Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[Mrs.Bucket]

Sorry Philip. I read "discovered by Don Rumbelow in Snow Hill in the 1960s" to mean it was previously unknown to the public.

Thanks for the recommendation on the book, I will keep it in mind as I have several making their way into my library as we speak. Previously, I was just reviewing them for free at Barnes and Noble.

I still think we are assuming that the police reports were complete, which they were not necessarily especially if there were tensions between higher-ranking officers in the City police and Metro. They wouldn't have put anything on paper they may have had to share, especially if they were each gunning for the glory of solving this.

[George Hutchinson]

Hi Mrs B.

Far from the photos not showing up until 80 years later, the main image was published in France in the 1890s. Rob's book covers all this in extreme detail.

We are not relying on newspaper reports. There are contemporary police records and other sources (check, for example, THE JACK THE RIPPER SOURCEBOOK).

PHILIP

[Mrs.Bucket]

I still wonder how much about the crime scenes we don't know, specifically MJK's. I worked as a reporter/editor for several years and I remember how often the police withheld details to either a) catch a suspect telling them something only the killer would know or b) weed out people that may try to lay claim to the murders. Being that the photos didn't show up until 80 some odd years later, they could have easily leaked what they wanted and withheld what they wanted.

Does anyone know of any official records, circa the time of the crimes, of people that tried to take credit?

[Blackkat]

I still say it would or will be nice for the other photos to surface that were taken. Maybe we will be able to see more or gain something from them.

[Sam Flynn]

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

... or, more likely still, a combination of fleshly artifacts, fluids and shadows that coalesce in the imagination as a single, solid object. A bit like the "Face on Mars", to cite a familiar example.

[George Hutchinson]

Hi Mrs B and thanks for a very civil response.

I agree with Jukka about the thing in the red circle - just a flap of skin on the pile of flesh.

The reason we don't have SoC photos at the other sites is, again, one for theorising and debates and I'm not into that side. I have a personal hunch that we have several minor reasons why a SoC image was taken here - firstly, being in a room there might be a lot more to need to record than being on the street and it could be a reference tool. Secondly, there'd now been 'X' murders beforehand and, following the City Police taking several shots of CE at Golden Lane - also showing the injuries - maybe the Met were either learning or trying to impress (or stop detractors, what with the bloodhound debacle and all). Thirdly, it might have been such a mess that it was felt an ID picture at Shoreditch mortuary would not have helped and maybe chances were improved by showing the remains in context of their supposedly known environment. All little things but, combined, would make sense as to why we have a SoC image. I think the saving face (perhaps a poorly chosen expression in this case) option is the most important of these.

As to acquiring a hi-res copy of MJK3, you are best looking for the large version on this very website. You will only find small copies of victim photos in our book, and then only one for each person. The whole point of the book was to concentrate on topography, cartography, geography and bricks and mortar.

PHILIP

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[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.”

[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]

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.”

[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

[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