Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[perrymason]

If Mjk1 wasn't the first photo do you guys think they moved her leg down to get a better picture?

If so, it enabled the photo to show the pelvic region in more detail, if its as I and you believe, that the leg in MJK3 is bent and at a slightly higher elevation. Ive been using the very primitive "approx" left kneecap to table top to assess variation in height.

Cheers BK

[Blackkat]

I do believe like so many that there are photos missing. I can't see why a photographer wouldn't take a picture from the foot of the bed also.

Oh and I have another question. I happen to think that the first photo taken from the window is MIA - does anyone think that mjk1 was taken from inside the room? I know it's probably been asked before but I don't know where that question would be located.

[perrymason]

Hey BK,

I do believe like so many that there are photos missing. I can't see why a photographer wouldn't take a picture from the foot of the bed also.

You were studying or working with ME's...you KNOW that they would have taken all 4 shots, side and side, foot to and from the head. Why we only have #1 and #3 is a mystery, but that is not necessarily the set order.

Oh and I have another question. I happen to think that the first photo taken from the window is MIA - does anyone think that mjk1 was taken from inside the room? I know it's probably been asked before but I don't know where that question would be located.

My take on that concerns the depth seen, and if its at all accurate, I dont believe the windows would have to be removed to shoot it. There is that story, that they were taken out for photographers, and the windows are seen boarded up in later images. I dont personally see that as a requirement though. Her bed is almost flush to the partition wall, if they moved that large sitting table under the windows out of the way, I think they had room. Maybe they placed the camera on that table.

You have to figure that at least -edited-two photographers were present, and that the room could only hold maybe two or 3 people at a time and still keep the others out of frame. My bet is that they shot those 4 primary angles at least though.

Im not sure I want anyone to find the foot to head plate or film, that would be monstrous indeed. Its almost better seeing her from angles, rather than head on.

All the best BK

[DVV]

....grow some eggs and act like men

Qes bä qes, enkulal bä ïgïr yihedal.

Ethiopian proverb meaning: little by little, the egg walks with his legs.

[perrymason]

Hello all,

In the photo it appears that the chemise portion over her left shoulder isnt joined to a garment body anymore, meaning that the chemise front had been cut up, and opened. Which means that little puffed shoulder section is either cut itself, or still intact and completely around her arm.

Im just curious if it was cut, why it might be draped back over to look intact.

Best regards.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

Cannot help asking this thing again;

Since knowing MJK to have been 5'7" (170,28 in centimeters), could that piece of info be useful, while trying to catch the proportions of the objects on the photos?!

All right, me making a stick out of a match...

All the best
Jukka

[Blackkat]

Complicated for me to answer -I think the answer is yes and no - I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that this picture has a lot of "optical illusion" so that would give the answer of no.

I hope we're on the same page here, about what you're asking about if not, just let me know

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Blackkat!

Yes, you were exactly on the right page!

And I find your point about optical things quite correct, in fact;

Today even a simple tourist camera could provide a better view of the scene. The daguerrotype was developed in 1839 and the calotype in 1841, so first steps of photography were still rather fresh...

And the crime photography was also relatively new!

All the best
Jukka

[Mrs.Bucket]

Late in the game...

Hi Fisherman,

I think its only feasible if you want to suggest that on this particular killing he didnt mind having his trousers, shirt cuffs and sleeves as well as hands and arms covered in blood. If he knelt between her legs while stripping her right thigh of flesh, and emptying her midsection, I think the residual blood left in organs and arteries would get on him.

Call me crazy (and a little late coming into the convo), but clearly JTR was an opportunity killer. I think we'd see much more typical patterns otherwise, i.e. the killings would get progressively closer together. Knowing that he had time to hack this woman to pieces, to a much greater degree than earlier victims, why not take the time to undress completely, do what he wanted, clean himself off and redress?

Mrs. Bucket

“...a lady of a natural detective genius, which if it had been improved by professional exercise, might have done great things, but which has paused at the level of a clever amateur.”

[Fisherman]

Mrs Bucket (or is it Bouquet?) writes:

"Call me crazy "

...but I won´t do that, Mrs B, seeing as you are in good company. The notion that the Ripper may have stripped has been mentioned before, and it can´t be ruled out. Anyways, crazy people do crazy things - so maybe it will take a crazy detective to spot it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Mrs.Bucket]

Huge questions...

So I have spent the last week dilligently looking over MJK1 and MJK3 (side note, why do we call it 3 when there's a 4 written on it?) virtually negelecting all other responsibilities.

Due to things I am seeing in MJK3 I am seriously questioning the source of the photo, if it's even MJK at all, and even though it's been visited before, the unlikliness that this was the work of JTR. I am very interested in seeing what others think about this...

Exhibit 1: Look at the hand in MJK3 and tell me if the full finger isn't a thumb rather than the pinkie, which is what you should be seeing. If you bend your own elbow with your hand in front of you, you'll see this finger should be the pinkie, not the thumb. I think it's even more the thumb because of the thumb mound or "Mound of Venus" you can see more towards the wrist bend. What does this mean? The only way to do this is to have the right arm on the left side. Copycat? Surely, even if the bed was moved etc., they would not have removed the ALMOST completely severed right arm to the other side of the body.

Exhibit 2: In MJK3, to the viewer's left of the mound of flesh on the right of the table, I see a knife. I don't think JTR would have left this if it was his. If this man was carrying some sort of kit of horrors, I don't think he would have left one of his precious pieces behind but remembered to take her heart. Obviously, he wasn't in a hurry.

Exhibit 3: The table top appears to be different, but this may be a total trick of my own eyes. MJK1 table appears to be a solid top. MJK3 table appears to be a planked top.

Also, where's this idea coming from that we see viscera hanging from the ceiling in MJK3? What would he have hung it with? If it was bloody, it's not sticky it's hot and slick (pardon the graphic references). I don't think he tacked it up there. Exposed rafters perhaps? If that's the case, I still don't see a reason why. I'm thinking it's much more likely that, if the photo is MJK, and it was taken from the far side of the bed, there's no reason we aren't seeing around the door. Certainly, buildings were draftier then than they are now or perhaps the door jamb was damaged when they forced the door open.

Anyway, would LOVE to hear other thoughts on this.
Mrs. B
“…a lady of a natural detective genius, which if it had been improved by professional exercise, might have done great things, but which has paused at the level of a clever amateur.”

[Mrs.Bucket]

By the way... Bucket/Bouquet. Haha. I get it. Hyacinth...

[George Hutchinson]

Hello, Mrs B.

I have Rob McLaughin's book in front of me, showing about the best quality reproductions of the MJK shots that exist.

We call the final image MJK3 because MJK1 and MJK2 are the famous full-length image, one discovered by Don Rumbelow in Snow Hill in the 1960s (MJK1) and the second image (the one without the tear running up it) was returned to Scotland Yard along with MJK3 in 1988. Two different originals of the same image (it is the same photograph, by the way).

The finger/thumb issue is because the hand is larger in the picture than the wrist because it is close to the camera (hence why the finger looks too wide). The final joint of the finger is bent into the body and thus not visible.

There is no knife, I'm afraid. Your brain is interpreting what you think you see. There has been everything including the kitchen sink named as present in MJK3 over the years. A knife still present at the scene would have been in every single report that exists, and it isn't.

The table 'planking' is indeed a bit odd and has been discussed. There appears to be cloth on the table which has been torn off in strips, rather like being torn from a cloth-bound book cover. I'm fairly sure it's not planking.

The 'viscera from the ceiling' story is a total fabrication. It simply didn't happen, in spite of what a certain poster on this site may try to tell everyone else. Pretty much everyone else concurs what you are seeing is definitely the crack between the open door and the door jamb.

PHILIP

[Mrs.Bucket]

MJK3 Questions

Philip,

Thanks for the response. Just wondering, do you have any thoughts for what the object is inside the red circle.

I understand there's nothing mentioned about this in the report, but I have a tough time trusting the integrity or completeness of the reports we have 120 years later. Not to say there was any vast conspiracy , solely that the expectations were not what they are now. For example - moving the bed to take photos, which many people believe is very likely, as well as the fact that photos were not taken at any of the other crime scenes.

I think the other issue I have with the finger is that it appears too short and wide, as well as the fact that it seems to angle outwards rather than straight up.

Any chance of getting a high-res scan of the photo you are looking at? I will have to add your book to my list of things I must acquire. Again, I sincerely appreciate your response.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Mrs Bucket!

And pleased to meet you on these boards!

Probably the object on the circle is just a piece of badly cut flesh...

Your point about the thing, that no photos of the other crimes scenes is - in fact - a very good one!

One thing, that is troublesome too, is, that the scales for measurements weren't used at the time!

All the best
Jukka