Could be the 'real final solution'....?

[Majic]

I'm afraid I don't see anything scribbled on the walls. As much as Sickert did book himself into rented rooms for painting it would be quite something that he happened to have one where a murder was committed and had signed his name on the wall.

As most artists throughout time, some are drawn to recent events, the fire of London for example, the construction of docks, the bubonic plague for example. Sickert appears to have been interested in the Camden and Ripper murders from an artistic perspective because we have the pictures. Although there is a book and TV programme that suggests Sickert was in some way involved or was the killer, there isn't anything within them that puts a clear substantiated case for it be nothing more than his interest. An interest that became the subject of at least one of his pictures, and maybe others although not in title.

[packers stem]

The only thing I see is that poor mutilated woman. I believe it to be Mary Jane Kelly. I think Caroline Maxwell was mistaken about her sighting

The discussion isn't about the poor victim belinda

[belinda]

The only thing I see is that poor mutilated woman. I believe it to be Mary Jane Kelly. I think Caroline Maxwell was mistaken about her sighting

[packers stem]

I wonder why I don't post more often maybe its ridiculous threads like this one. There's nothing in the room but the unfortunate Mary Kelly. The wall is just dirty, there are no faces, no signature's on the wall. Anyone who's seeing faces and signature's on the wall is frankly fooling themselves.

Hi John
I'm sure of what I can see.I don't know if you've looked closely or not. It may be that I'm wrong and you're right and if that's the case then so be it.
But if I'm proven right it would be the most important discovery in ripperology bar none so surely it's worth looking into rather than just everyone having another argument about schwartz or Hutchinson.
A thorough examination of the original would prove it one way or the other and until then no one can really say that something is 100% there or 100% not there

[John Wheat]

I wonder why I don't post more often maybe its ridiculous threads like this one. There's nothing in the room but the unfortunate Mary Kelly. The wall is just dirty, there are no faces, no signature's on the wall. Anyone who's seeing faces and signature's on the wall is frankly fooling themselves.

[packers stem]

Hi Tecs and Ozzy
Yes.There were two different photos.
The one you have reproduced Ozzy, is the one most commonly used. It has a crease from the left hand side.. It shows nothing of what I've been talking about, it seems to be over bright on the centre of the wall so may be something to do with the flash.
Of around 30 or so jtr books I've got, the photo we need I can only find in 4...
Phil Sugden's complete (paperback)
Paul Begg's uncensored facts (paperback)
Mervyn fairclough's ripper and the royals (paperback)
Jean Overton fuller's Sickert and the ripper crimes(hardback)
This photo clearly shows a crease at the bottom centre going through the bed and mattress, not on the left hand side...
There seems to be a washed out digitised version now showing no crease at all.
Although the images I've mentioned can be seen in Paul Begg's book the signature can not due to cropping
The largest most complete is in Jean Overton fuller's book and contrast levels are different on each version presumably due to the printing process
The two shots I've shown are from Sugden and Overton fuller
A is the characature and signature above
B is what I see as the woman's face and gargoyle above

[Tecs]

I don't think that's what Pierre is after packers stem.

I think he means something like the image I've attached. My rectangle is just an example. It had to be as I don't know where you're looking at either.

Hi Ozzy,

Yes, I was going to say the same thing.

It does matter which photo you are looking at though. Although the same angle there are a least two different copies of the above in existence and for example the alleged F.M. cannot be seen in one but is clear as day in the other. I think it is the one in Sugden's book which is clearest but could you confirm please PS?

This is absolutely crucial because the image above shows absolutely nothing with regards to shapes/images etc on the wall behind and I can imagine that if this was the only image you had seen, you would be forgiven for thinking that anybody seeing things on the wall was, well...seeing things!
But, if you are looking at the other image, the possible shapes etc are much clearer.

regards,

[Tecs]

Hi all,

The thing that "jumped out" at me when Packers Stem showed me what he has seen is that above and to the left of one of the images on the wall, there is very clearly what appears to be a question mark! Like most of you I've studied the phot over and over, but never noticed it before. But now when I see the photo I am drawn to it every time, a clear, unsmudged question mark on MJK's wall.

No idea what caused it (if anything) or what it could be (probably coincidence)

An interesting parlour game!


regards,

[Ozzy]

I don't think that's what Pierre is after packers stem.

I think he means something like the image I've attached. My rectangle is just an example. It had to be as I don't know where you're looking at either.

[packers stem]

Well, this signature you can see, could you please post the whole picture and point out to us where the signature is?

Pierre

There you go Pierre,it's bang in the middle of the wall really

[belinda]

Hi Belinda
It's one for another thread and I've discussed it many times but the best way of putting it is why should the word of Joe Barnett be viewed by us as being more reliable than Caroline Maxwell?
We have no evidence that he was a more reliable character, there was little left to recognise...could have been anyone and her hair was soaked in blood.looking at everything we have there is more to suggest Kelly was still alive the following morning

They could have washed her hair before Joseph Barnett saw her. Surely after they put her back together they would have washed her hair before burying her

[Pierre]

Hi Belinda
It's one for another thread and I've discussed it many times but the best way of putting it is why should the word of Joe Barnett be viewed by us as being more reliable than Caroline Maxwell?
We have no evidence that he was a more reliable character, there was little left to recognise...could have been anyone and her hair was soaked in blood.looking at everything we have there is more to suggest Kelly was still alive the following morning

Well, this signature you can see, could you please post the whole picture and point out to us where the signature is?

Pierre

[packers stem]

Interested to know what makes you so sure Mary Jane was not the Millers Court victim? Joseph Barnett did identify her and her hair was quite distinctive around the neighbourhood

Hi Belinda
It's one for another thread and I've discussed it many times but the best way of putting it is why should the word of Joe Barnett be viewed by us as being more reliable than Caroline Maxwell?
We have no evidence that he was a more reliable character, there was little left to recognise...could have been anyone and her hair was soaked in blood.looking at everything we have there is more to suggest Kelly was still alive the following morning

[belinda]

Sorry Belinda but no,I'm not Patricia Cornwell.
Until 2 weeks or so ago Sickert wasn't even my top suspect although I have wondered over the years about his paintings and thought he may have 'known' something
I was much more inclined to something similar to Simon woods view but I've seen what I've seen,if others can't see it at the moment I can't help that.
I'm not writing a book, if I were I would have kept this to myself.
I have no fixed theory as such behind it..
All I've ever been sure of is that Mary Kelly was not killed, someone else was and that the killer didn't work alone.Don't think I'll ever change my mind about either of those things.
Lots of people are saying that can't see anything, that's fair enough.I was in a gallery yesterday, lots of scribbles and lumps of painted heaped on canvas which meant nothing to me but will do to others
I appreciate it needs to be cleaned up but someone will take up the challenge I'm sure....

Interested to know what makes you so sure Mary Jane was not the Millers Court victim? Joseph Barnett did identify her and her hair was quite distinctive around the neighbourhood

[packers stem]

Is your real name Patricia Cornwell? Seriously I don't see anything but scribble

Sorry Belinda but no,I'm not Patricia Cornwell.
Until 2 weeks or so ago Sickert wasn't even my top suspect although I have wondered over the years about his paintings and thought he may have 'known' something
I was much more inclined to something similar to Simon woods view but I've seen what I've seen,if others can't see it at the moment I can't help that.
I'm not writing a book, if I were I would have kept this to myself.
I have no fixed theory as such behind it..
All I've ever been sure of is that Mary Kelly was not killed, someone else was and that the killer didn't work alone.Don't think I'll ever change my mind about either of those things.
Lots of people are saying that can't see anything, that's fair enough.I was in a gallery yesterday, lots of scribbles and lumps of painted heaped on canvas which meant nothing to me but will do to others
I appreciate it needs to be cleaned up but someone will take up the challenge I'm sure....