MJK photo 4 enhanced

[Khanada]

I've been following the thread, and have no intention of getting immersed in all the kafuffle again, (no way!) but I can't really see why there should be a problem with objects being moved around to a greater or lesser extent in the room between shots to accomodate the photographer and allow him to gain access. How was he supposed to get around to take the shot looking towards the window without shifting any of the furniture? There is nothing sinister implicated, purely practical logistics of photographing the scene in such a tiny and cramped room.

These are the first crime scene photos we know of, and the whole procedure pretty experimental and hit and miss, with no established routine to follow. I suspect they just made it up as they went along and modern forensics would roll their eyes in horror at what went on. Does it actually matter if the table was moved a little between shots (not saying it was, but does it really matter anyway?). I sometimes think we try to read far too much into very grainy, retouched and much resaved copies of the photos.

Thank you. I agree wholeheartedly!

[cappuccina]

Hi Jane!

I always look forward to the excellent informaiton you provide in your posts here!

It would not surprise me at all if the photographer did have to move furniture slightly to accomodate his camera and other equipment at some of the angles he may have been shooting at...

Frankly, I am amazed he was able to record what he did given the circumstances...

[The Good Michael]

What possible reason would the police have to do such a thing? Seriously, what would be in it for them? Assuming any of them had the stomach to do it in the first place. Nothing shows in the photos to support this -- and there's nothing in Bond's postmortem notes, either. What support do you have for the police possibly having done this?

You didn't read my post, really, did you?

Mike

[Khanada]

You didn't read my post, really, did you?

Mike

Oh, I did. I think you didn't read mine, since you're still sidestepping every question you're asked. Why is that?

How are we to know that MJK's hand wasn't hacked off and reassembled by the police in order to make it look like it was on the wrong arm?

So, are you asking here, "How are we to know that MJK's hand wasn't hacked off [by her killer] and reassembled by the police in order to make it look like it was on the wrong arm?" Or are you asking here, "How are we to know that MJK's hand wasn't hacked off [by the police] and reassembled by the police in order to make it look like it was on the wrong arm?" Frankly, either way, I have to ask you why the police would do this, and where the support is for it? If none, then speculation, and it's speculation I just don't see the point of. If you've a genuine theory about what may have actually happened that day in Miller's Court, by all means say so. But I've asked you several questions in sincerity and seriousness, and all the response I seem to get is more cryptic nonsense about fictional characters.

Have a glorious day, of course.

[Malcolm X]

i doubt her name was MARY KELLY or even if she came from IRELAND/ went to PARIS etc etc....

there is evidence that many prostitutes would use false names and over glamourise their lives... especially the so called ``high class`` whores, it was a way of attracting rich clients, nobody knew anything about MARY KELLY only what she said, probably all lies...

Mary Kelly was a common name and even one of the Ripper victims called herself that name too, i was reading about this on the web today.

[The Good Michael]

Oh, I did. I think you didn't read mine, since you're still sidestepping every question you're asked. Why is that?

If you really read my post, you would see that I was saying the exact opposite of what you suggest.

Mike

[Nothing to see]

I know I haven't posted here for a few days but to come back to this? Mary's hand was chopped off by the police and... who is taking any of this seriously?
This was a serious discussion of the photos.

[The Good Michael]

NTS,

No one said that. Read back further. All is sane here.

Mike

[Nothing to see]

Well, I know for a fact that Willem was 100% correct when he shouted out in the mall, "There is no Easter Bunny! That's just a guy in a suit!"

Intelligence tells me that a lot of "what if's" are being trotted out for us to speculate on. What I haven't quite sussed out is why people want to play the "what if" game so badly, here. Or why they want to sidestep questions posed.

If the photographer squatted down by the bed to take MJK3, why would he steady himself by placing his hand on the corpse, and not on the bed?



What possible reason would the police have to do such a thing? Seriously, what would be in it for them? Assuming any of them had the stomach to do it in the first place. Nothing shows in the photos to support this -- and there's nothing in Bond's postmortem notes, either. What support do you have for the police possibly having done this?



Do you suggest Victorian police had the anatomical knowledge to put back together the gory jigsaw puzzle that is Mary Jane Kelly? I doubt it. And if MJK3 was in fact the first photo shot, doesn't that rather put paid to your speculation that the police chopped Mary Jane's hands off to rearrange her corpse for whatever esoteric end you're hinting at? We would see it in MJK1.

At this stage, please. If you have a theory on nefarious doings at Miller's Court, then just put them on the table. What do you think happened?

Intelligence tells me that I'm not likely to get a straightforward answer to that.

Well, that's one post that tells me that this has been discussed.

Man, this idea is not sane at all. Who is putting forward this idea?

[Archbug]

O.k. i know as a watcher rather than an active poster i dont have the right to just throw in my pennies worth whenever i feel like it...........

............But come on people!!!

As the good micheal begged USE YOUR INTELLIGENCE.

I think you will find that the original post on swapping arms was a rather brilliant and ironic explanation for the proponents of the 'its someone elses, not her hand/left hand theory' If you read it carefully you will quite clealy see the sentence after these theoris reads,

"Intelligent thought may allow us to put those ideas to rest"

In general however, I cant understand how people have such little concept of perspective!! Sitting at my desk now and moving my head back and forward my bottle of juice looks like its touching my lamp....but shock horror its a good 12 inches away, how did that happen.....<insert widly unreasonable speculation here>......i am in perfect agreement with others that its natural some things may have been moved a little for the photographers ease of convenience but there are no MAJOR aberations in positioning.

[Nothing to see]

OK Lurker. You don't think Mary's hand was chopped off and repositioned?

Good to know.

[Archbug]

Hey nothing to see,

Im sorry if you found my post unwelcome or irrelevant, but like you i was only trying to bring this thread, which started out a most interesting read, a little back to topic.

Apologies for my interferring ways

I'd also like to say thanks to steve for his hard work, the pics do look great!

[Nothing to see]

Hey nothing to see,

Im sorry if you found my post unwelcome or irrelevant, but like you i was only trying to bring this thread, which started out a most interesting read, a little back to topic.

Apologies for my interferring ways

I'd also like to say thanks to steve for his hard work, the pics do look great!

Nope. None of the above. You don't interfere. Everyone has the right to their OP.

I, too, would like to know how the hell this thread about MJK's death scene photos got hijacked.

It was a serious thread with many good posts. I've been away for a few days and it's degenerated into this?

[Archbug]

excellent would hate to be viewed as a meddlesome interloper :L

An area which always confuses my eyes is the bed to the right of her body (MJK 1), while steves pic's make this a bit clearer i am still quite confused about what i'm seeing. This is made more difficult by it not being shown in the other view. If an image from the foot of the bed did indeed exist it would show it clearer....but alas....

What do others think is happening at the right side, apart from the usual discussions on knife cuts in the sheet etc.. i mean more to do with arm positiong and blood pooling, ruffled sheet in the way....if anyone can enlighten i'd appreciate. I think someone mentioned being able to see the right arm outstretched which i cant manage to locate

[Nothing to see]

excellent would hate to be viewed as a meddlesome interloper :L

An area which always confuses my eyes is the bed to the right of her body (MJK 1), while steves pic's make this a bit clearer i am still quite confused about what i'm seeing. This is made more difficult by it not being shown in the other view. If an image from the foot of the bed did indeed exist it would show it clearer....but alas....

What do others think is happening at the right side, apart from the usual discussions on knife cuts in the sheet etc.. i mean more to do with arm positiong and blood pooling, ruffled sheet in the way....if anyone can enlighten i'd appreciate. I think someone mentioned being able to see the right arm outstretched which i cant manage to locate

I'd like the same answers if the posters who started the thread are still interested. Seems to me there is a big difference between the photo taken from the door and the photo taken from the wall with Mary's bed pushed awau from the photog.