MJK1 and MJK3

[Observer]

How do you know he was aware that other photographs had been taken of the crime scene? He didn't take office until June 1889, the photo's could have been scattered by then.

[Phil Carter]

Observer...you know better than to start relying on newspaper stories as you know they are regarded in this field as unreliable.

Instead of giving Amanda the coppers third degree interogation it might be a better idea to remember Amanda by her own admittance is pretty new in this field and hasnt been studying ij for donkeys years and doesnt posess a half lifetime of accrude knowledge. Cut the lady some slack eg? Thanks :-)

Phil

[Phil Carter]

How do you know he was aware that other photographs had been taken of the crime scene? He didn't take office until June 1889, the photo's could have been scattered by then.

Supposition.

I take MM'S written word for it.

This isnt a game Observer to see how you can catch people out. If so youve been busted.

Try someone else to get your kicks
Oh- and try answering questions instead of using deflectio with questions instead
Phil

[Wickerman]

There are several press accounts mentioning the taking of photographs in Millers Court, yet nowhere is a specific number given, and why would there be, who really cared.
The constables had more important duties to contend with than counting the number of photographs taken.

If the photographer had been interviewed then we might expect to find a specific number mentioned, as we do not then it is likely he was either never asked, or never interviewed.

Why would anyone care at the time exactly how many photos were taken?

[Phil Carter]

Why would anyone care at the time exactly how many photos were taken?

Hello Jon,

Fair point- I concede to it- however we have been told that the reason for CSP had started to change- not just for ID purposes- so in that sense IF that were the case then a record might have been kept.

But again...no provenance. We cant keep avoiding this problem. I dont like it either but it hangs over this whole photo

Phil

[Observer]

Observer...you know better than to start relying on newspaper stories as you know they are regarded in this field as unreliable.

Instead of giving Amanda the coppers third degree interogation it might be a better idea to remember Amanda by her own admittance is pretty new in this field and hasnt been studying ij for donkeys years and doesnt posess a half lifetime of accrude knowledge. Cut the lady some slack eg? Thanks :-)

Phil

Indeed they are, but as I've already stated the alternative to believing the report is to assume it's a down right lie.The photographer was at the scene for several hours. What had the reporter to gain by informing us that several images were taken of Mary Kelly's remains? .The newspapers are a minefield, I'd agree, I'd say this particular piece of information though is based on truth.

As for Amanda, I'd say she's doing ok. I'd also say she knows as much about the case as I do. Perhaps you're right though, time to cut her some slack.

Observer

[Observer]

Supposition.

I take MM'S written word for it.

This isnt a game Observer to see how you can catch people out. If so youve been busted.

Try someone else to get your kicks
Oh- and try answering questions instead of using deflectio with questions instead
Phil

Sound supposition.

And it's high time you got off your high horse. It's not a question of getting my kicks either, far from it, nor is it a question of trying to catch people out, that is not my aim. Deflectico? If I had a pound for every question you'd side-stepped in this Forum I'd be a wealthy man. So cut the crap, and mind your own business.

[Phil Carter]

It's not a question of getting my kicks either, far from it, nor is it a question of trying to catch people out, that is not my aim.

Observer- am pleased to be corrected. Thank you for your explanation and my apologies for my supposition.

Phil

[Observer]

If the photographer had been interviewed then we might expect to find a specific number mentioned, as we do not then it is likely he was either never asked, or never interviewed.

Why would that be? Not specifying the exact number of images he took rules out his being interviewed by a reporter? I'll ask you the same question. Where do you imagine the reports of more than one image of Mary Kelly's remains emanate from? Or do you believe the reporter made the story up?

[Observer]

Observer- am pleased to be corrected. Thank you for your explanation and my apologies for my supposition.

Phil

I suppose I'll thank you for that.

Observer

[Phil Carter]

Indeed they are, but as I've already stated the alternative to believing the report is to assume it's a down right lie.The photographer was at the scene for several hours. What had the reporter to gain by informing us that several images were taken of Mary Kelly's remains? .The newspapers are a minefield, I'd agree, I'd say this particular piece of information though is based on truth.

As for Amanda, I'd say she's doing ok. I'd also say she knows as much about the case as I do. Perhaps you're right though, time to cut her some slack.

Observer

Observer.

Ok- lets just try to put this newspaper quote business into perspective shall we?
Hundreds and hundreds of reports about this murder- how many newspapers reported an unknown quantity of photographs? How many didnt report a photographer there at all? The latter is unknown to me.

Thank you for listening re Amanda. your considerations help us all to remember things we let slip- all of us

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

A Further Comment

The post mortem report, proper, would have been written by the police surgeon in charge, Dr. Phillips, and has not, apparently, survived.
For an example of a proper post mortem report (which has survived) we merely have to look at Dr. Phillips' comprehensive report on the examination of the body of Alice McKenzie dated July 22nd 1889 (MEPO 3/140 ff. 263-271). This is a proper post mortem report which admirably demonstrates the fact that the seven pages of notes credited to Bond (MEPO 3/3153) are merely that - notes.

The last two posts I made were a bit hurried as I was having problems and totally lost my original post when trying to send it.

To further enlarge on this I should like to add that it should be noted that on the fourth page of the Bond notes appears a heading 'Postmortem Examination.' This has led me to believe that the last four pages of notes were written after the autopsy had been carried out and which we know was witnessed by Bond. Thus it contains further details of the wounds and internal injuries. But it is still not as detailed as the proper PM report would have been.

In looking at the McKenzie report it will be seen that every aspect of the autopsy is itemized and a detailed examination report given. And we see that even the brain was taken out and examined as would be expected in the proper autopsy.

Thus we see that the seven pages of notes by Bond are not the actual post mortem report, and this should be remembered. We are, however, fortunate indeed that Bond's notes survived as in the absence of the full post mortem examination report they are all we have and their importance was recognized and acknowledged at the time they were returned at the centenary.

[Stewart P Evans]

Photographs

Apropos of the photographs I thought I should make the following observations, having seen and examined the originals of the main surviving images, including one of the Kelly scene which has never been made public.

Photography was still in its relatively early days and crime scene examination was primitive by any modern standard. Thus things such as continuity, the importance of not moving anything and evidential relevance were not recognized. This persisted until the 20th century when crime scene preservation and analysis made important advances. It has to be noted that the photographers were not police officers and would have no idea of the true relevance of what they were photographing and its significance.

It was common for Victorian photographers to brush and 'tart up' the images they took, especially when it was for publication. So if the photographer felt that his work was out of focus in certain areas, or not as clear as he wished it to be, he would certainly resort to touching up. Indeed, as magnesium flare was required for this interior work I have no doubt that some of the images taken would have been unusable.

Too much is being read into the examination of these photographs and I have no doubt, from all the material I have seen, and documentation read, that the two shots from either side of the bed are perfectly genuine, apart from the touching in that appears to have been done on parts of the photograph taken from the partition side of the bed.

I have more to do than follow dubious arguments and shouldn't be here, so I shall let those who enjoy interminable debate continue.

[Stewart P Evans]

By the way...

By the way, it is amazing to see the hatchet myth still running despite the fact it was knocked on the head years ago.

[Stewart P Evans]

Also...

Also it should be noted that although the main Kelly crime scene photograph (referred to as MJK 1) is called 'the original' and is talked of as if there was only the one copy, we know that several prints were struck off the original negative of this shot.

We also know that Macnaghten had a copy, Anderson had a copy, the City Police had a copy, the French were sent a copy and a further copy made it to the Crime Museum albums. Further we also know that an original was given by Macnaghten to George R Sims, which original stayed in Sims' collection.

Thus there was never a single original print to go missing.