MJK1 and MJK3

[Debra A]

If memory serves I think Don Rumbelow stated that the killer had used an axe on Mary Jane's thigh, though I'm unsure as to the basis on which Don would have made such a claim.

With regard to the positioning of the body, I feel that a certain context has been missing from this thread. The police had come in for severe criticism with respect to their handling of the Ripper investigation. One newspaper, though I don't recall which, levelled accusations of incompetence because of a failure to utilize photography as part of the investigation. Then two things happened. Anderson returned to duty and sought to set the investigation on a more professional footing, and the Ripper killed indoors, thus providing conditions which were much more conducive to gathering photographic evidence.

Various sources inform us that many photographs were taken at the Miller’s Court crime scene. Several external photographs were taken before one of the windows was removed (some say opened) to facilitate shots of the room’s interior. When finally the room was entered proper more photographs were taken.

The point here is that very few of these images have survived. Because of this some appear to assume that MJK3 was the only photograph taken from the partition side of the bed, and that it was taken to preserve a permanent record of the crime scene. This, I believe, is a mistake. The photographs that have been lost to us almost certainly included a record of an undisturbed crime scene. MJK3 was probably never intended to be part of such. Hence investigators had no qualms about moving the bed and table, maybe even the body itself, in order to secure an image from the partition wall.

Here it should be remembered that Anderson specifically requested that Bond attend the crime scene. Although Anderson’s reasoning seems to have eluded some posters, this was an attempt to resolve what had been a contradictory and therefore frustrating debate concerning the killer’s medical knowledge and expertise.

With this in mind many of the issues surrounding MJK3 fall neatly into place. This was not a crime scene photograph in the strictest sense of the term. Rather, it was one in a series of images which recorded the injuries inflicted upon Mary Kelly for the purpose of determining whether the Ripper was medically skilled or unskilled. Look at the photograph in this context and it begins to make sense. View it from the perspective of a traditional crime scene photograph and it doesn’t. So, yes, the bed has clearly been moved. Possibly the table too. It’s also possible that the bedding closest to the partition was rearranged in order to prevent it from falling on to the floor as the bed was pulled away from the wall. But this was of little consequence if investigators had already photographed an undisturbed crime scene and wished to preserve a visual record of the injuries.

Like I said: it’s about context.

Thanks Garry. I agree. As I said to Richard; I have no problem with the body being moved in between shots. I always felt the focus was on the mutilations but didn't quite comprehend why exactly until you mentioned that it was to determine surgical skill. That makes a lot of sense.
I wasn't sure about how many photographs would have been taken either but I know that during my cherry picking for references to the organ removal that several newspapers reported that the doctors ordered photographs of the mutilations.

[Hunter]

Gary, that's exactly why that photo was taken in my opinion too. The way the abdominal flaps were removed would have been reason enough.

[Amanda Sumner]

If an anatomist who performs human dissections told me they couldn't identify anything anatomical then I would pay attention.

I agree. A anatomist would certainly resolve some issues, because I would love to know what I'm looking at.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Amanda,

Any luck yet in identifying the anatomical origins of the black box with the button sitting directly below the "split femur"?

Regards,

Simon

[Rob Clack]

Hi Amanda,

Any luck yet in identifying the anatomical origins of the black box with the button sitting directly below the "split femur"?

Regards,

Simon

It's from the missing Malaysian air plane.

Rob

[Amanda Sumner]

Garry Wroe,

We have no conclusive evidence how many photographs were taken at the scene. We do know, however, that Macnaghten wrote that one photograph was taken of Mary. One. He did not say several, and as he had the photographs at one time in his possession, one would expect him to know. Newspapers had to get their information from other sources, they were kept away from the scene.
Even if several photographs were taken of the injuries one would still expect some similarity between them.
However your suggestion is a good one and, if we could prove that this is a genuine photograph then clearly context is the issue here, if, indeed, it was part of a series.
I do not believe it was, there are too many unanswered questions, but I do agree that had they taken several shots of the injuries then not moving objects would be a small consideration.
I am surprised you cannot see the woven cloth hanging down from the table. In the four photographs sent by Richard to Phil, a few posts back, clearly shows a pattern behind the hand.
One thing that we can agree on, I think, is that this photograph is indeed a puzzle.

[Amanda Sumner]

Hi Amanda,

Any luck yet in identifying the anatomical origins of the black box with the button sitting directly below the "split femur"?

Regards,

Simon

No, but someone has suggested it to be a garter or suspender clip. I think, though, comparing it to the size of the hand, it is too big for that.

Have you any suggestions ?

[Monty]

Initially, photos were taken of dead bodies purely for identification purposes, this due to the rapid decomposition of bodies during this period.

However, police pioneer Alphonse Bertillon started to take photos of crime scenes, both to preserve the scene, and to be used in any subsequent trial. Therefore whilst I agree with Gary, I would also like to point out that Jons assumption that other photos would have been taken is valid, mainly for presentation of the body in situ, and the crime scene itself.

To me this photo would have been one of a set, used to provide a preserved visual of the scene.

Incidentally, the French and British police often exchanged ideas on good practice, and would send officers to each others HQs in order to see that practice in effect. The sudden use of a camera in Dorset St explains a lot, and the appearance of MJK1 in the French media is telling of that liaison.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Amanda,

No, not really, but working by rule of [right] thumb I reckon it to be about 2 x 1.5 inches, roughly the dimensions of a matchbox.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Garry Wroe,

We have no conclusive evidence how many photographs were taken at the scene. We do know, however, that Macnaghten wrote that one photograph was taken of Mary. One. He did not say several, and as he had the photographs at one time in his possession, one would expect him to know. Newspapers had to get their information from other sources, they were kept away from the scene.
Even if several photographs were taken of the injuries one would still expect some similarity between them.
However your suggestion is a good one and, if we could prove that this is a genuine photograph then clearly context is the issue here, if, indeed, it was part of a series.
I do not believe it was, there are too many unanswered questions, but I do agree that had they taken several shots of the injuries then not moving objects would be a small consideration.
I am surprised you cannot see the woven cloth hanging down from the table. In the four photographs sent by Richard to Phil, a few posts back, clearly shows a pattern behind the hand.
One thing that we can agree on, I think, is that this photograph is indeed a puzzle.

We know more than one photo was taken at Millers Court.

Monty

[Debra A]

No, but someone has suggested it to be a garter or suspender clip. I think, though, comparing it to the size of the hand, it is too big for that.

Have you any suggestions ?

let me guess...remote camera button?

[Amanda Sumner]

We know more than one photo was taken at Millers Court.

Monty

We don't know for a fact that more than one was taken of Mary, herself.

[richardh]

What's that '4' doing at the bottom right of MKJ3 ?

We don't know for a fact that more than one was taken of Mary, herself.

[Phil Carter]

Initially, photos were taken of dead bodies purely for identification purposes, this due to the rapid decomposition of bodies during this period.

However, police pioneer Alphonse Bertillon started to take photos of crime scenes, both to preserve the scene, and to be used in any subsequent trial. Therefore whilst I agree with Gary, I would also like to point out that Jons assumption that other photos would have been taken is valid, mainly for presentation of the body in situ, and the crime scene itself.

To me this photo would have been one of a set, used to provide a preserved visual of the scene.

Incidentally, the French and British police often exchanged ideas on good practice, and would send officers to each others HQs in order to see that practice in effect. The sudden use of a camera in Dorset St explains a lot, and the appearance of MJK1 in the French media is telling of that liaison.

Monty

Hello Monty,


Am I correct in reading this post to mean you have evidence to show that there were, with certainty, French Officers around Millers Court? Woiuld you mind sharing this direct evidence with us? (We know that members of the Irish Constabulary were hanging around Millers Court...but French?

Also, it is all very well to believe that this photo was one of a set, which you are very entitled to and fair enough, but based on the Bertillion Crime Scene photographic recovery process, exactly what evidence have you that

a) it IS one of a set
b) it IS of a crime scene a la Bertillion

No, am not trying to extract the urine either. Just would like, quite respectfully, dead straight answers¨if that is possible?

Fair enough if it is just a suggestion too. But to introduce the thought without explaining a known detail referring TO Millers Court is spreading the jam a little thick on the toast?... Just how I see and read it. No offence intended here at all.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

What's that '4' doing at the bottom right of MKJ3 ?

Hello Richardh,

It has been suggested, or guesstimated, that this refers to one of a set of Kelly photos.

The obvious answer is that MJK 1 or MJK2 have no corner number.

So the answer is...not known at present.


best regards

Phil