Any forged photos connected to JtR?!

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

All right, now something more serious;

Has there ever been forged photos of the victims or some suspects during the years?!

All the best
Jukka

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jukka,

I maintain that MJK3 is a fake... and have grave doubts about other photo's as well.

best wishes

Phil

[Pontius2000]

Hello Jukka,

I maintain that MJK3 is a fake... and have grave doubts about other photo's as well.

best wishes

Phil

why do you believe it is a fake?

I have a suspicion that it is a reverse negative, but don't know if that was even possible with cameras of the time.

[Uncle Jack]

Haven't you got another thread on this same topic?

[Natalie Severn]

Hello you all!

All right, now something more serious;

Has there ever been forged photos of the victims or some suspects during the years?!

All the best
Jukka

I "suspect" the picture alleged to have been taken in 1910 of the Duke of Clarence,aged 46,eighteen years after his official death in 1892 !This claim can be found in Melvyn Fairclough"s book entitled "The Ripper and the Royals",a book that gave rise to further suspicions about the Duke of Clarence as well as Sickert the artist.
The book contains a picture of a purse alleged in the book to have been given to Alice Crook by the Duke of Clarence and a photo alleged to be of Walter Sickert"s scarf and further alleged to have "inspired" the Camden Town Murder Series!
There are additionally photos of a crossword supposed to contain a "hidden
Masonic message".Also a photo alleged to have been taken of Inspector Abberline"s Diary and notes on Freemasonry and a photo supposedly of a "300 year old"[!] piece of paper alleged to have been found in Mary Kelly"s room.
This is just one author"s "claimed" JtR photos and there are more in the book.Films were also made that tend to support the book"s claims.

Then there were Stephen Knight"s "embroideries" in his book "Jack the Ripper The Final Solution" where pictures of Sickert"s paintings are "analysed" and alleged to contain hidden messages-as well as pictures alleged to have been of the house were Alice Crook met the Duke of Clarence in Cleveland Street ,which was,I believe,also proved to have been a false claim!
Perhaps the most famous recent deceptions though are those that surround the "Maybrick Diaries" and the pictures taken supporting the diary as authentic. Not so much photos as depictions of Maybrick"s whole way of life,with him supposedly journeying into in the East End from Liverpool at regular times to murder each of the victims -etc etc!

[DVV]

Hi Norma, Jukka,

Fairclough's book... I have also some doubts re Toppy's pic.
As pointed out by Sam, it seems to belong to the 40's, or 50's...

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

Yes,I agree David. Alongside so many others suspicious claims in the book it does make you wonder.
Cheers
Norma

[corey123]

Hey all,

I have heard that some(Not many whatso ever) claim they are, but on what evidence? NONE. They were not forged.

Yours truly

[Magpie]

Leaving aside Fairclough's book (which I have yet to read) it seems to me that what people call "forgery" is more often than not simple misattribution (be it innocent or deliberate).

The only one that I've seen so far that might be considered "forged" is the version of the Kelly death scene that appears in Pamala Bell's "Jack The Ripper: A Psychic Inverstigation", in which the area of Kelly's face looks radically different from the usual versions of the image--whether this was an ill-executed attempt at enhancement or a deliberate attempt at forgery, I don't know.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes,
You are both right in a sense.But lets take the example of the one Fairclough claims is a photograph of the Duke of Clarence----who the world was told had died 18 years before.I dont believe for a second that its a photo of the Duke of Clarence.So its a "fraudulent claim" isnt it? Unless you believe that the Duke of Clarence was buried and dug up again..........

[corey123]

Norma, Magpie,

I was only stating the victim photos. The only thing that has been supposed is that MJK is fake, as Phil said, and that the photo of Eddowes in the shell is not her.

Both of the above statements are false.

Yours truly

[Magpie]

Yes,
You are both right in a sense.But lets take the example of the one Fairclough claims is a photograph of the Duke of Clarence----who the world was told had died 18 years before.I dont believe for a second that its a photo of the Duke of Clarence.So its a "fraudulent claim" isnt it? Unless you believe that the Duke of Clarence was buried and dug up again..........

Hi Nats.

Well, it's probably a fraudulant claim (see disclaimer above) but there are there are three plausible explanations:

1) It's a picture of Clarence, but from earlier than claimed:The date is misattributed.

2) The date is correct, but it's not Clarence: The subject is misattributed

3) The date and the subject are both misattributed.

The photo itself is not a forgery though.