's article in Ripperana started by Stephen Ryder:

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Amanda Sumner View Post
              Indeed. It's good to know that we don't all see the same things when we look at them. How boring would that be....Although I think we can all agree that, that is a table in both photographs?
              Hi Amanda
              I only entered this discussion last night and I have no axe to grind with either camp.It has been said that fake or not, it doesn't change what happened in Millers Court, and I totally agree.

              What it does mean though as has been said that we again have another situation where people have readily accepted facts and pics going back to 1888 without question as being correct. Many of these readily accepted facts have now been challenged and quite rightly so.

              Having gone back and again looked at MJK 3 I feel there are questions that needed to be asked regarding this particular photo.

              The photo if genuine in my opinion shows that both the bed and the body have been moved from their positions in MJK 1. To accomodate the MJK 3 photo.

              It has been suggested that MJK 3 shows a table with flesh on it. That doesn't appear to be the case it looks like the bed showing a pillow and duvet. The pillow looks in poor shape with the insides of the pillow coming out. Also notice the distinct lack of blood on both pillow and bed.

              Bond describes the mattress and the pillow being saturated with blood

              Now MJK 1 is a genuine photo, of that there is no doubt and is the type of crime scene photo you would have expected to have been taken with the equipment available in 1888.

              There are three important questions that arise from that photo.

              1. What was the purpose of taking MJK 3 ?

              2. Whats does MJK 3 tell anyone that MJK 1 doesnt ? It is not a true crime
              scene photo as is stands, because if genuine then the body and the bed
              have been moved from their original positions. The photo MJK 3 appears
              to have been taken from where the bed originally was.

              Just because MJK 3 came from a police file that doesn't make it genuine and those who suggest it does should no better than to suggest that it does without provenance. Due to the passage of time and the absence of real authentic provenance there is no way this photo will be conclusively be proved to be genuine or a fake.

              However based on what MJK 3 shows and the real evidence from Millers Court I am sure researchers will be able to make their own minds up, without the need to rip each others throats out.

              Comment


              • Again Trevor you are stating the obvious-what do you think we have we all been discussing for the last million pages?

                I think you need to tailor your counterpoints to specific people. No one is saying the same thing on this thread.

                Amanda and others have said that they feel their anatomical knowledge puts them at an advantage when it comes to deciding if there is a body on display in MJK3. Nick Warren, a surgeon, seems to think MJK3 showed anatomical landmarks he could recognise on the left thigh he believed was the focus of MJK3 (going by the snippet from Ripperana posted by Stephen Ryder in 2003).

                Comment


                • Hi GUT, I don't claim to be an expert on anything, despite the snidey comments made by Simon but I do read up when discussing topics, if I can, and I read there was a hand held 'detective' camera patented c 1883 and discussed in photography manuals as it was becoming popular c 1886-88. That produced quarter plate size pictures 3.5 x 4.5 inches. Do you think MJK3 measures up to that size ratio-wise?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    Just because MJK 3 came from a police file that doesn't make it genuine and those who suggest it does should no better than to suggest that it does without provenance. Due to the passage of time and the absence of real authentic provenance there is no way this photo will be conclusively be proved to be genuine or a fake.

                    However based on what MJK 3 shows and the real evidence from Millers Court I am sure researchers will be able to make their own minds up, without the need to rip each others throats out.
                    Those who believe the photo is fake/mock up have no interest in providence. They jusy want people to agree with them, just read their posts.

                    Rob

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                      Again Trevor you are stating the obvious-what do you think we have we all been discussing for the last million pages?

                      I think you need to tailor your counterpoints to specific people. No one is saying the same thing on this thread.

                      Amanda and others have said that they feel their anatomical knowledge puts them at an advantage when it comes to deciding if there is a body on display in MJK3. Nick Warren, a surgeon, seems to think MJK3 showed anatomical landmarks he could recognise on the left thigh he believed was the focus of MJK3 (going by the snippet from Ripperana posted by Stephen Ryder in 2003).
                      I have simply being giving my view on all of this I realize that there there are two separate camps of which I am in neither. But I hope my input will help some see it from a different perspective.

                      Why do you keep going on about the injuries these are not in dispute are they. In my post I highlighted certain possible flaws with the photo which you seem to want to ignore. I hope you are not cherry picking again

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                        Those who believe the photo is fake/mock up have no interest in providence. They jusy want people to agree with them, just read their posts.

                        Rob
                        I am sure that isn't the case

                        As there is no provenance you pays you money and you takes you choice, and the arguments will go on and on

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                          Hi GUT, I don't claim to be an expert on anything, despite the snidey comments made by Simon but I do read up when discussing topics, if I can, and I read there was a hand held 'detective' camera patented c 1883 and discussed in photography manuals as it was becoming popular c 1886-88. That produced quarter plate size pictures 3.5 x 4.5 inches. Do you think MJK3 measures up to that size ratio-wise?
                          G'day Debra

                          As I said earlier I don't claim to be an expert either, but while the detective camera and similar were around they were still pretty darn rare and because of the need to develop your own plates remained largely in the hands of professionals [which doesn't impact on the possibility of a fake].

                          I also have to say I don't really understand how hand held or "traditional" [if I can use that word] camera makes any difference to the genuineness or otherwise of MJK3, whilst most photographerd has an assistant a photographer could easily [comparatively speaking] get by without one if necessary even the the field. If it was a fake we also don't know that it wasn't shot in a studio.

                          I don't know the dimensions of the original MJK 3 or 1 for that matter so it's really hard to say, as I said earlier enlargements were all so very rare usually contact prints were made.
                          G U T

                          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            I have simply being giving my view on all of this I realize that there there are two separate camps of which I am in neither. But I hope my input will help some see it from a different perspective.

                            Why do you keep going on about the injuries these are not in dispute are they. In my post I highlighted certain possible flaws with the photo which you seem to want to ignore. I hope you are not cherry picking again
                            Yes, but you have just highlighted the same issues we have been trying to discuss all along. This was all established at the beginning of the thread.

                            Comment


                            • For those who are interested

                              One of two camera's used by the Metropolitan Police in 1901, and its log book.

                              Monty
                              Attached Files
                              Monty

                              https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                              Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                              http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                              Comment


                              • Thanks for posting that Monty I was hoping to find something similar to post tonight, though I'll still look for one on a 'pod.
                                G U T

                                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X