MJK photo 4 enhanced

[Sam Flynn]

No probs, Steve - you've revealed something quite new to me here, for which many thanks. Now that you've found me my bearings, a couple of observations:

The bright dot in the middle of the shaft of light would thus be the "crossbar" of the window, the level of the window-sill being where the shaft cuts off - that all adds up, IMO.

Interestingly, there's also a faint cross to the immediate left of the bright dot as we look at it - which may be an artefact, but it might also be the shadow of the join between the four panes.

Taking all this together, it ought to enable us to gauge roughly where the far corner of the room was - and, from it, that tiny part of the universe where the "window trick" of opening the door happened.

[sgh]

Steve - by George, I think you're right! I'm not so sure that's a handle alongside the doorknob, but perhaps there's the hint of a keyhole there, to the immediate right of the knob as we look at it.

Well done, sir!

Hi Sam,
'Sir' from you Sam, I'm honoured :-)
I think it's a fair assumption as being the door as everything figures just about.
The handle is a tricky one, I agree, and the keyhole - well, I too thought that could be so, but I guessed I might be pushing my luck too far :-)
I think it is a keyhole for the record.

Many Thanks, Sam

Best, Steve

[sgh]

Hi SGH!
It sure looks like a doorknob - but where is the corner inbetween the knob and the ray of light seeping in through the curtains? The light suggests that this stretch is flat, at least to my eyes.
Or maybe the wall was so thick that the corner is just to the right of the knob, a mere decimetre or so from it, where a darker area meets a lighter one?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,
That's a good question.
The door hinges are to the left and out of shot.
Considering the oblique angle of the door and the door likely set back in a recess then even if it was cracked open a touch we may still not see much light. According to my calcs and drawings one would never be able to see a slip of light even if the door was fully open, due to it's situation, and not forgetting that if the door was fully opened towards the table then it would be very obvious that the fully open door would fill the background frame and also be in focus and detail!

Many Thanks
Best, Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Steve - by George, I think you're right! I'm not so sure that's a handle alongside the doorknob, but perhaps there's the hint of a keyhole there, to the immediate right of the knob as we look at it.

Well done, sir!

[Fisherman]

Hi SGH!
It sure looks like a doorknob - but where is the corner inbetween the knob and the ray of light seeping in through the curtains? The light suggests that this stretch is flat, at least to my eyes.
Or maybe the wall was so thick that the corner is just to the right of the knob, a mere decimetre or so from it, where a darker area meets a lighter one?

The best,
Fisherman

[sgh]

Possibly the door knob revealed in MJK3

Further enhancements to MJK3 photo to 'lift' anything lurking in the shadows
reveals what possibly might be a door knob as indicated by my red arrow
in the top left of the images. It appears as a small black round ball with a spot of highlight at the top.
Also, just to the right, below the yellow arrow, you can just see the outline of what could be described as a handle to pull the door.
Highlight and shadow can be seen along it's length.
Indeed, the highlights on these two objects are compatable with the lighting
as seen on the table and contents in the image.

The photo below of 13 Miller's Court, MJK's home, shows the aprox position and height of the 'door knob' in relationship to the adjacent window.
In my opinion, it's quite possible then that this could well be a door in the shadow and it certainly tallies with the way the door opens towards the table
in front of it and the position of the drawn curtains to the right with a gap
showing a strip of light.

As far as I'm aware, nobody has seen this before because the photo has not been enhanced to such an extreme degree as shown here to reveal shadow areas.

The photo on the right with a blue appearance is a copy of the photo to the left. The blue tint is simply added for extra contrast.

I look forward to your comments.

Best
Steve

..."This suggests the posing of the body as well as the posing of the "excised parts"."
Joan

Hi Joan,

Since he props up her head using her uterus and breast....Id say that there is more than "suggestion" of the intentional placement of organs around Mary and the bed. I noted the mention of the flaps over the eyebrows..which may be the flaps I mentioned Sam Flynn suggests as the reason we cannot see Marys eyes or sockets in MJK1. Although the report says her heart wasnt missing, I think that on November 10th they wouldnt be likely to release that information in any hurry. Its a key with this murder I think.....it either means that the Ripper killer wanted organs in general, not just female and abdominal...or it means this killer "wanted her heart"...perhaps figuratively as well.

Best regards Joan

[The Good Michael]

Itīs quite OK to disagree with me -

What?! Are you going soft on us?

Mike

[Midnyte]

Daily Telegraph,November 10, 1888

We do have this news article which states, "The Central News states, upon what is described as indisputable authority, that no portion of the murdered woman's body was taken away by the murderer. The post-mortem was of the most exhaustive character, and the surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as nearly as possible in it's natural position."
Even with the eyebrow flaps replaced, and nose, ears and cheeks put more or less back into position, there would still be a contraction of the facial muscles that would make a macabre rictus of the facial expression.

Please note that the same article observes "That the miscreant must have been some time at his work was shown by the deliberate manner in which he had excised parts, and placed them upon the table purposely to add to the horror of the scene."
This suggests the posing of the body as well as the posing of the "excised parts".
Joan

To address the questions that are being put forth regarding the state of Marys corpse for viewing by the jurors and anyone else they may have shown her to once they had her removed from the room in Millers Court...they performed what is referred to as a "Volte Face", which is the complete re-construction of her remains. Its likely that the missing heart was confirmed at that point.

Her face could not be reconstructed and sewn back together as it wasnt removed in pieces like the rest of her was..it was scored and slashed...other than closing some of the slash wounds with stitches they couldnt make her face "human" looking again.

When did Barnett make his formal ID is a really good question I think....because if he made it in the room....one of the 2 features he uses to ID Mary were not visible at all as she lay in that bed....her eyes.

Best regards all.

[Mitch Rowe]

Seems to me I read something about Phillips sewing MJK back together.

Perhaps the reason a photo wasnt taken was because she was identified.

If I were Phillips I couldnt resist putting the puzzle back together.

It would be good to study what the ripper had done in case he carved his
initials into her face or something so there may have been incentive by the police to also put the puzzle back together.

[Fisherman]

Itīs not me you are disagreeing, with - it is accepted and documented history.

Itīs quite OK to disagree with me - I do it all the time myself.

The best,
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

O Kay. You think the Met were too stupid before Eddowes but the City weren't. Then the Met became as smart as the City after Kelly but didn't have after photos taken.

No. I don't usually quote myself but you're very slippery in that regard.

And I don't agree with you.

[Fisherman]

Youre not just there, Iīm afraid; thing is, the Met DID take the in situ pics of Kelly that were not afforded Tabram, Nichols and Chapman (or Stride, for that matter).
And there is a chance that they added pics of a sewn up Kelly to it afterwards - we donīt know.

The evidence speaks for itself, NTS. The Met were not stupid - they were just lagging behind somewhat,

The best,
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

NTS writes:

"There must, I think, be photos taken of her after she was stitched up"

and

"I don't buy that the City police were smarter and had more resources. For a crime this important, they must have dropped their differences."

Well, NTS, I donīt have to sell it - history has taken care of that part for me. All of the other Ripper victims - up to Eddowes - were photographed for one reason only; to enable an identification. It was standard procedure, and the pictures were publically displayed, hoping for tips. The damage done to these victims, though, was NOT depicted, since the Met had not realized that there were forensic benefits to be made.
This, however, was something the City knew, and that is why Eddowes was photographed, as well as drawn in situ - all for forensic purposes.

Whether Kelly was photographed after having been sewn up (if that she was), Iīm not sure. She had already been identified, and whatever the doctors came up with would have had very small likeness to the real Mary. And the forensic evidence had been secured already - by now, the Met had started to catch up on the Citys ideas and that is why we DO have in situ pics of Mary.
The best,
Fisherman

O Kay. You think the Met were too stupid before Eddowes but the City weren't. Then the Met became as smart as the City after Kelly but didn't have after photos taken.