picture of mary kelly's room

[j.r-ahde]

Hello again, johnsonandrew!

That thread can be found from the "Victims" section about Mary Jane Kelly!

All the best
Jukka

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Robert!

Exactly to the point!

Here are my greetings to johnsonandrew;

To get a whole picture - so to say - about different variations with different copies, I suggest you to visit the following thread:

The "crucifix" on MJK photo!

All the best
Jukka

[RJM]

i have seen the original photo and have blown the photo up, used negative type, and used every image tool to see if this is grain or pattern of the wallpaper or blood. in every photo used in books, black or the original damaged photo[the original has to be be enlarged to see images] the images are there.
andy

I wonder if you could clarify something for me, Andy. Which photograph of Mary Kelly are you referring to?
1) The copy Don Rumbelow found in 1967
2) The copy that was returned in 1988
3) The one published by Lamoureux (1894) and Lacassagne (1899).

What is the exact source for the photograph have you blown up? A book, or a scan off of the internet, or the NA at Kew? It makes an enormous difference to what can be seen. If you've just blown up an image from a book, or from a scan taken from the internet then the resulting observations are too many generations removed from the original to have validity.

When I wrote my book, I studied direct scans of the Rumbelow and 1988 prints, and found many differences between the two. I also looked at the first published pictures of Mary Kelly in Lamoureux's De l'Éventration au point de vue médico-légal (1894), and Lacassagne's Vacher l'Eventreur et les crimes sadiques (1899); the two earliest known publications of the MJK photo, which is clearly a different print than Rumbelow's or the returned 1988 one, and also contains different information as to what exactly can and can not be seen.

Cheers,

Robert

[Steve F]

Book??

Hi Johnsonandrew
When is the book due out and any title yet??

[Dan Norder]

my book is still in process so i cant tell you what they are, but could be the first visual evidence to the case, as a violent sketch has the same images at the murder scene.

Well, good luck with that, but if it sure doesn't sound at all likely. We've already weathered lots of claims of images on the wall (or elsewhere in the photo) and comparisons to works of art (generally poor Walter Sickert's) over the years. More of the same certainly wouldn't be the "first visual evidence to the case," especially when we already have actual photos.

[johnsonandrew]

wall writing in kellys room

the images on the wall of kellys room are of a bolder and thicker type to the smudges and stains on the wall, it was reported that the wallpaper was dirty and ripped at the time and covered in blood stains. many have said that it is the eye playing tricks on those who view the picture and see all sorts of letters and signs, and i agree on that point, the interest i have in this is that i am writing a book on this very subject and two years study on the murder scene wall. i have seen the original photo and have blown the photo up, used negative type, and used every image tool to see if this is grain or pattern of the wallpaper or blood. in every photo used in books, black or the original damaged photo[the original has to be be enlarged to see images] the images are there. the reason i needed to find out if there was indeed letters on the wall was because a certain artists sketch contains three images which i noticed not unlike that of the murder scene, this was three years ago, every body has got it wrong! it is not FM, or other mentioned ideas, it is three images one of small in centre and is the exact in the sketch, a smudge over the supposed F gives a number not a letter. my book is still in process so i cant tell you what they are, but could be the first visual evidence to the case, as a violent sketch has the same images at the murder scene.
andy

[johnsonandrew]

wall writing in kellys room

the images on the wall of kellys room are of a bolder and thicker type to the smudges and stains on the wall, it was reported that the wallpaper was dirty and ripped at the time and covered in blood stains. many have said that it is the eye playing tricks on those who view the picture and see all sorts of letters and signs, and i agree on that point, the interest i have in this is that i am writing a book on this very subject and two years study on the murder scene wall. i have seen the original photo and have blown the photo up, used negative type, and used every image tool to see if this is grain or pattern of the wallpaper or blood. in every photo used in books, black or the original damaged photo[the original has to be be enlarged to see images] the images are there. the reason i needed to find out if there was indeed letters on the wall was because a certain artists sketch contains three images which i noticed not unlike that of the murder scene, this was three years ago, every body has got it wrong! it is not FM, or other mentioned ideas, it is three images one of small in centre and is the exact in the sketch, a smudge over the supposed F gives a number not a letter. my book is still in process so i cant tell you what they are, but could be the first visual evidence to the case, as a violent sketch has the same images at the murder scene.
andy

[joelhall]

I did what you instructed, Joel. You now owe me a new computer monitor

forgot to mention the winner gets my shares in xl

[Sam Flynn]

repeat fast:

soothsayer the sleuthslayer slays soothslayers to sooth sleuths.

I did what you instructed, Joel. You now owe me a new computer monitor

[joelhall]

repeat fast:

soothsayer the sleuthslayer slays soothslayers to sooth sleuths.

...i dunno what it means either im just bored...

[The Good Michael]

Carol,

Dunno. Which is easiest to say 5 times quickly?

Mike

[Carol]

I think Soothsayer should change his name to SoothSlayer. It only makes sense.

Mike

What about 'Sleuthslayer'?
Carol

[The Good Michael]

I think Soothsayer should change his name to SoothSlayer. It only makes sense.

Mike

[Omlor]

Logic, honesty, accuracy, and a respect for actual evidence.

Some necessary aspects of a healthy debate.

In my opinion.

--John

[Soothsayer]

A little self-effacement, humour, avoiding taking everything literally, spotting the occasional bit of good-natured irony, not taking yourself too seriously.

Some key aspects of a truly healthy debate.

In my opinion ...