MJK1 and MJK3

[Phil Carter]

No Phil,

That is not what I am stating. I am saying that practices were shared, and that the Met and City police made trips to Paris in order to learn those practices.

The French police were pioneers in forensics at that time, and were already using the camera to photograph crime scenes. It was only natural that the Met followed suit.

Monty

Hello Monty,

Thanks for the reply.

And the answers to the other questions perhaps?

"exactly what evidence have you that

a) it IS one of a set
b) it IS of a crime scene a la Bertillion"


Most appreciated. Thank you.


Phil

[Daisyhall1]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2480&page=4

Simon mentions some time ago the table was a different height to the original? The hand at the bottom looks to be the photographer's/ assistant's hand- the blurry image to the left of that,possibly his left hand.The 2 strips on the table which clearly overhang the table- cloth or skin?

[Monty]

Hello Monty,


Am I correct in reading this post to mean you have evidence to show that there were, with certainty, French Officers around Millers Court? Woiuld you mind sharing this direct evidence with us? (We know that members of the Irish Constabulary were hanging around Millers Court...but French?

Also, it is all very well to believe that this photo was one of a set, which you are very entitled to and fair enough, but based on the Bertillion Crime Scene photographic recovery process, exactly what evidence have you that

a) it IS one of a set
b) it IS of a crime scene a la Bertillion

No, am not trying to extract the urine either. Just would like, quite respectfully, dead straight answers¨if that is possible?

Fair enough if it is just a suggestion too. But to introduce the thought without explaining a known detail referring TO Millers Court is spreading the jam a little thick on the toast?... Just how I see and read it. No offence intended here at all.

Phil

No Phil,

That is not what I am stating. I am saying that practices were shared, and that the Met and City police made trips to Paris in order to learn those practices.

The French police were pioneers in forensics at that time, and were already using the camera to photograph crime scenes. It was only natural that the Met followed suit.

Monty

[jmenges]

Apparently having the photographer stay inside the room until 4:30 in the afternoon was to freak him out, rather than have him take more than one photograph.

JM

[Monty]

We don't know for a fact that more than one was taken of Mary, herself.

We don't know for a fact there wasn't either.

We do know more than one photo was taken, it would be illogical that others were not taken of the scene.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

What's that '4' doing at the bottom right of MKJ3 ?

Hello Richardh,

It has been suggested, or guesstimated, that this refers to one of a set of Kelly photos.

The obvious answer is that MJK 1 or MJK2 have no corner number.

So the answer is...not known at present.


best regards

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Initially, photos were taken of dead bodies purely for identification purposes, this due to the rapid decomposition of bodies during this period.

However, police pioneer Alphonse Bertillon started to take photos of crime scenes, both to preserve the scene, and to be used in any subsequent trial. Therefore whilst I agree with Gary, I would also like to point out that Jons assumption that other photos would have been taken is valid, mainly for presentation of the body in situ, and the crime scene itself.

To me this photo would have been one of a set, used to provide a preserved visual of the scene.

Incidentally, the French and British police often exchanged ideas on good practice, and would send officers to each others HQs in order to see that practice in effect. The sudden use of a camera in Dorset St explains a lot, and the appearance of MJK1 in the French media is telling of that liaison.

Monty

Hello Monty,


Am I correct in reading this post to mean you have evidence to show that there were, with certainty, French Officers around Millers Court? Woiuld you mind sharing this direct evidence with us? (We know that members of the Irish Constabulary were hanging around Millers Court...but French?

Also, it is all very well to believe that this photo was one of a set, which you are very entitled to and fair enough, but based on the Bertillion Crime Scene photographic recovery process, exactly what evidence have you that

a) it IS one of a set
b) it IS of a crime scene a la Bertillion

No, am not trying to extract the urine either. Just would like, quite respectfully, dead straight answers¨if that is possible?

Fair enough if it is just a suggestion too. But to introduce the thought without explaining a known detail referring TO Millers Court is spreading the jam a little thick on the toast?... Just how I see and read it. No offence intended here at all.

Phil

[richardh]

What's that '4' doing at the bottom right of MKJ3 ?

We don't know for a fact that more than one was taken of Mary, herself.

[Amanda Sumner]

We know more than one photo was taken at Millers Court.

Monty

We don't know for a fact that more than one was taken of Mary, herself.

[Debra A]

No, but someone has suggested it to be a garter or suspender clip. I think, though, comparing it to the size of the hand, it is too big for that.

Have you any suggestions ?

let me guess...remote camera button?

[Monty]

Garry Wroe,

We have no conclusive evidence how many photographs were taken at the scene. We do know, however, that Macnaghten wrote that one photograph was taken of Mary. One. He did not say several, and as he had the photographs at one time in his possession, one would expect him to know. Newspapers had to get their information from other sources, they were kept away from the scene.
Even if several photographs were taken of the injuries one would still expect some similarity between them.
However your suggestion is a good one and, if we could prove that this is a genuine photograph then clearly context is the issue here, if, indeed, it was part of a series.
I do not believe it was, there are too many unanswered questions, but I do agree that had they taken several shots of the injuries then not moving objects would be a small consideration.
I am surprised you cannot see the woven cloth hanging down from the table. In the four photographs sent by Richard to Phil, a few posts back, clearly shows a pattern behind the hand.
One thing that we can agree on, I think, is that this photograph is indeed a puzzle.

We know more than one photo was taken at Millers Court.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Amanda,

No, not really, but working by rule of [right] thumb I reckon it to be about 2 x 1.5 inches, roughly the dimensions of a matchbox.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Initially, photos were taken of dead bodies purely for identification purposes, this due to the rapid decomposition of bodies during this period.

However, police pioneer Alphonse Bertillon started to take photos of crime scenes, both to preserve the scene, and to be used in any subsequent trial. Therefore whilst I agree with Gary, I would also like to point out that Jons assumption that other photos would have been taken is valid, mainly for presentation of the body in situ, and the crime scene itself.

To me this photo would have been one of a set, used to provide a preserved visual of the scene.

Incidentally, the French and British police often exchanged ideas on good practice, and would send officers to each others HQs in order to see that practice in effect. The sudden use of a camera in Dorset St explains a lot, and the appearance of MJK1 in the French media is telling of that liaison.

Monty

[Amanda Sumner]

Hi Amanda,

Any luck yet in identifying the anatomical origins of the black box with the button sitting directly below the "split femur"?

Regards,

Simon

No, but someone has suggested it to be a garter or suspender clip. I think, though, comparing it to the size of the hand, it is too big for that.

Have you any suggestions ?

[Amanda Sumner]

Garry Wroe,

We have no conclusive evidence how many photographs were taken at the scene. We do know, however, that Macnaghten wrote that one photograph was taken of Mary. One. He did not say several, and as he had the photographs at one time in his possession, one would expect him to know. Newspapers had to get their information from other sources, they were kept away from the scene.
Even if several photographs were taken of the injuries one would still expect some similarity between them.
However your suggestion is a good one and, if we could prove that this is a genuine photograph then clearly context is the issue here, if, indeed, it was part of a series.
I do not believe it was, there are too many unanswered questions, but I do agree that had they taken several shots of the injuries then not moving objects would be a small consideration.
I am surprised you cannot see the woven cloth hanging down from the table. In the four photographs sent by Richard to Phil, a few posts back, clearly shows a pattern behind the hand.
One thing that we can agree on, I think, is that this photograph is indeed a puzzle.