Tweet
As you know, MJK3, the second existent image of Mary Jane Kelly’s murder scene, lacks any provenance. It was anonymously mailed to Scotland Yard in 1888.
There are many excellent threads here in the forums analyzing the differences between the images. These differences are confounding and lead most to conclude one of two origins of MJK3:
First, that a photographer arrived earlier at the scene than the taker of MJK1 and at least one of the two photographers moved the bed and tables to assist in capturing their image.
Or second, that MJK3 should be assumed to be a forgery.
I see the wisdom in both positions as first, London 1888 was not CSI: Miami and second, when a mysterious photograph of a famous crime scene appears without warning on the centennial anniversary, a healthy dose of skepticism is, well, healthy.
For reference, here are some of the comparison threads that I am discussing:
And of course, Simon Wood’s analysis: Room 13 Millers Court
Before I start, I think it’s wise to defer to the more thorough understanding of some of this forum’s “greats,” who have been studying this topic far longer than I have.
With all of the audacity of a neophyte, I would like to ask: is it possible that the killer took the MJK3 photograph?
Fair warning, I, like most of us in this forum, have my own pet suspect. Before I discuss why I think he could have been the photographer, I would like your opinions on whether you think that MJK3, the darker image with a different layout and even perhaps a knife on the table could have plausibly been captured by the murderer himself?
Magnesium flash powder was available in the 1880’s but usually caused an audible bang and left dusty residue. So while it’s technically possible that a flash was used in the darkened room, it would have been quite dangerous to do so. And the camera equipment would have been a large object to smuggle in and out of the room.
In the event that there was a photograph taken by the killer, he would have had to stand next to the larger, unbroken window. If you look at Simon Wood’s diagram 4, holding a flash aloft from that vantage point while holding the camera trigger in the other hand would keep the photographer from being in shot, capture the image as pictured, and explain the singular light source.
I am not experienced enough to know if the glowing vertical line could be falling magnesium, but I would like to hear from someone who does know more about period photography on that topic.
What odds would you lay for the three options: both pics were taken by police who moved tables / MJK3 is a forgery / MJK3 was taken by the killer?
There are many excellent threads here in the forums analyzing the differences between the images. These differences are confounding and lead most to conclude one of two origins of MJK3:
First, that a photographer arrived earlier at the scene than the taker of MJK1 and at least one of the two photographers moved the bed and tables to assist in capturing their image.
Or second, that MJK3 should be assumed to be a forgery.
I see the wisdom in both positions as first, London 1888 was not CSI: Miami and second, when a mysterious photograph of a famous crime scene appears without warning on the centennial anniversary, a healthy dose of skepticism is, well, healthy.
For reference, here are some of the comparison threads that I am discussing:
And of course, Simon Wood’s analysis: Room 13 Millers Court
Before I start, I think it’s wise to defer to the more thorough understanding of some of this forum’s “greats,” who have been studying this topic far longer than I have.
With all of the audacity of a neophyte, I would like to ask: is it possible that the killer took the MJK3 photograph?
Fair warning, I, like most of us in this forum, have my own pet suspect. Before I discuss why I think he could have been the photographer, I would like your opinions on whether you think that MJK3, the darker image with a different layout and even perhaps a knife on the table could have plausibly been captured by the murderer himself?
Magnesium flash powder was available in the 1880’s but usually caused an audible bang and left dusty residue. So while it’s technically possible that a flash was used in the darkened room, it would have been quite dangerous to do so. And the camera equipment would have been a large object to smuggle in and out of the room.
In the event that there was a photograph taken by the killer, he would have had to stand next to the larger, unbroken window. If you look at Simon Wood’s diagram 4, holding a flash aloft from that vantage point while holding the camera trigger in the other hand would keep the photographer from being in shot, capture the image as pictured, and explain the singular light source.
I am not experienced enough to know if the glowing vertical line could be falling magnesium, but I would like to hear from someone who does know more about period photography on that topic.
What odds would you lay for the three options: both pics were taken by police who moved tables / MJK3 is a forgery / MJK3 was taken by the killer?
Comment