MJK1, MJK2 and moving body

[Rob Clack]

There's nothing fake about MJK3, it is a genuine photograph of Mary Kelly

Rob

[Wickerman]

Why take a photograph in the first place? The answer is to preserve evidence. So, if this is a genuine photo, why move the bed at all? Why take a photo, of a mutilated body, if you are going to cover it? Why take a photo if you are going to re-position the body, the legs, the arm? Why take a photo if you are going to take, or change, the contents on the table?

Hi Amanda.

Have you ever tried to solve a 20 piece puzzle, with only six pieces?

What can happen is we resort to guesswork, then we believe our own guesswork, and become convinced in our own creation, but the true puzzle remains unsolved.

Ok, let me start with "why take that photo?".
Two points are relevant, the first is that Dr. Phillips used a professional photographer, so he does know what he is doing.
Second is, this is a crime scene.

When a professional photographer is requested by the head surgeon to photograph the body and, we have one particular photo with no apparent central focus and, the body is in a room too small to capture the entire body up close.
Take all these points together and it suggests to me the photographer was requested to take several shots to create a panoramic view.
Perhaps we have one of a set of three or four. The photo(s) to the left, taking in her upper torso are missing, and the one to the right showing the foot and organs on the bed is also missing.

None of the photo's by themselves had an obvious central focus, they were (perhaps) intended to be viewed as a set to provide a panoramic view of the entire body.

As to whether any body parts or limbs were moved, it may be well to remember that the photographer arrived before the autopsy began, and only left after it was concluded.

Therefore, it is quite possible that some photo's were taken before the autopsy, then the doctors set to work likely moving limbs where necessary, then another few photo's were taken after the autopsy.
Perhaps this was one of the latter group.

[Amanda Sumner]

Thank you Monty.

That was most enlightening and kind of proves that I may be right about the photo.

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

MJK3 was staged. I wonder if it was even taken in Miller's court. However, a thought has just occurred to me that maybe it was, but after the removal of MJK. It could have been an elaborate mock up by journalists, having been denied access, to stage a photo of their own. Not improbable, but we will never know now.

It's highly unlikely that police would have gone to such lengths to move the bed and table into the middle of the room. Why would they? As the bed did originally stand against the partitioned wall, where there was blood splashed along it and a pool of blood on the floor underneath,the police, quite properly, took the original photograph in that position.

It would be nice to think, that had the police taken more photographs of that room, perhaps of the chair with her clothes on it, and the fireplace as it was, and they are, indeed, hidden somewhere , that whoever has them now would one day have a conscience and return them to where they belong.

Although, only if they are genuine, of course...

[Monty]

This may aid

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-kelly.html

Also

http://casebook.org/dissertations/room-13-millers-court.html

Monty

[Amanda Sumner]

I have to say, I am surprised that you feel this is a genuine photo. The first time I came across it I noticed differences straight away which roused my curiosity. Like you, I initially thought that the clothing over the lower part of the body was an act of modesty, but then I noticed the positioning of the legs. The more I looked the more doubtful I became...and then I saw the thumb... That clinched it for me.
I have already listed the main discrepancies, so the questions left to ask are these:

Why take a photograph in the first place? The answer is to preserve evidence. So, if this is a genuine photo, why move the bed at all? Why take a photo, of a mutilated body, if you are going to cover it? Why take a photo if you are going to re-position the body, the legs, the arm? Why take a photo if you are going to take, or change, the contents on the table? The answer is, you would do none of these things unless you were staging something that was not real. If that was a genuine police photo, why would they have tampered with the body to such a degree that it looked nothing like the original photo taken from the position of the window? The answer to that, is they didn't.
The hand is the biggest give away. What you say is a little finger is too thick to be one and the angle of it definitely shows it to be a thumb. The foreground is very odd too. As I've said, it looks brushed in to me.

I have only one question left to ask. Where did the photograph originate from? I don't know the answer to that....

[Wickerman]

Thank you for showing me those, so it seems that it was reported, at least, that the police took more than one. It's a shame that we do not have them to look at. However, it does not answer the questions I have raised about this one. It is odd, to say the least, do you not think?

You're welcome Amanda.

As for that large paragraph of objections

What I see are the right shin in the lower foreground, very much out of focus (which you claim looks like it is painted in).
I see the left wrist & little finger, which some have thought to be a right hand with thumb - I don't agree.
I do agree there looks like fabric placed over the genital area, likely the result of Victorian modesty by the photographer.
Apparently, they did move the bed to obtain this view.

I also think this picture is evidence of the fact the photographer could get close enough within the room without photographing the body from outside. The room, as small as it was, is still large enough for the tripod.

Another reason I don't think the camera was outside for the 'body on the bed' shot is the glow of a flash-gun by her left leg.
The flash would have to be inside the room with the camera outside.
There was no automatic remote means of co-ordination between flash & camera in those days.

All in all I have to disagree with your conclusions Amanda.
I see no reason to believe the close-up picture is not real.

[Amanda Sumner]

Amanda.

The contemporary press were aware of the police photographer taking several photo's.

While this examination was being made a photographer, who, in the meantime, had been sent for, arrived and took photographs of the body, the organs, the room, and its contents.
Times.

Before the post-mortem examination a photographer was set to work in the Court and house. The state of the atmosphere was unfortunately not favorable to good results. The photographer, however, succeeded in securing several negatives.
New York Herald.

The Photographer was likely a private indivudual named Joseph Martin:
"...he was appointed official photographer to the Metropolitan Police, his duty being to photograph the bodies of unknown dead persons in the Metropolitan Police area"
http://www.casebook.org/press_report...ela331021.html

Thank you for showing me those, so it seems that it was reported, at least, that the police took more than one. It's a shame that we do not have them to look at. However, it does not answer the questions I have raised about this one. It is odd, to say the least, do you not think?

[Wickerman]

Amanda.

The contemporary press were aware of the police photographer taking several photo's.

While this examination was being made a photographer, who, in the meantime, had been sent for, arrived and took photographs of the body, the organs, the room, and its contents.
Times.

Before the post-mortem examination a photographer was set to work in the Court and house. The state of the atmosphere was unfortunately not favorable to good results. The photographer, however, succeeded in securing several negatives.
New York Herald.

The Photographer was likely a private indivudual named Joseph Martin:
"...he was appointed official photographer to the Metropolitan Police, his duty being to photograph the bodies of unknown dead persons in the Metropolitan Police area"

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/east_london_advertiser/ela331021.html

[Amanda Sumner]

Hello Michael V Richards,

I believe I have only seen a report of one photo being taken of MJK, through the window. None of the press were allowed into the room, so only the police took the photo(s) for their own records.
If there were other photos, where are they?
The one in question, this one, supposedly taken from the side of her bed against the partitioned wall, does not make sense. They would have had to move the bed to get behind it, and with a tripod, they would have had to move it quite a distance. In turn, they would have had to move the table, so both bed and table would have been at an angle. Looking at the contents on the table, they do not tally with the original picture taken from the window. The hand, which is in the wrong place, has a thumb, which seems, to me to belong to someone crouching down the side of the bed. It is not her hand. Looking at the body, itself, the legs are in the wrong position, in fact the furthest one seems to have been raised. Moreover, the knee part actually looks to me like someone's head over some sort of cloth. (Possibly the owner of the hand?) In the original photo, MJK's legs are bare, cut in various places and the her right thigh stripped down to the bone. This one, her legs are covered with what looks, to me, to be some sort of material. In the very foreground of the picture is supposedly her arm, which looks painted in. It's at the wrong angle anyway. Not only that, there also seems to be a badly painted hand holding something. All in all, there is something very fishy going on here. Wherever this photo came from, it did not come from the police records. Neither is it a photo of MJK. I don't know what it is, but in my opinion it is a hoax, a mock up to deceive.

[Michael W Richards]

Clearly the photo is a mock up , a fake.
This is not Mary Jane Kelly.
Only one photo was taken of her, through the window, I believe.

There are just too many things wrong with the photo for it to be genuine.

There is some indication that in fact at least 6 images were taken Amanda, on I believe one of the glass slides used to make MJK2 and 3 there is a ?/6 notation, I don't recall which. But that would make more sense, this site was locked down for hours before they even opened the door because their intention was to have everyone in attendance that they would need when they entered the room...including photogs. This may in fact be the very first crime scene handled in this way by London's, or anyone's, police force.

What we might consider is the claim that they waited in the courtyard from 11:30 until 1:30 before forcing the door open...presumably because the nighttable, chair or sitting table was in the way. What we can say is that the killer left by the door,... both windows were locked from the inside, and unless the killer knew Barnetts method of unlocking the door from outside the window, its unlikely anyone just figured it out that night.

So...If the killer left via the door, releasing the spring latch so it would lock behind him...how could something be blocking the door access into the room? Even if he squeezes out a small opening there would still be that opening available to anyone who might want to enter.

If your spidey senses are sharp you might consider that the room was likely entered before that show of force at 1:30, the windows opened to allow air to enter the room...and after whomever performed the recording of the room and the deceased, including pictures, it was restored to a locked windows/locked door state. This state was "proven" by the forceful entry required, even though McCarthy likely knew about the window/latch entry method. The body was removed in the late afternoon, in a wooden "box", one might imagine that's why one window framing was also removed.

There is what we are told, then there is what is in the best interest of the investigation or the investigators to reveal publicly, and then there is an honest, undeniable truth.

We likely have a mishmash of all three in this instance.

Cheers

[richardh]

Could well be Michael, but non-the-less it does look very thumb-like to me, the more I look at it.

[Michael W Richards]

Below is a reply to your other point Stu, about the faint line you thought might be the other side of the right leg's circumstance cut.

While doing this one I noted something which may be of significance. Here's the image:



Note the 'red cloth' in position, the exposed right femur matches also.
And my 'garter/cut' ring is indeed in the same location as the faint line you mentioned Stu. Again, the angels and so forth are not smack on but this does demonstrate that your theory is holding true.

The bit I discovered which may be of significance is the position of the thumb of Mary's right hand. I admit that I moved my model's right arm toward her body as I think it was abducted too far. When I moved it in, her thumb of the right hand took the position you see in the above images. And if you look at the original MJK2 you'll see the little protuberance that I have to admit I thought was a glancing shot of her right femur.

On looking very closely at MJK2 I really think that protuberance DOES look thumb-like.

Another 'happy coincidence'? I'll put the suggestion out there for you all to argue over

There are many possibilities. One of which has not been mentioned on this particular thread. Camera's from the period were often equipped with a remote shutter, operated by squeezing a rubber bulb attached by a tube to the camera itself. In the shot there is clearly bedding or a duvet, or sheets, stuffed down between the bed and the partition wall. Around the spot where the shot back across Mary towards the door was made.

If someone were crouching out of picture, holding the shutter bulb with their left hand, could that hand we see be a thumb of a right hand....perhaps the man steadied himself while crouching and didn't realize his thumb was in that shot.

Cheers

[Amanda Sumner]

Clearly the photo is a mock up , a fake.
This is not Mary Jane Kelly.
Only one photo was taken of her, through the window, I believe.

There are just too many things wrong with the photo for it to be genuine.

[richardh]

Below is a reply to your other point Stu, about the faint line you thought might be the other side of the right leg's circumstance cut.

While doing this one I noted something which may be of significance. Here's the image:



Note the 'red cloth' in position, the exposed right femur matches also.
And my 'garter/cut' ring is indeed in the same location as the faint line you mentioned Stu. Again, the angels and so forth are not smack on but this does demonstrate that your theory is holding true.

The bit I discovered which may be of significance is the position of the thumb of Mary's right hand. I admit that I moved my model's right arm toward her body as I think it was abducted too far. When I moved it in, her thumb of the right hand took the position you see in the above images. And if you look at the original MJK2 you'll see the little protuberance that I have to admit I thought was a glancing shot of her right femur.

On looking very closely at MJK2 I really think that protuberance DOES look thumb-like.

Another 'happy coincidence'? I'll put the suggestion out there for you all to argue over

[Wickerman]

Also, interesting suggestion that MJK 2 was taken from the alcove via an opened window, and that MJK 3's angle suggests that the bed was moved.

It might be expecting too much to think those windows opened as intended, but we do have an observation by the Times.
"...Mr Arnold, having satisfied himself that the woman was dead, ordered one of the windows to be entirely removed..."

True or not, who knows. No other reporter provided that detail and the press had complained that they were not permitted to go inside Millers Court to see the crime scene. So how did the Times reporter know this, or was he told by a tenant, or the photographer?

Interesting that we see a sketch of the photographer inside the room...
(Ignore the red lines)


(Courtesy, Stewart Evans, 2000)

Creative license?