MJK1 & MJK3 camera positions - plan view. (Warning - graphic images)

[Sam Flynn]

I remember reading that one of the shots taken was a closeup of Mary's face, because of the mistaken belief that the eyes of a dead person record the last thing they saw. If that one ever surfaces... Whoa. Just imagine.

Photographing the retina involved much more invasive procedure than taking a close-up of the face, Ken - I seem to recall that it was more of a "zoom" into the pupil, with electric charges applied to the eye, which was lit up from behind. If such a photo had been taken of Kelly, it probably wouldn't show us much at all.

All that assumes that such a photo had in fact been taken, of course, which I doubt. The source of the "Tale of Kelly's Eye" was the memoir of Walter Dew, who can't be fully relied upon at all times, in my opinion. If Dew wasn't flowering things up on this occasion, it's possible that he got confused with an episode at the Annie Chapman inquest, where the question of retinal photography arose - and was quickly turned down as useless by Dr Bagster Phillips.

[kensei]

I remember reading that one of the shots taken was a closeup of Mary's face, because of the mistaken belief that the eyes of a dead person record the last thing they saw. If that one ever surfaces... Whoa. Just imagine.

Please forgive my ignorance, but is there a photo MK2?
When I first got into ripperology in 1986,the photo MK1 was widely known, but can anyone tell me much about MK3, when it surfaced etc. Also if theres no MK2,why is it referred to as MK3?
Many thanks

Hi Warspite,

There is a story that there were some 6 pictures taken in total, based on some ?/6 numbering found on one of the files concerning them. I believe MJK3 was anonymously sent to the Records department of the Public Archives in 1989, in connection with the anniversary resurgence in the Ripper crimes in 1988.

MJK2 likely does exist, or did, and some other shots of the room, its contents and the victim. But no-one knows if those plates or images still exist.

I hope that helps a bit.

Best regards.

[WARSPITE]

Please forgive my ignorance, but is there a photo MK2?
When I first got into ripperology in 1986,the photo MK1 was widely known, but can anyone tell me much about MK3, when it surfaced etc. Also if theres no MK2,why is it referred to as MK3?
Many thanks

[Malcolm X]

I found it interesting you suggest the murder in room 13 was methodical....because I agree with that in part Steve, only differing on what that suggests. Because for me, I see method without passion or motivation, almost mechanical de-engineering, no one element having more significance than another....and some elements without rational explanation.

I think "rationally"....his cutting open a womens abdomen, if he wanted to get at organs inside there, makes perfect sense. And in most outdoor murders, thats the bulk of his time spent, performing extractions by first creating openings in those areas. There are other acts, but they are short and are not obviously of great significance.

I dont see a rational explanation for the entire right thigh and the inside of the left one. Nor the breast and uterus's final resting place. The time that was taken in that room....if the killer just wanted to take her heart or any organ as a partial goal, does'nt compute.

Thats why many thought he went crazy in that act and that room, and some think that leads to his suicide.

It was madness. Jacks murders were cold and viscious...but clever enough to stay short of "mad".

Best regards

i've often thought what was going on in his mind, because we see no rage, he's de-humanized her, removed any trace of womanhood/ sexuality..but in a cold calculating way.

it's like a crazed autopsy, it also seems as if he's on drugs...it's a type of halucination...it makes no sense.... i've been on many sick internet sites, but i've never seen something like this...it's the stripping of thighs/ pelvis exposed, that makes this murder look unique

it's not sadistically evil... it's something totally different, it's childlike; very imbecilic.... he's toying with her body....... it's very hard to explain or to even get close to, probably because it lacks traits of humanity.

my guess is he stripped the pelvis/ thighs at the end, as his mind started to wander off..........it's most odd!

[Mascara & Paranoia]

We have no idea how Jack (if it was him who) mutilated Mary; I think going by the pictures the majority of people would assume he was in a frenzied state, but for all we know he could've been dismantling her quite calmly, or however he ripped his other victims (I'm thinking more along the lines of Annie, as Polly and Kate seem like evident rush jobs to me).

I found it interesting you suggest the murder in room 13 was methodical....because I agree with that in part Steve, only differing on what that suggests. Because for me, I see method without passion or motivation, almost mechanical de-engineering, no one element having more significance than another....and some elements without rational explanation.

I think "rationally"....his cutting open a womens abdomen, if he wanted to get at organs inside there, makes perfect sense. And in most outdoor murders, thats the bulk of his time spent, performing extractions by first creating openings in those areas. There are other acts, but they are short and are not obviously of great significance.

I dont see a rational explanation for the entire right thigh and the inside of the left one. Nor the breast and uterus's final resting place. The time that was taken in that room....if the killer just wanted to take her heart or any organ as a partial goal, does'nt compute.

Thats why many thought he went crazy in that act and that room, and some think that leads to his suicide.

It was madness. Jacks murders were cold and viscious...but clever enough to stay short of "mad".

Best regards

[sgh]

great to cyber-meet you last night.

Thanks should go to YOU for doing something like this which could open new possibilities of understanding on the MJK murder, and possibly by extension to the others.

I think it makes sense starting at what can be proven, i.e., from the actual murder scene, and working the other way...most of us start from the other end, with suspicions of the killer and preconceptions about certain things, so maybe something new will come from your work...i do hope so! Exciting stuff!

I was particularly interested in your belief that the murder and mutilation of MJK was very organised and meticulous. (Hope i haven't misunderstood you there) Within my own limited mind, i try to understand what kind of person could possibly be capable of doing something like this...sane? insane? psycopath? Of course, if the murder was carried out in a methodical manner, as can be established hopefully by your work, it may have the effect of making the possibilities of either Barnett or Fleming killing her in a jealous fury less possible, which would be good to be able to exclude (as far as one can) various suspects if it appears the evidence supports it.

Thank you for your kind words...i disguise quite well that i dont have a clue what i am talking about, don't i?

catch up soon Steve and thanks again for the interesting conversation last night

Hi BB,
It was great to cyber talk to you too last night

Yes, I concentrate on the MJK crime scene photos as they are the best visuals of the situation, so using what can be gleaned from them then working the case backwards/outwards to see who fits the title of Jack seems the ideal way to go for me, it's the only bit of hard fact showing the actual scene of the crime.
Viewing the 2 famous photos is one thing, but once one studies them hard then commits those findings to a diagram that's as accurate as can be, one's mind really opens up.
It also helps to test the recorded and theorised views of the situation, such as police bashing the door open to gain access to the murder scene, others reaching through the broken window to open the door, was it a dull rainy day at the time of taking the police photos of the scene as stated in the records (re MJK photo 3 indicating sunlight on the flesh laden table) etc, etc.

Also, you understood me correctly when I said that in my opinion, Jack was methodical in the murder of MJK. I reckon the first clue to that reasoning starts at the afore knowledge of Jack turning his victims head away from himself before slashing the neck so as to avoid the spurt of blood on himself.
Blood stains can be seen on the far side of the pillow to mjk's right, also the spatters of blood on the partition wall. He's obviously no starter at this and knew what he was doing. Once the throat is cut through to the depth he did, there's no more sound coming from that girl. Then he can continue working on the rest of the body most likely from the head and working downwards.
Turning her over, or leaving her on her back and lifting her legs to remove flesh from the bottock area, thighs and left leg calf muscle, ( re bloody finger marks and smudges on both legs in MJK1 photo) and turning her back again to do the remaing damage.
Something like that order of operation anyway!

Hunting for clues in the photos and understanding them correctly should help
to narrow the field of suspects!

I don't know enough of the other ripper murders, so whatever I can bring to light as far as MJK's concerned might switch on the light to others who do have a genuine and solid understanding of the overall facts and help them to point fingers with a little more certainty as to exactly which suspects can definitely be ruled out - or in for that matter. Big question I know.

BB, you enlightened me on many of the things about the case - I'm very impressed indeed with your knowledge - left me way behind .

Thank you too for a great chat.

Best
Steve

Hi Perrymason,
I've always assumed the rolled up bedding was there at the time of the murder, the camera placed ontop for the close-up shot came in handy, however, that is disturbing the evidence and would nowadays be classed as contaminating that evidence.

In my opinion/experience, it would be simple to preset the camera to the required settings then position it by guesstimating the view required then,
by leaning from the corner of the bed, fire the shutter/ remove and replace the lens cap, whichever the case may be. I don't have positive id of the camera used but what I do know is that the image would be seen upside down and back to front on the groundglass back of the camera.

I might post an example of what you see through the back end of a large format camera to help folks understand how a scene is viewed and composed
because many will not have considered this added difficulty to taking a photo.

Many Thanks BTW

Best,
Steve

YW Steve, its nice work and easy to use. On the specific camera, Ill revisit Simon Woods dissertation here on that because I believe he uses some contemporary models in his analysis.

On the bedding....it was nice to feel somewhat vindicated that it was a likely spot for MJK3....but Im not sure sure we should assume it was there when they entered. It seems to me an odd location to stuff some extra blanket or bedding down if bedding down for the night. Why not just at the end of the bed but not pulled up, if she was warm from the booze and the fire heat. If it was at the end of the bed, it could have been thrown back by her or the killer...but when they entered it would seem to have little value to the investigation itself.. with just a quick inspection for blood.

I know moving anything would violate modern crime scene rules today....but as per a discussion with Glenn here some time ago it appears that this may have been the first crime scene lockdown of its type in the history of the London Police. Supposedly that room was untouched until a full forensic team was onsite, and they entered and documented it as found.

So what harm might anticipated if a creative police shutter bug suggested rolling that blanket up at the bottom of the bed and stuffing it in that space for a perch to get a right side angle?

All the best Steve.

[babybird67]

hi Steve

great to cyber-meet you last night.

Thanks should go to YOU for doing something like this which could open new possibilities of understanding on the MJK murder, and possibly by extension to the others.

I think it makes sense starting at what can be proven, i.e., from the actual murder scene, and working the other way...most of us start from the other end, with suspicions of the killer and preconceptions about certain things, so maybe something new will come from your work...i do hope so! Exciting stuff!

I was particularly interested in your belief that the murder and mutilation of MJK was very organised and meticulous. (Hope i haven't misunderstood you there) Within my own limited mind, i try to understand what kind of person could possibly be capable of doing something like this...sane? insane? psycopath? Of course, if the murder was carried out in a methodical manner, as can be established hopefully by your work, it may have the effect of making the possibilities of either Barnett or Fleming killing her in a jealous fury less possible, which would be good to be able to exclude (as far as one can) various suspects if it appears the evidence supports it.

Thank you for your kind words...i disguise quite well that i dont have a clue what i am talking about, don't i?

catch up soon Steve and thanks again for the interesting conversation last night

[sgh]

thank you. Very interesting.

Hi babybirds67,

Many Thanks and I hope it makes sense and is helpful to you.
I've been reading your other posts elsewhere and you've written good stuff
and obviously understand the wider field of the jtr case far better than I do!

Keep up with your good work.

Best, Steve

[sgh]

If Ive sussed out the details correctly in those excellent illustrations, the position of the camera for MJK3 is about where I always assumed it was, on the bedding between the bed and the wall with the enclosed entrance to the stairs and the exit under the archway. Which would mean it was taken with a remote shutter, or with a crown mounted focus/frame viewfinder, like in some portrait cameras of the period.

If thats the case, was the bedding being there merely advantageous, or arranged with intent? A small issue....but one of those answers would indicate that at least something in that room was moved after they entered it, but not the bed itself.

Cheers all.

Hi Perrymason,
I've always assumed the rolled up bedding was there at the time of the murder, the camera placed ontop for the close-up shot came in handy, however, that is disturbing the evidence and would nowadays be classed as contaminating that evidence.

In my opinion/experience, it would be simple to preset the camera to the required settings then position it by guesstimating the view required then,
by leaning from the corner of the bed, fire the shutter/ remove and replace the lens cap, whichever the case may be. I don't have positive id of the camera used but what I do know is that the image would be seen upside down and back to front on the groundglass back of the camera.

I might post an example of what you see through the back end of a large format camera to help folks understand how a scene is viewed and composed
because many will not have considered this added difficulty to taking a photo.

Many Thanks BTW

Best,
Steve

[Sam Flynn]

If thats the case, was the bedding being there merely advantageous, or arranged with intent?

Why would they have bothered laying a stocking over the top of the bedding, though? I can't quite see that an uplift of a few extra microns under the camera would have made much difference to the shot.

[babybird67]

great work sgh

thank you. Very interesting.

If Ive sussed out the details correctly in those excellent illustrations, the position of the camera for MJK3 is about where I always assumed it was, on the bedding between the bed and the wall with the enclosed entrance to the stairs and the exit under the archway. Which would mean it was taken with a remote shutter, or with a crown mounted focus/frame viewfinder, like in some portrait cameras of the period.

If thats the case, was the bedding being there merely advantageous, or arranged with intent? A small issue....but one of those answers would indicate that at least something in that room was moved after they entered it, but not the bed itself.

Cheers all.