The "crucifix" on MJK photo!

[anna]

...come to think of it..

If I remember correctly,there was a report of a priest going into a shop,
with regards to the kidney sent to Lusk.

Think we discussed it being a disguise,on a thread related to that report.

ANNA.

[anna]

Hey BK

How are you...long time no speak.

I'll agree with that...he wasn't a priest.

Would be a good disguise though,especially with Kelly and Room 13!

Best Regards,
ANNA.

[Blackkat]

At least if it isn't a natural phenomenon - we can now say for certain JtR was a priest.

[anna]

Hi all,

I posted a reply,then remembered Jukka saying the "cross" isn't there on both photo's,so went back for another look.
Having used a microscope..I would say that I think it is a long thin black iron handle,as you can see the two end bits underneath the long verticle line.The lower being the easier to see.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Caz!

Hardly, Jukka. I only know of two such people in the whole wide world: I don't believe one reads these boards and I'm sure the other one doesn't because he's dead!

So I think you may be worrying over nothing.

Love,

Caz
X

But there is always hope!

All the best
Jukka

[Dan Norder]

Since I remember Dan Norder presenting a reasonable explanation to this pattern on the photo (not even appearing on all the copies! ), I hope he could do it again.

Well, after the posts by Stewart and Robert there's really nothing left to add.

And considering that a lot of people aren't even aware of the existence of the two versions of the photo Robert posted parts of, you can see why he's giving a presentation on all of the known Ripper victim photographs at this year's conference.

[caz]

I hope the "F, M, H" -people will study your analysis seriously!

Hardly, Jukka. I only know of two such people in the whole wide world: I don't believe one reads these boards and I'm sure the other one doesn't because he's dead!

So I think you may be worrying over nothing.

Love,

Caz
X

[claire]

Thanks, RJM, it's always good to be reminded of other copies. Much appreciated

Then; So, Borat will be blamed for everything...

I'm sure if you look hard enough there will be a sighting of a Jewish looking gentleman in an obscene lime green mankini in the vicinity of said murder site

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

Sincerely thank you for all of you for clearing up the matter!

I hope the "F, M, H" -people will study your analysis seriously!

Then; So, Borat will be blamed for everything...

All the best
Jukka

[RJM]

Let's knock this one on the head once and for all, there is no 'crucifix'. Below are two images of the area of the photograph in question. The first is from the print discovered by Don Rumbelow back in the 1960s and the second is from the print returned to New Scotland Yard in 1988. The 'cross piece' of the alleged 'crucifix' is totally missing from the first print but appears on the second and looks very much like a flaw or mark on the print.

Just for good measure and to complete SPE's point, here are the same areas as published by Lamoureux and Lacassagne. For those of you who don't know the same print was used by both Frenchmen, and it differs from Rumbelow's find and the returned print.

De l'Éventration au point de vue médico-légal (1894) André Lamoureux


Vacher l'éventreur et les crimes sadiques (1899) Alexandre Lacassagne


Cheers,

Robert

[Suzi]

....Or the returned photograph had been folded............

[Victor]

If you look at Stewart's pictures it seems to me that there's an obvious vertical line either side of the alledged "crucifix" giving the impression of a plank of wood with a vertical split down the middle.

[claire]

Kazakhstan is still there though. Maybe MJK daubed it there to point the finger at the culprit. You know, perhaps there was never a man in an astrakhan. I think it was a man from Kazakhstan.

Odd place for a cross; I can't imagine it's a 3D image and, oh no, people weren't going to suggest Mary or the killer smeared it there, were they? Please?

[Stewart P Evans]

No 'Crucifix'

Let's knock this one on the head once and for all, there is no 'crucifix'. Below are two images of the area of the photograph in question. The first is from the print discovered by Don Rumbelow back in the 1960s and the second is from the print returned to New Scotland Yard in 1988. The 'cross piece' of the alleged 'crucifix' is totally missing from the first print but appears on the second and looks very much like a flaw or mark on the print.

[The Good Michael]

In all seriousness, where the 'cross' is and farther down the door, it looks as if hinges should have gone there. That and the panels do give credence to the idea that this portion of the wall is nothing more than a door that has been used to make a ramshackle partition.

Cheers,

Mike