MJK1, MJK2 and moving body

[Disco Stu]

Hi Richard,

Sorry, this debate has taken us off topic. I did notice your thumb suggestion; thumbs seem to have become a theme for the day. I've got to say I'd be puzzled if the thumb was there, in line with the hip, as the right arm appears to be stretching to the far side of the bed in the full body shot. If we can prove it's the thumb, that would be strong evidence of movement. Can you get an arm length from the left and see where it would need to be to fit in the shot?

[Disco Stu]

Hi Disco Stu,

I'm all for the theory of the second angle shot, if the police felt that they wanted an all round view. However there is nothing similar between the two photos. Nothing is consistent. There would have been no point taking a photo of the other side of the body if everything had been changed and moved.

What would have been the point of that? Surely the point would have been to see the injuries on both sides, so why cover them up? None of it makes sense to me, and as for what's on the table....well something is certainly not right there.

That is a thumb. The hand does not belong to the body, if it is a body. The way the knee is raised looks more like a head under some cloth.

Putting the two photos side by side, tell me what is consist, what is exactly the same?

You ask why would they need to fake...well, the police had nothing to do with it so was it someone's idea of a sick joke? The press wanted to reenact it? I don't have the answers to that.

Hi Amanda

I can refer you to this thread for the common points of reference, as Richard, myself and others have been discussing them. If you'd like to go through the points that have been discussed, as objectively as possible, and indicate where you think we're going wrong, it would be quite useful to the discussion. I'll offer a short re-cap of my main points:

- Assuming the right leg is near-vertical in both shots, the 3d projection fits both, refuting the idea of the body being moved;

- If the right leg was resting on the sheeting, as appears in the full body shot, the sheeting would, by all likelihood, be heavily blood stained.

- The alignment of the hand is consistent;

- The Styloid Process is consistent with a left hand from what I can see;

- The position of the white fabric over the abdomen appears to be confirmed;

- The cut/garter line appears consistent;

- The exposed thigh bone is consistent;

This all points, as far as I can see, to a murder consistent with the suggestion put forward in the PM, and I don't see discrepancies in either photo when compared to the PM. I don't see evidence of the body being moved between photos.

[Disco Stu]

Regarding the little finger, does everyone know what a Styloid Process is, and where it occurs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styloid_process

If you're happy to use Wikipedia, I'm happy to use Wikipedia. Given the subjective nature of debating how thick a little finger can be, I think something incontrovertible, such as the position of the Styloid Process would put that debate to rest. So, in MJK2 can we see the Styloid Process, and if so, where?

[Amanda Sumner]

Yes you may be convinced, but can you convince anyone else?

Well, that is the reason why I wrote it. I am hoping that others will look and see what I am seeing.
I'm sure that there are some that will look at it again and agree, at least, that there is something very odd about the photo.
There is no doubt in my mind at all.

[GUT]

It is, but based on studying the photos and dealing with dead bodies on a regular basis at one time in my life. There is something not right about the whole thing. Of course I can't prove it but I am convinced I am right.

Yes you may be convinced, but can you convince anyone else?

[Amanda Sumner]

But you see I haven't claimed to know with certainty that it is MJK, you on the other hand have said:



So that is merely your opinion, is that so?

It is, but based on studying the photos and dealing with dead bodies on a regular basis at one time in my life. There is something not right about the whole thing. Of course I can't prove it but I am convinced I am right.

[Amanda Sumner]

Regarding the little finger, does everyone know what a Styloid Process is, and where it occurs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styloid_process

[GUT]

The same way as you know it's a fact that it's MJK. You don't. I am pretty certain this is not even a body we are looking at. It is a mock up. Why is the hand put in that position? Very carelessly, too, if I may so.

But you see I haven't claimed to know with certainty that it is MJK, you on the other hand have said:

It is certainly not Mary Jane Kelly.

So that is merely your opinion, is that so?

[Amanda Sumner]

G'day Amanda



And you know this as a fact, how?

The same way as you know it's a fact that it's MJK. You don't. I am pretty certain this is not even a body we are looking at. It is a mock up. Why is the hand put in that position? Very carelessly, too, if I may so.

[Amanda Sumner]

Hi Disco Stu,

I'm all for the theory of the second angle shot, if the police felt that they wanted an all round view. However there is nothing similar between the two photos. Nothing is consistent. There would have been no point taking a photo of the other side of the body if everything had been changed and moved.

What would have been the point of that? Surely the point would have been to see the injuries on both sides, so why cover them up? None of it makes sense to me, and as for what's on the table....well something is certainly not right there.

That is a thumb. The hand does not belong to the body, if it is a body. The way the knee is raised looks more like a head under some cloth.

Putting the two photos side by side, tell me what is consist, what is exactly the same?

You ask why would they need to fake...well, the police had nothing to do with it so was it someone's idea of a sick joke? The press wanted to reenact it? I don't have the answers to that.

[GUT]

G'day Amanda

It is certainly not Mary Jane Kelly.

And you know this as a fact, how?

[Disco Stu]

The idea of this thread is to check the alignments between the two photos, to see if we (by which I mean Richard, who's done all the hard work) can prove that the body was moved between shots. The 3D mock up seems to suggest that, no, it hasn't. So that would suggest, assuming it's been faked, they did a very good job. Unless they had access to, what we've been referring to in the thread as MJK1, they must have made some very accurate guesses.

If they had access to MJK1, why did they need to fake more?

If they did have access to MJK1, why not do a re-shoot from that angle?

What benefit could be gained from mocking-up a reverse angle shot?

Amanda Sumner has raised the question about why they needed to move the bed. Why did the chicken cross the road? In all likelihood, they wanted photographs from all sides before the body was moved to the mortuary. Moving the bed seems to be the easiest method of getting to the other side. Certainly it's less extreme than knocking down a wall, at least in my humble opinion.

Regarding the little finger, does everyone know what a Styloid Process is, and where it occurs?

[Wickerman]

Nothing will convince me that this is a genuine photo taken in the afternoon of that fateful day.

OK. I get the message.

[Amanda Sumner]

Gut, so it does, but never the less it is no means certain where this photo came from, or who took it, or why.

To quote:

"One can only assume that the Kelly photograph was removed from the file at a much earlier date, since Sir Melville Macnaghten refers to it in his notes. Stranger still was the fact that the photograph was the work of the City Police, in spite of the dressing down they had received from Sir Charles Warren for being in Whitechapel."

So it does appear that only one original photo disappeared but two versions turn up.

Wickerman, I understand what you are saying but the fact that, even if several photos of the body were taken that day, why would one tamper with the body, cover it up and do all the things that I mentioned? It makes no sense. Even if that was true, and the whole purpose was to give an all round view, why air brush an arm in, because that clearly is not a human arm. In my professional life, I have laid out many a dead body and I have yet to see a corpse lying flat on a bed one minute and its legs raised the next without human intervention, they would have to be held up. So where is the person holding the legs up and why do it anyway? Not to show the injuries, because they are covered up. It's also very interesting that the head is hidden from view.
Nothing will convince me that this is a genuine photo taken in the afternoon of that fateful day. I don't know why or when it was taken and I'm not even sure that it is a corpse we are looking at. It is certainly not Mary Jane Kelly.

[GUT]

G'day Amanda

you say

It's also interesting that in the first link only one photo was spoken about and the fact that 'it' went missing.

However the first link as you call it contans the following:

Mary Jeanette Kelly, the last victim, in November 1888, is pictured twice on the bed where she was mutilated and disembowelled.

From the Independent, Friday 19 August 1988:-

Faces fail to solve Ripper puzzle.
By Terry Kirby