Mary kelly photo enhancement...

[Malcolm X]

no you're both missing the point completely, this killer looks more semi crazed/ Scizophrenic than i thought, maybe more so than GH.

maybe LA DE DA is true and JTR is indeed a Jew, maybe Lawende and co are lieing about Sailor boy and they saw JACOB LEVY instead.

not sure right now, but this could be the start of something

[DVV]

Hello David. Are you suggesting the Nazis were behind the WCM?

Nope. I'm down-to-earth like my master Toppy.

Of course, may not be quite so outlandish as a sexual serial killer.

Keep us posted with opinions of this kind, my dear.

[Observer]

Hello David. Are you suggesting the Nazis were behind the WCM? A bit anachronistic perhaps?

Of course, may not be quite so outlandish as a sexual serial killer.

Cheers.
LC

And certainly not as outlandish as the very unholy trio of Ishy the mad pork butcher, a bunch of scheming Russians, and a phalanx of rabid Irishmen.

[DVV]

Hi Obs, fine my dear ?
What's wrong with Lynn's theory ? You're not ready to dissolve the case ? That's what ripperology is about, mind you.

[Observer]

Hi David

It's a fine theory, worthy of any penny dreadful circulating at the time of the Whitechapel atrocities !

It would take some dissolving mind you. Before I could dissolve it, I'd need to take some lessons from no less a person than Mr John George Haigh I'd say!

And you're correct, Ripperology is a matter of opinion, although how anyone could favour the Nazis over a lone sexual serial killer is beyond me. heh heh.

Best Regards

[DVV]

Haig would dissolve the victims, the killer and the theorists as one corpus delicti, that's right.
I'm not sure I understand Lynn. Isenchmid took Chapman uterus but he was not a "sexual lone serial killer" (far away from home) ?
That's it ? But how can it be ?

[lynn cates]

As you wish, Effendi.

Hello David.

"Keep us posted with opinions of this kind, my dear."

Your wish is my command.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

not far

Hello (again) David.

Far from home? About 6 miles.

Annie's uterus? Possibly. May have sold it for sheep's offal at the Spitalfield's market.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Haig would dissolve the victims, the killer and the theorists as one corpus delicti, that's right.
I'm not sure I understand Lynn. Isenchmid took Chapman uterus but he was not a "sexual lone serial killer" (far away from home) ?
That's it ? But how can it be ?

Precisely. Also I think certain posters put far too much emphesis on the variety of cuts inflicted upon the various individuals when determining authorship of the murders. In short, Nichols can't have been murdered by the same killer as Eddowes for Nichiols slayer cut from the sternum to the pubes, whereas Eddowes was cut in the opposite direction. Same killer different method as far as I'm concerned.

[Phil Carter]

High ranking Police comment via the MM

Hello all,

As we are on a thread relating to a Mary Kelly photo enhancement, it is here I introduce sometėng that no doubt will be explained away in some fashion or another...

The recent publishing of the full version of the Aberconway Version of the MM, I was reminded by this thread of the Scotland Yard Version's words, on a document type-signed by it's author, M.L.Macnaghten, 23rd Feb. 1894..

...The last murder is the only one that took place in a room, and the murderer must have beenat least 2 hours engaged. A PHOTO WAS TAKEN OF THE WOMAN, AS SHE WAS FOUND LYING ON THE BED, without seeing which it is impossible to imagine the awful mutilation.
(my emphasis in Caps)

A photo. Not some photos, photographs etc, A PHOTO, singular.
It would appear to me that MLM would CERTAINLY have seen all info in the Kelly file, in compiling his purported 'response' to the Sun newspaper articles by suggested Official request. The conclusion therefore, that only ONE photo of Kelly on her bed in her room existed, and that should there have been another photo (i.e. MJK3) this too would have been mentioned both in a quantative manner and in reference to the 'awful mutilations'.

All of whėch confirms even more this(and other) writer's opinion that the photo sent in to the (Police) Museum (MJJ3) is a false and poorly constructed photograhic presentation..which is what has been referred to again recently on the Van Gogh thread. It is to my mind important to mention this here, where the MJK1 photo is enhanced.

Kindly

Phil

[Monty]

Hmmm, seems we are a post lighter here than yesterday.

This is not confirmation at all Phil, its just folly driven by suspicious minds devoid of common sense and reason. Its yet another case of hysteria and myth building.

The photo is obvious refernce to MJK1. A singular photo of Kelly in her entirety on the bed. The conclusion is erronous.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-kelly.html%3Fprinter%3Dtrue&sa=U&ei=bvM8T866BIqV8gOPp9ivCA&ved=0CBEQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEcwwDf5KYbJJ92YMgqfYXr7GwHvQ

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Lets try again then.

There is no evidence that the MJK 3 photos is anything other than genuine.
I have actually seen it and photographed it. I have compared it to the other photos that are at the NA and which were returned to the Black Museum at the same time. It is consistent with them.

To suggest that it is a fake is ludicrous and irresponsible.There is not one piece of evidence to suggest that it is or any justification for doing.

It would be nice if some evidence would be posted while making such naive and ill informed claims.

[Phil Carter]

another pop

Hmmm, seems we are a post lighter here than yesterday.

This is not confirmation at all Phil, its just folly driven by suspicious minds devoid of common sense and reason. Its yet another case of hysteria and myth building.

The photo is obvious refernce to MJK1. A singular photo of Kelly in her entirety on the bed. The conclusion is erronous.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-kelly.html%3Fprinter%3Dtrue&sa=U&ei=bvM8T866BIqV8gOPp9ivCA&ved=0CBEQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEcwwDf5KYbJJ92YMgqfYXr7GwHvQ

Monty

Hello Monty,




If you had bothered to read my post, instead of using EVERY opportunity to have another pop at my reasoning every time I post, you would realise that the MM reference I made war EXACTLY ar you said ...the MJK1 photo. However- I poimted out that MLM wrote of A PHOTO ONLY. Given that he could have referred to any number of photos (had they been taken) with the same reference to the shocking sight- but didnt- then it is NOT unreasonable to say that ONE photo only was taken in that room. There wasn't any comment from MLM to more than A photo.

That is a fact, and I would like you to show me evidence of ANY policeman equally ranked or higher rčferrering to more than ONE photo taken in that room. it is NOT unreasonable to surmise that MLM had at his fingertips the murder files when doing thės 'job' for a higher authority. So if there were mnre photos alongside MJK1 in that file, he would have no reason not to refer to a plural quantity.

hello Rob,

The argument for the validity of that photo has been discussed elsewhere many times, both for and against, and although you may have decided on its veracity, others in the field do not agree. I am one of them. You are entitled to your opinion, as are all.


Kindly

Phil

[Rob Clack]

hello Rob,

The argument for the validity of that photo has been discussed elsewhere many times, both for and against, and although you may have decided on its veracity, others in the field do not agree. I am one of them. You are entitled to your opinion, as are all.


Kindly

Phil

I must have missed those against arguments. Probably because the people who gave them are of no importance to me. Still it's very easy for people to say they are fake without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Those people are a waste of space they don't contribute anything and just try and stir trouble. I guess they don't care about there reputation.

And I hope you are not accusing me of having a pop at you.

Rob

[DVV]

I suspect MJK2-2 is a fake.
Who's with me on this ?