MJK1 and MJK3

[Debra A]

His reply clearly suggests that there is nothing to see

Trevor,to clarify,I just don't understand why you sent him a picture that Brenda did with an outline of a 'split femur'. The split femur idea was Nick Warren's from 1996 and not many people seemed to agree at the time or are suggesting it means anything now.
No matter, I am thankful you asked your pathologist because he clearly finds what is depicted as convincing in terms of being human remains.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

What you stated about Millen is true, and here's the page in question from his album.



But to blithely state that "obviously Millen took (borrowed) this one with him when he retired," presumably from the black museum, is just a convenient assumption on your part and no proof or demonstration of MJK3's provenance—defined in my dictionary as "the beginning of something's existence; something's origin."

Stamping your feet and insisting MJK3 is an actual photograph of the carnage in Room 13—when it most patently isn't—will not get us any closer to the truth about the Whitechapel murders.

Regards,

Simon

[jmenges]

Hi Simon,

Quoting myself 50 pages ago...

Obviously the photo existed before the album with the other photos was put together, unless its spot in the album once had a different photo and the fake photo replaced it later. Chicken/Egg and all of that. And, either this album is unique as the only one of a few albums said to have existed to contain this "prank", or all of the albums had a print of this photo in it and no one ever said "Hey, this one photo is new to me, and I've seen all of the others. Whats going on here?"

Do you believe the spot now taken in the album page above once contained a different photo? Or was the album originally put together with the prank MJK3 in that location?

JM

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Given the huge difference in size between the two photographs I think your idea that the page may have once contained a different shot is entirely feasible.

But please don't ask me which one. I have no idea.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

All attempts to show that MJK3 is anything other than what it appears to be have predictably failed miserably.
A more bizarre question is why raise the issue in the first place.

[jmenges]

In case there's someone reading who is new to these album pages, here's how the other's are presented, as published in Shirley Harrison's book.





JM

[Stewart P Evans]

Provenance

Any person who collects items of value, antiques, ephemera, etc., etc., knows exactly what is meant by provenance in the sense we speak of here.

It is defined in the New Oxford Dictionary of English as - 'noun the place of origin or earliest known history of something' and as 'a record of ownership of a work of art or an antique, used as a guide to authenticity or quality: the manuscript has a distinguished provenance.'

Ergo there are degrees of quality of provenance ranging from poor to excellent.

[Stewart P Evans]

Photographs

Hi Stewart,
...
But to blithely state that "obviously Millen took (borrowed) this one with him when he retired," presumably from the black museum, is just a convenient assumption on your part and no proof or demonstration of MJK3's provenance—defined in my dictionary as "the beginning of something's existence; something's origin."
Stamping your feet and insisting MJK3 is an actual photograph of the carnage in Room 13—when it most patently isn't—will not get us any closer to the truth about the Whitechapel murders.
Regards,
Simon

The simple fact is that the album was borrowed by Millen from New Scotland Yard. There is no assumption about it.

Said album was one of a few similar albums, all of which contain photographs of varying sizes. The disputed photograph is CDV size, the same as the other victim photographs of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes in the album, whilst the larger one is the only one of that size, albeit a standard sized photograph for a Victorian cabinet photograph. Indeed, one of the Eddowes photographs may be seen, in original form, in both sizes.

The album was part of a collection of albums all of which were at New Scotland Yard from the early 20th century. I have seen, handled, and photographed both originals and there is nothing suspicious about either of them. They are clearly showing the same body from opposite sides.

The photographs were first used in Shirley Harrison's 'Diary' book, as has been stated. I gave up stamping my feet years ago when I found it to be futile after trying to explain facts to conspiracy theorists like you.

[jmenges]

The disputed photograph is CDV size, the same as the other victim photographs of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes in the album, whilst the larger one is the only one of that size, albeit a standard sized photograph for a Victorian cabinet photograph.

Thanks for that information, it confirms what I was thinking about the size being uniform with the exception of the larger MJK, but only having Harrison's book as a reference, I couldn't be sure.

JM

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

If MJK1 is Cabinet size [8" x 6"] and MJK3 is Carte De Visite size [3.5" x 2.25"], this suggests the two photographs were taken with different cameras.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Size

Hi Stewart,
If MJK1 is Cabinet size [8" x 6"] and MJK3 is Carte De Visite size [3.5" x 2.25"], this suggests the two photographs were taken with different cameras.
Regards,
Simon

I'm not quite sure where you are getting your size for a cabinet photograph from.

I have several Victorian photographs in my collection, several of which are CDV sized. The Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and smaller Kelly photographs, from the album, are all CDV size. The larger full scene shot of Kelly on the bed is, as far as I can recall 5.75" x 4".

I have a CDV of James Berry taken in 1885 and in his letter he talks of having a cabinet struck of himself. The only larger photograph of Berry I have seen is of a similar size, i.e. 5.75" x 4".

I am no expert on Victorian photography but I am assuming, from what you say, that these photographs were contact prints, indicating different cameras being used. Or could different sized film plates be used on the same camera? Also, could they print different sized photographs from the same sized neg?

What I can say for sure is that I have seen several photographs of the same vintage the same size as 'MJK 1'.

[Stewart P Evans]

PS

PS - My 1887 English dictionary merely defines 'cabinet-picture' as 'a small carefully finished picture', and gives no size. It is also interesting to note that an original 1888 print of the exterior shot of Miller's Court I have seen is also of larger size.

[jmenges]

I think (though I'm no expert) that the same camera can be used for both. It's the size difference of the negative on the plate that would differ. The Cabinet card requires more space on the plate, which leads to fewer exposures on a single plate. (2 exposures per plate as compared to 12 for a CDV). So same camera, same plate, fewer exposures to fit on a single plate if you are intending to print cabinet cards.

JM

[Stewart P Evans]

Harrison Book

Looking at the album page shown in the Harrison book the two shots side by side appear to be more consistent with the measurement I have given.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

I'll happily accept your word for use of the same camera, but why different formats between shots? Why the relatively small carte de visite format for MJK3?

A half-plate/2 CDV adapter was described in The Photogram, February 1900.

Regards,

Simon