MJK1 and MJK3

[Rob Clack]

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

It's from the missing Malaysian air plane.

Rob

[Simon Wood]

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

[Amanda Sumner]

If an anatomist who performs human dissections told me they couldn't identify anything anatomical then I would pay attention.

I agree. A anatomist would certainly resolve some issues, because I would love to know what I'm looking at.

[Hunter]

Gary, that's exactly why that photo was taken in my opinion too. The way the abdominal flaps were removed would have been reason enough.

[Debra A]

If memory serves I think Don Rumbelow stated that the killer had used an axe on Mary Jane's thigh, though I'm unsure as to the basis on which Don would have made such a claim.

With regard to the positioning of the body, I feel that a certain context has been missing from this thread. The police had come in for severe criticism with respect to their handling of the Ripper investigation. One newspaper, though I don't recall which, levelled accusations of incompetence because of a failure to utilize photography as part of the investigation. Then two things happened. Anderson returned to duty and sought to set the investigation on a more professional footing, and the Ripper killed indoors, thus providing conditions which were much more conducive to gathering photographic evidence.

Various sources inform us that many photographs were taken at the Miller’s Court crime scene. Several external photographs were taken before one of the windows was removed (some say opened) to facilitate shots of the room’s interior. When finally the room was entered proper more photographs were taken.

The point here is that very few of these images have survived. Because of this some appear to assume that MJK3 was the only photograph taken from the partition side of the bed, and that it was taken to preserve a permanent record of the crime scene. This, I believe, is a mistake. The photographs that have been lost to us almost certainly included a record of an undisturbed crime scene. MJK3 was probably never intended to be part of such. Hence investigators had no qualms about moving the bed and table, maybe even the body itself, in order to secure an image from the partition wall.

Here it should be remembered that Anderson specifically requested that Bond attend the crime scene. Although Anderson’s reasoning seems to have eluded some posters, this was an attempt to resolve what had been a contradictory and therefore frustrating debate concerning the killer’s medical knowledge and expertise.

With this in mind many of the issues surrounding MJK3 fall neatly into place. This was not a crime scene photograph in the strictest sense of the term. Rather, it was one in a series of images which recorded the injuries inflicted upon Mary Kelly for the purpose of determining whether the Ripper was medically skilled or unskilled. Look at the photograph in this context and it begins to make sense. View it from the perspective of a traditional crime scene photograph and it doesn’t. So, yes, the bed has clearly been moved. Possibly the table too. It’s also possible that the bedding closest to the partition was rearranged in order to prevent it from falling on to the floor as the bed was pulled away from the wall. But this was of little consequence if investigators had already photographed an undisturbed crime scene and wished to preserve a visual record of the injuries.

Like I said: it’s about context.

Thanks Garry. I agree. As I said to Richard; I have no problem with the body being moved in between shots. I always felt the focus was on the mutilations but didn't quite comprehend why exactly until you mentioned that it was to determine surgical skill. That makes a lot of sense.
I wasn't sure about how many photographs would have been taken either but I know that during my cherry picking for references to the organ removal that several newspapers reported that the doctors ordered photographs of the mutilations.

[Debra A]

I am awaiting his reply having sent that to him along with Dr Bonds PM report to peruse

Should be interesting. Thanks.

[Garry Wroe]

I knew Nick Warren, surgeon, findings were contentious, but surely a surgeon would recognise human anatomy at least? And if not then that just goes to show that even people with anatomical skill aren't any the wiser?

If memory serves I think Don Rumbelow stated that the killer had used an axe on Mary Jane's thigh, though I'm unsure as to the basis on which Don would have made such a claim.

With regard to the positioning of the body, I feel that a certain context has been missing from this thread. The police had come in for severe criticism with respect to their handling of the Ripper investigation. One newspaper, though I don't recall which, levelled accusations of incompetence because of a failure to utilize photography as part of the investigation. Then two things happened. Anderson returned to duty and sought to set the investigation on a more professional footing, and the Ripper killed indoors, thus providing conditions which were much more conducive to gathering photographic evidence.

Various sources inform us that many photographs were taken at the Miller’s Court crime scene. Several external photographs were taken before one of the windows was removed (some say opened) to facilitate shots of the room’s interior. When finally the room was entered proper more photographs were taken.

The point here is that very few of these images have survived. Because of this some appear to assume that MJK3 was the only photograph taken from the partition side of the bed, and that it was taken to preserve a permanent record of the crime scene. This, I believe, is a mistake. The photographs that have been lost to us almost certainly included a record of an undisturbed crime scene. MJK3 was probably never intended to be part of such. Hence investigators had no qualms about moving the bed and table, maybe even the body itself, in order to secure an image from the partition wall.

Here it should be remembered that Anderson specifically requested that Bond attend the crime scene. Although Anderson’s reasoning seems to have eluded some posters, this was an attempt to resolve what had been a contradictory and therefore frustrating debate concerning the killer’s medical knowledge and expertise.

With this in mind many of the issues surrounding MJK3 fall neatly into place. This was not a crime scene photograph in the strictest sense of the term. Rather, it was one in a series of images which recorded the injuries inflicted upon Mary Kelly for the purpose of determining whether the Ripper was medically skilled or unskilled. Look at the photograph in this context and it begins to make sense. View it from the perspective of a traditional crime scene photograph and it doesn’t. So, yes, the bed has clearly been moved. Possibly the table too. It’s also possible that the bedding closest to the partition was rearranged in order to prevent it from falling on to the floor as the bed was pulled away from the wall. But this was of little consequence if investigators had already photographed an undisturbed crime scene and wished to preserve a visual record of the injuries.

Like I said: it’s about context.

[Trevor Marriott]

What were his thoughts on a comparison with MJK1?

I am awaiting his reply having sent that to him along with Dr Bonds PM report to peruse

[Observer]

It's all very strange. Very strange indeed.

[Observer]

Yes indeed. Me too. I'd also like his opinion as to whether he sees a piece of cloth hanging from the table in MJK3. You know, our state of mind comes into question when we see objects that are not there. What's the state of affairs when we don't see objects that are there?

[Debra A]

Yes it would. To be fair, Mr M has in all likelihood adopted the correct procedure and presented the image to the doc in question cold, so as to get his thoughts without fore knowledge of who, or what, the photograph depicts.

True. But I'd still like to hear what he has to say after being clued in a little. Then he can give his opinion on what anatomical structures should be on view and are or aren't.

[Observer]

We who are familiar with MJK1 will view MJK3 differently than those not familiar with MJK1 I'd say. Even experience anatomists it seems.

[Observer]

Or presenting him with the post mortem and MJK1 would help for points of reference.

Yes it would. To be fair, Mr M has in all likelihood adopted the correct procedure and presented the image to the doc in question cold, so as to get his thoughts without fore knowledge of who, or what, the photograph depicts.

[Debra A]

Absolutely JM. I'm surprised that the Anatomist mentioned above failed to grasp the idea as to why the photograph was taken. An "arty" one would be the last reason on my list. I believe the photographer merely wanted to preserve, in close up, the horrific injuries inflicted upon the poor woman. As you imply, if we had those missing images(of which I'm certain were taken) all would be clear.

regards

Observer

Or presenting him with the post mortem and MJK1 would help for points of reference.

[Observer]

I think the photo was one of a series of close ups of different sections of her body, and if we had those photos that are missing, putting it in context, the aim or meaning for taking this shot would be clear.

JM

Absolutely JM. I'm surprised that the Anatomist mentioned above failed to grasp the idea as to why the photograph was taken. An "arty" one would be the last reason on my list. I believe the photographer merely wanted to preserve, in close up, the horrific injuries inflicted upon the poor woman. As you imply, if we had those missing images(of which I'm certain were taken) all would be clear.

regards

Observer