Is There Really Still an Unpublished MJK Picture?

[MsWeatherwax]

Hi All.

I have just been reading another thread, and found this post:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=355514&postcount=782

Is it true that there is another MJK Crime Scene photograph in existence, and does anyone know why this has not been released?

This seems very odd to me - it's not like it can be any worse, or more sensitive than the other photographs that are currently available in the public domain, surely?

[Pierre]

Hi All.

I have just been reading another thread, and found this post:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=355514&postcount=782

Is it true that there is another MJK Crime Scene photograph in existence, and does anyone know why this has not been released?

This seems very odd to me - it's not like it can be any worse, or more sensitive than the other photographs that are currently available in the public domain, surely?

I guess there can. There can be a picture showing things that spoil some of the ideas in ripperology.

[MsWeatherwax]

There's so many concepts and ideas in Ripperology, it's impossible to ''spoil'. For every theory the photo 'disproved', it would 'prove' 10 more.

That's the wonderful thing about conspiracy theories. You can never, argue with a conspiracy theorist, because even when you bludgeon them to a bloody pulp with reason and logic, they will just come up with another off-the-wall, esoteric reason why they're right and YOU'RE BEING LIED TO BY THE MAN.

Let me rephrase my question. Other than the downfall of Ripperology, which will apparently be brought about by the position of a bed and a partition, is there any reason why this photo (assuming it even exists) is not being released?

[Pierre]

There's so many concepts and ideas in Ripperology, it's impossible to ''spoil'. For every theory the photo 'disproved', it would 'prove' 10 more.

That's the wonderful thing about conspiracy theories. You can never, argue with a conspiracy theorist, because even when you bludgeon them to a bloody pulp with reason and logic, they will just come up with another off-the-wall, esoteric reason why they're right and YOU'RE BEING LIED TO BY THE MAN.

Let me rephrase my question. Other than the downfall of Ripperology, which will apparently be brought about by the position of a bed and a partition, is there any reason why this photo (assuming it even exists) is not being released?

If there is a photo and someone could publish it, there can be a reason for not doing so. Note that I say "can". There mustn´t be a reason. But if there is a reason, what can it be?

[Paddy]

Could it be a photo that shows her almost decapitated ? (as she was said to have been)
Pat....

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi All.

I have just been reading another thread, and found this post:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=355514&postcount=782

Is it true that there is another MJK Crime Scene photograph in existence, and does anyone know why this has not been released?

This seems very odd to me - it's not like it can be any worse, or more sensitive than the other photographs that are currently available in the public domain, surely?

Hi there

I might be wrong, but I don't think the photograph that Stewart Evans was talking about is a startlingly different photograph of the crime scene. More likely it is just another iteration of one of the two views we have already seen. That it is unpublished is not, I think, because it is any more shocking than the existing photographs. Perhaps Mr. Evans could clarify the point.

Best regards

Chris

[Kattrup]

If there is a photo and someone could publish it, there can be a reason for not doing so. Note that I say "can". There mustn´t be a reason. But if there is a reason, what can it be?

It can be for moral reasons, not wanting to showcase a poor murder victim to the world (much like you yourself claim to refuse to divulge the name of your suspect for ethical reasons).

It can be for pecuniary reasons, the owner wanting to wait until the right moment to sell/publish for maximum cash (obviously, such a photo will be held in a private collection, since it would have been published, were it in a public one).

It can be for reasons of awareness, the owner perhaps not realising what the photo is or why others might find it interesting (one would imagine Stewart Evans would have informed him/her, though!).

It can be for ripperological reasons, the owner not wanting the photo to destroy his or her favourite theory of the murders, or vice versa, the owner working on his or her own theory and needing the time to develop it properly before publishing.

etc.

[MsWeatherwax]

Thank you Chris, I appreciate the response.

If Mr Evans is able to clarify further, I'd be very interested. Even if the photo is virtually identical, it seems odd not to release it.

For the sake of clarity, I don't believe there are sinister reasons for the pictures non-release and I'm not attempting to stir up a debate of 'the Illuminati dunnit' nature. I just know there are a lot of questions regarding the existing pictures, and having another photograph available might mean some can be resolved.

[Harry D]

Not the photo that SPE was referring to, but there would've been a picture taken once they stitched her back together at the mortuary. There was a website that claimed that the photo of Eddowes after her post-mortem stitching was in fact Mary Kelly.

[Joshua Rogan]

Wasn't there also talk of her eyes being photographed, in case an image of the murderer was visible in them? I know the doctor's said that wouldn't show anything, but can't remember off the top of my head whether the photo was taken anyway.
I also seem to remember reading somewhere that six photos were taken. Possibly 'up to six'. So possibly 'up to four' more missing photos.

[Michael W Richards]

I recall quite a few years back on this site that it was revealed that the glass slides on which the MJK images were produced were numbered...and I believe that they were numbered from a series of 6 in total. Which would seem to indicate that there were indeed other images we have not seen..... as yet.

[ChrisGeorge]

Wasn't there also talk of her eyes being photographed, in case an image of the murderer was visible in them? I know the doctor's said that wouldn't show anything, but can't remember off the top of my head whether the photo was taken anyway.
I also seem to remember reading somewhere that six photos were taken. Possibly 'up to six'. So possibly 'up to four' more missing photos.

I think it is more that it was rumored that photographs of her eyes were taken, rather than it actually happened. More, therefore, another of the myths of the case than actual fact.

Best regards

Chris

[GUT]

I recall quite a few years back on this site that it was revealed that the glass slides on which the MJK images were produced were numbered...and I believe that they were numbered from a series of 6 in total. Which would seem to indicate that there were indeed other images we have not seen..... as yet.

I thought is was a case of one (or more) glass slides being marked x if 6.

[Mayerling]

I think it is more that it was rumored that photographs of her eyes were taken, rather than it actually happened. More, therefore, another of the myths of the case than actual fact.

Best regards

Chris

Hi Chris,

Probably a myth - most likely. However that particular fantasy about the last image on a murder victim's iris being the murderer lasted for decades. In 1899 Jules Verne used it in a novel "The Kip Brothers" (and the murderer's image does show up). As late as 1935 the Universal Horror movie, "The Invisible Ray" has just such a bit of "scientific" sleuthing, when Bela Lugosi photographs a victim's eyes, and the image of Boris Karloff is shown.

Still, whatever the situation about the nature of the pictures taken, there are four other glass plates that have not been accounted for.

But to be honest, I would appreciate seeing a genuinely proven photograph of Mary prior to her unfortunate final appearance on November 8/9, 1888. Perhaps that exists too somewhere - if we have one of the living (and reasonably happy) Annie Chapman (not to mention "Old Shakespeare" Carrie Brown), such a photo of Mary may still be floating about.

And I still wonder why no photograph of the corpse of the drowned Montague Druitt ever turned up.

Jeff

[Harry D]

And I still wonder why no photograph of the corpse of the drowned Montague Druitt ever turned up.

Or Rose Mylett for that matter.