MJK1 and MJK3

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil,

So far, I doubt I've won many brownie points from most on this board, although some have been very supportive, including yourself.
I came on here because I believed the photograph was not genuine. I have tried to show that and put my case forward.
I believe I, and others, have done that but most chose to ignore.
Maybe there will never be a definitive answer, simply because we don't know enough about it. However I think I have shown that there are some serious issues with the photograph.
Someone said that I was not interested in its provenance but just wanted people to agree with me. That's simply not true. If that's all I was interested in, I would have long gone, because I have met with opposition throughout this thread. I expected that. I did not expect, however, to have my integrity questioned or be accused of somehow involved in a conspiracy or have an agenda of my own. Neither am I a martyr.
I simply wanted answers to something that has puzzled me for sometime and to share my conviction that MJK3 is not what it is purported to be.

Hello Amanda,

Thank you for the reply- and most eloquently put imho.
I am sorry you have had all those things thrown at you I am sure- indeed, that many other enthusiasts no doubt dont approve either.

Sad imho.

best wishes

Phil .

[Wickerman]

In the case of Kelly the notes at the post mortem were taken down by Hebbert. Phillips and Bond were both present. One of the doctors thereafter had to prepare a post mortem report, that person was Bond we know that because we have that report.

From that report he prepared his second report to Anderson

There was no need for Phillips to prepare a report. As stated his inquest testimony stops short of introducing any post mortem report.

An Autopsy is a Post-mortem, but a Post-mortem is not an Autopsy.

Any examination of a dead body is a post-mortem, but only the official examination authorized by the Coroner, and required to be submitted at an Inquest, is an Autopsy.

Dr bond conducted a post-mortem on the remains of Mary Kelly on Friday 9th Nov. as requested by Anderson in order to give Anderson his opinion on whether the wounds showed evidence of skill - that is all that he was requested to do.

Dr. Phillips conducted the Autopsy, ordered by Macdonald Saturday morning.
You appear to confuse one, with the other.

Dr. Bond's report was merely a post-mortem likely conducted on the Friday, the official Autopsy began at 7:30 am on Saturday morning under the supervision of Dr. Phillips.

As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case.
Times, 12 Nov. 1888

Please note the last line, above, re:
At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case.

This line refers to the cursory examination by Dr. Bond on Friday, where, if you recall, he stated the heart was "absent".

[Amanda Sumner]

Hello Amanda,

Thank you for your responses. Again though, be aware...responding to me with even civility will win you no (box) Brownie points- I am sure that after a while you will get told that your poor electronic copy of the photo, or your low resolution screen- or richardh's for that matter- or anyone else's- just isnt up to scratch- followed by an insipidly aimed written swipe, Watch the birdie! :-)

khnd regards

Phil

Hello Phil,
As I said to Rob, in a previous post that whatever issues there are between you have nothing to do with me but if agreeing with you on certain issues do me no favours, well, so be it.
So far, I doubt I've won many brownie points from most on this board, although some have been very supportive, including yourself.
I came on here because I believed the photograph was not genuine. I have tried to show that and put my case forward.
I believe I, and others, have done that but most chose to ignore.
Maybe there will never be a definitive answer, simply because we don't know enough about it. However I think I have shown that there are some serious issues with the photograph.
Someone said that I was not interested in its provenance but just wanted people to agree with me. That's simply not true. If that's all I was interested in, I would have long gone, because I have met with opposition throughout this thread. I expected that. I did not expect, however, to have my integrity questioned or be accused of somehow involved in a conspiracy or have an agenda of my own. Neither am I a martyr.
I simply wanted answers to something that has puzzled me for sometime and to share my conviction that MJK3 is not what it is purported to be.

[Monty]

I'd be surprised if they wasn't. Why look at good quality images when low resolution images where you can see what ever you want to in them will do.

Rob

Phil has admitted as much.

A giant vulture did it.

Monty

[Monty]

No more than he deserves.
It still looks like a thumb to me...

Oop, not such a martyr after all.

As we are giving mere opinions, It looks like Kelly's left hand to me.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

That's an amazing coincidence, because a couple of days ago I thought exactly the same about you.

Strange old world, isn't it, full of odd connections?

Regards,

Simon

[Rob Clack]

Hi All,

Anyone who thinks they discern a common point of reference between MJK1 and MJK3 is delusional.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I'm going dangerously out on a limb here, but nevertheless willing to bet there's no more toys left in your pram.

Regards,

Rob

[Rob Clack]

"We have that report".

Looks like your posts are being passed over Rob.

Monty

I'd be surprised if they wasn't. Why look at good quality images when low resolution images where you can see what ever you want to in them will do.

Rob

[Phil Carter]

It does look more of a thumb, there's a definite space between finger and ' thumb' here, in my opinion.
What is clearer, and I did try and show it in my photographs that I put up, but everyone chose to ignore, the pattern of the cloth behind the hand. There is a distinct woven pattern in the background , and it shows up really well here.
There is no material hanging down from the table in MJK1.

Hello Amanda,

Thank you for your responses. Again though, be aware...responding to me with even civility will win you no (box) Brownie points- I am sure that after a while you will get told that your poor electronic copy of the photo, or your low resolution screen- or richardh's for that matter- or anyone else's- just isnt up to scratch- followed by an insipidly aimed written swipe, Watch the birdie! :-)

hahahahahahahaha!!!!!
khnd regards

Phil

[Amanda Sumner]

"We have that report".

Looks like your posts are being passed over Rob.

Monty

No more than he deserves.
It still looks like a thumb to me...

[Amanda Sumner]

[ATTACH]16163[/ATTACH]

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Anyone who thinks they discern a common point of reference between MJK1 and MJK3 is delusional.

Regards,

Simon

[Amanda Sumner]

Hello Richardh,

Thank you for this... in the rush of all the posts last night I missed this and others. My apologies.

Is it possible to zoom further in on the triangle and the hand without creating too much distortion?

My appreciation for your splendid efforts :-)


best wishes

Phil

It does look more of a thumb, there's a definite space between finger and ' thumb' here, in my opinion.
What is clearer, and I did try and show it in my photographs that I put up, but everyone chose to ignore, the pattern of the cloth behind the hand. There is a distinct woven pattern in the background , and it shows up really well here.
There is no material hanging down from the table in MJK1.

[Monty]

"We have that report".

Looks like your posts are being passed over Rob.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

There are far too many experts on this case now.

The above poster has been, I believe, called an expert in this field. But when he makes basic errors such as the above post it is difficult to understand why.

You are right there are far to many experts in this case. Experts who have now been proved wrong in recent years. Experts who have nailed their colors to the mast, and now as a result of new finds etc find their positions in Ripperolgy now untennable.

In the case of Kelly the notes at the post mortem were taken down by Hebbert. Phillips and Bond were both present. One of the doctors thereafter had to prepare a post mortem report, that person was Bond we know that because we have that report.

From that report he prepared his second report to Anderson

There was no need for Phillips to prepare a report. As stated his inquest testimony stops short of introducing any post mortem report.

Now if you have anything to add to that perhaps you would come back long enough to explain and discuss, instead of flitting in an out as you do making snide comments and then disappearing. Comments which you are clearly directing at me.

I am more than happy to stand toe to toe with you and debate some of these contentious issues. The gauntlet is down. will you pick it up ?