MJK photo 4 enhanced

[John Casey]

I've done the opposite of what seemed logical, and actually darkened the photo a lil....having done that it seems to me that there is a shadow (marked with the ubiquitous green line! lol) that would indicate a knuckle joint. I'm not sure a thumb joint could bend at that angle....

[Stephen Thomas]

If you can tell me the exact camera used that would be most interesting!

Hi Steve

No can do, but apparently it was quite small judging from the size of the print and it would seem that the photo was taken with the camera resting on the rolled up/folded up blanket showing in MJK1 and MJK2. It obviously didn't have a wide angle lens so the foreground is necessarily out of focus and we can see that the negative has been severely retouched.

Stephen

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Line of sight discrepancies at around six feet?

Oh phooey!

Regards,

Simon

[The Good Michael]

Khanada,

Good argument for the left hand. Of course the main argument is that, in order for that shot to be of the right hand and thumb, we have to have policemen removing and reattaching body parts just to make a cryptic photo.

Also, I agree that it is possible that things may have been moved a bit to take photos and that there is no record of a decision not to do so. Fingerprinting was not being done in England at that time, and I should think a simple mark in chalk where something can be put back in its place, would suffice if that item needed to be moved for the photographer. This would be much like putting a marker down for one's golf ball in that silly sport.

Cheers,

Mike

[Khanada]

I suggest if you examine the photo carefully its not clear whether the "right hand" is even in the cavity itself...as it is over the cavity in MJK1. The hand might be placed there to steady a camera operator crouching...he couldnt very well kneel there...there is blood all over.

That very lack of clarity is part of my problem here -- you have a very small, tight-cropped photo to deal with here. There isn't a wide enough field to be able to see some things I wish I could -- you know, like more fingers.

I don't know about anyone else, but if I am a photographer faced with that, I'm not going to be steadying myself to hide from my own camera by putting my hand on the corpse. This is for three reasons (at least). One -- eeeewwww! Two -- if the floor is blood-coated and slippy or sticky, the corpse is not going to be much different. So it's not a good place to steady myself, given that my hand could slip or part of the body could break away, and there I am on the floor anyway. Three -- why lean on the corpse when I could steady myself by putting a hand on the bedrail? It looks a lot more sturdy and stable.

Khanada,

Good argument for the left hand. Of course the main argument is that, in order for that shot to be of the right hand and thumb, we have to have policemen removing and reattaching body parts just to make a cryptic photo.

Also, I agree that it is possible that things may have been moved a bit to take photos and that there is no record of a decision not to do so. Fingerprinting was not being done in England at that time, and I should think a simple mark in chalk where something can be put back in its place, would suffice if that item needed to be moved for the photographer. This would be much like putting a marker down for one's golf ball in that silly sport.

Pretty much. This is a police force with none of the procedures that police forces have today for processing a crime scene, or doing proper forensic photography. If they moved things, they probably didn't record anything about it, because they had no idea that 120+ years later we would all be sitting here knowing that they shouldn't have. I don't think they'd have thought anything of it -- they'd have just moved things out of sheer practicality to get the job done and over with.


I basically have a difficult time seeing deliberate deception here if anything was moved -- and sheer space and lighting are good reasons things could have been moved. For deception there needs to be a reason to deceive, and so far no one's coming up with anything on that score. If we have pixies in our pockets, we need to take them out and put them on the table, or stop playing intellectual keepaway...


Cheers to all,

[Magpie]

I'd just like to point out that while the shape is moderately "thumb-shaped":

a) it is far too short to be a thumb in relation to the rest of the hand.

b) despite being arguably the most finely detailed area of the photograph, there is not the merest hint of a suggestion of a thumb nail.

[Nothing to see]

OK tell me where I'm wrong. I know you will. It's OK. It's the only way I'll learn. The 1st MJK photo that is reproduced the most, the photog has come inside the room, shut the door behind him, backed up against the wall and window behind him and taken the shot. That's the one of her on the bed. Right?

The 2nd one that to me shows nothing at all, the bed must have been pushed away from the wall so he could get his stand in there to take the photo.

I know it's 1888. They didn't have close ups and zoom then. IMO that 2nd photo really has more if's than answers.

Mind you, if the 1st one had been in color, whoa..

[Magpie]

The 1st MJK photo that is reproduced the most, the photog has come inside the room, shut the door behind him, backed up against the wall and window behind him and taken the shot. That's the one of her on the bed. Right?

Not necessarily, as there are accounts of photographs being taken from outside the room by removing part or all of the window.

RJM is probably the best person to ask.

[Nothing to see]

Not necessarily, as there are accounts of photographs being taken from outside the room by removing part or all of the window.

RJM is probably the best person to ask.

I don't think RJM is online at the moment so man I'll ask you. I do remember reading a long time ago about photos being taken from outside the window. I'm thinking that was when the bloodhounds were still to be used but we know that they didn't turn up so the LE didn't want to go in the room and disturb the crime scene.

Which, I guess when you think about it, is a fairly impressive move on their part. The only problem for them is that they couldn't even tell the difference between human and animal blood. Do you know which part of the windows were removed? And is that confirmed?

[chrisjd]

Hi Simon,

"With so many contradictions existing between the two photos, why do you persist in believing that MJK3 is the scene depicted in MJK1 but taken from a different angle?"

What else could it be? Please explain.

Christian

[Sam Flynn]

Here is MJK1 with the relevant part of MJK3 flipped round and superimposed, roughly to scale:



I appreciate there is almost a 180° change in angle between the shots, but my software/expertise isn't up to compensating for it. Nevertheless, it's clear from MJK3 that there is "clear brown table" between the trailing edge of the pile of flesh and the bolster - there is a gap of, I'd estimate, 6-8 inches of table visible in that shot.

In contrast, there is hardly ANY gap after the selfsame edge of the pile of flesh in MJK1 - indeed, the gap itself is cut off by the photograph's frame. If the gap itself is curtailed to such an extent, we haven't a hope in Hell of seeing anything to the "right" of it in MJK1.

[Nothing to see]

Hi. I know you're proving a point to someone. But that's pretty interesting. So can you explain it to me?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi. I know you're proving a point to someone. But that's pretty interesting. So can you explain it to me?

I thought I had, NTS. Well, not to you, but the world in general

It's rather complex to put into words, to be honest - all I can say is look at the two original photographs and imagine yourself in the room. The fact that we can't see the "bolster" in MJK1, but we can in MJK3, ought to become crystal clear. (Hint: there's not enough space in the frame of MJK1 to accommodate it.)

[Nothing to see]

I thought I had, NTS. Well, not to you, but the world in general

It's rather complex to put into words, to be honest - all I can say is look at the two original photographs and imagine yourself in the room. The fact that we can't see the "bolster" in MJK1, but we can in MJK3, ought to become crystal clear. (Hint: there's not enough space in the frame of MJK1 to accommodate it.)

Well, please explain it to me in simple terms. I couldn't take a decent photo if my life depended on it. Not all of us are photo warriors, believe me. I'm certainly not.

[Stephen Thomas]

The bolster is 'out of shot' on the first picture. Simple as that.