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

[richardnunweek]

Hi Amanda..
If any body's name appeared on a wall in Room 13, Millers court, they would have to be on the suspect list...if a well known personality like Walter,appeared, alarm bells would ring, especially if people suspect he wrote at least one Ripper letter.
How much more would Ripperology need?
Regards Richard,.

[Amanda]

Hi Amanda that's quite correct. It would only prove he'd been in the room and we would have to presume he was involved. To surmise that Sickert had been there prior to the murders ie rented the room at some point,would be ludicrously far fetched given past attempts to link him with the murders so I suspect the consensus would probably accept him being involved in some capacity

Hi,
I was thinking more along the lines of Stephen Knight's theory that Sickert knew Mary Kelly from Cleveland St. Maybe visited her as a friend at some point.

Richardnunweek, it doesn't 'mean everything', that's how innocent people get arrested for crimes they didn't commit - by people being presumptuous.

Amanda

[packers stem]

Hello all,

In my opinion, the sources from which these images appear would be decisive.

The only way that this "signature" could be credibly considered as an authentic one is a proper, independent examination of what remains of any original photograph or plate image.

Not because I doubt any authenticity from a book, but there are various images on the Internet, supposedly the same as the ones in books, that have either or been enhanced in some way or manipulated in some way.

I am assured by those of such knowledge that the techniques available today are many and varied when it comes to the above.

Just my opinion.



Phil

Hi Phil
I agree totally.
The image in which it's visible is the MJK photo which has the crease coming up from the bottom.
I've got it in Sugden,Fuller and Fairclough...Fuller's being the clearest by far,seems to depend how they've gone through the print press I suppose, but if Fuller had spotted it, it would have been gold dust for her..
But yes, the original plate I'm sure will give us a definitive yes or no under laboratory conditions

[packers stem]

I can see the Sickert signature, but that would only prove that he was in the room at some point. Not that he was a killer, right?

Hi Amanda that's quite correct. It would only prove he'd been in the room and we would have to presume he was involved. To surmise that Sickert had been there prior to the murders ie rented the room at some point,would be ludicrously far fetched given past attempts to link him with the murders so I suspect the consensus would probably accept him being involved in some capacity

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

In my opinion, the sources from which these images appear would be decisive.

The only way that this "signature" could be credibly considered as an authentic one is a proper, independent examination of what remains of any original photograph or plate image.

Not because I doubt any authenticity from a book, but there are various images on the Internet, supposedly the same as the ones in books, that have either or been enhanced in some way or manipulated in some way.

I am assured by those of such knowledge that the techniques available today are many and varied when it comes to the above.

Just my opinion.



Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi..
If Sickert's signature is in that room , in any form,,we have found our ''Jack''.. it annoys me when people say, just because he may have wrote a letter , or two, it means nothing, or just because he was once in Kelly's room, it means nothing..
it means everything.
Regards Richard.

[Amanda]

Maybe

I can see the Sickert signature, but that would only prove that he was in the room at some point. Not that he was a killer, right?

[Rosella]

I can see various faces in these images, but the wall in the room at Miller's Court was incredibly filthy (like the rest of the room) and 'shapes' can often be seen in dirt. I stayed in a room in an Italian village once when I was young and on holiday, and on the ceilings and walls could be seen rough images, a shell, a man with a long beard, a gargoyle with horns. They were just marks in dirty plaster.

Various police were in the Millers Court room for some hours. If they saw a virtual mural on the wall near the bed surely they, or more likely the photographer when he developed his photos, would have said 'An artist's been sketching here. Wonder if...?' They didn't, however.

[Brenda]

.

Maybe you can commission an artist to draw what you are seeing?

[packers stem]

Packers, what can you tell us about the original postcard? Is it verified as Sickert's signature? Thanks in advance.

Hi pat
The signatures above arent off a postcard
The first one is off one of the MJK photos pretty much smack bang in the middle of the wall
The second is a genuine Sickert signature
GUT I can only put down what I see,I'm sorry you don't. Others will make of it what they wish

[GUT]

I looked at the wall last nigh (in the hospital) and saw Van Gogh slashing Monte's throat with Sickert's pallet knife, (now I was under some pretty heavy drugs at the time) and you know that made more sense than Packers insistance that something, most here aren't seeing, in his photos being the solution.

[Pcdunn]

Packers, what can you tell us about the original postcard? Is it verified as Sickert's signature? Thanks in advance.

[Shaggyrand]

The signature cleaned up to reveal an actual signature would be a slam. Every image of it I've seen is a copy of a copy of a copy.
The rest you'd still need other angles to see if the images are actually there and it's not just a trick of the mind. I've always been astounded there isn't another angle from Millers Court, from the foot of the bed, just seems like a shot they would have really wanted. So much that I just don't believe it wasn't done & sitting in a box in some basement somewhere.

[packers stem]

You'd need an image from another angle to compare. Otherwise it just looks like pareidolia to me and not a breakthrough. In the first post I saw a guy's face, when I finally looked on my phone, but it looks different to me in this post. More like a cartoon villain with cauliflower ears. Still don't see the woman or letters.
Sorry.

Hi Shaggyrand
The images appear different on whatever you're using to look.I'm on a Sony mobile at the moment, they're clear to me but I've been looking at them for over a week now.Really you need to go over the MJK photo with the lower edge crease,either with magnifiers or a large screen mobile with the camera on... Once you start to see stuff it never ends but the signature is the thing,once people know it's there it well get cleaned up to a decent level I'm sure

[Shaggyrand]

You'd need an image from another angle to compare. Otherwise it just looks like pareidolia to me and not a breakthrough. In the first post I saw a guy's face, when I finally looked on my phone, but it looks different to me in this post. More like a cartoon villain with cauliflower ears. Still don't see the woman or letters.
Sorry.