MJK1 and MJK3

[Amanda Sumner]

[ATTACH]16123[/ATTACH][ATTACH]16124[/ATTACH]


The above photos of MJK1 and MJK3 were purportedly taken on the same afternoon at No 13 Miller's Court on the 9th Nov.1888.
Only the police were allowed to take photographs, none of the press were allowed in, so the only photographs taken were for a police record of the events that had taken place in that tiny room.
Now, Macnaughton stated that he had these photographs in his possession, but he only referred to one photo taken of Mary on her bed. Quote:

" A photo was taken of the woman, as she was found lying on the bed, without seeing which it is impossible to imagine the awful mutilation"..

A photo...as in singular.

This single photograph went missing, or so it seemed, until 1988 when it turned up again, with a variant of the original photo (MJK2) and what we now call MJK3. These were sent anonymously to Scotland Yard, in a package postmarked Croydon. It has never been proven who sent the photos back, but a fingerprint was discovered.

MJK3 had never been seen before, to anyone's knowledge, but for some inexplicable reason to me, it was considered to be a photograph of MJK, taken that very afternoon, on the other side of the bed. Looking at the photo one can see that it is a mock up of MJK, lying on her bed, with the table to her left and the mess between her legs, but that is where the similarities stop. Nothing, in my opinion, is consistent with the other photograph. To list just a few of the most obvious oddities:
The hand is in the wrong position, and looks suspiciously like a right hand and thumb to me, but never the less it is lying higher up the body. The limbs are both in the wrong position too.There is no flesh on the furthest leg and knee, as depicted in the original photo, and it is raised much higher than it should be. In fact the knee shape is odd too and seems to be painted over or brushstroked, which, at the very least, is odd. The table is much further down, alongside her body, ending at the knees but in the original photo the table ends near her elbow.
I know this is going to be explained away by the necessity to move the bed and table to take the photo, but we have to bear in mind why the photo was taken in the first place:

To preserve evidence.

To continue with the table, the contents do not match with what we can see in the original. In the original it's hard to see exactly what it is, looks like rib bones to me, but in MJK3 there is a large lump of pail flesh which is simply not there in MJK1. Between the legs in MJK1 we see mutilated nether regions and blood splatter on the sheets. In MJK3 it looks extremely like a bunch of feathers have been stuck inside her, what the hell are they?
Finally, the painted-in leg in the foreground is extremely odd. A police photograph, taken on that miserable afternoon, to preserve evidence of the mutilation of a woman, has a painted in leg, and badly, if I may add. (and what is that weird looking hand??)

Now, if all this does not arouse suspicion and make one wonder if we are all looking at a genuine photograph of MJK, taken on the afternoon of the 9th Nov !988, then it's lack of provenance should.

It has no provenance beyond 1988, and certainly no evidence of it's existence before then.

That should make us all very suspicious indeed.

[Amanda Sumner]

[ATTACH]16125[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]16126[/ATTACH]

[Wickerman]

Hi Amanda.

To list just a few of the most obvious oddities:
The hand is in the wrong position, and looks suspiciously like a right hand and thumb to me, but never the less it is lying higher up the body.

The fact it looks like a right hand to you, but a left hand to others, does not mean there is anything suspicious about it.

The limbs are both in the wrong position too.

According to who?

There is no flesh on the furthest leg and knee, as depicted in the original photo, and it is raised much higher than it should be.

On MJK1 we see her left knee front on, but in MJK3 we see the inside of her left thigh. They are not showing the same detail.

In fact the knee shape is odd too and seems to be painted over or brushstroked, which, at the very least, is odd. The table is much further down, alongside her body, ending at the knees but in the original photo the table ends near her elbow.
I know this is going to be explained away by the necessity to move the bed and table to take the photo, but we have to bear in mind why the photo was taken in the first place:

To preserve evidence.

In a 21st century forensic mind yes, but not in the late 19th century.
I think you are viewing these photographs with a modern NCI approach, this is why you are seeing too many problems.
When photography was introduced by police in the 1800's it was for identification purposes.
I'm sure I have also read that Dr. Phillips ordered the photographer to Millers Court, not the police. If that is the case he did it for medical reasons to capture the mutilations before the autopsy changed it all. Therefore, moving the furniture around was of no concern to the medical men.
.
.
.

That should make us all very suspicious indeed.

I think we view suspicion differently. In my case the fact I do not know the answer to any question does not make that question 'suspicious'.
This approach is also used in Hutchinson arguments, the lack of answers raises suggestions of 'suspicion', but there is no suspicion just unanswered questions.
Many questions we cannot possibly know the answers to, like the provenance of that MJK3 photo before 1988.

I only think of suspicion when I am presented with contradictory evidence. Not when I cannot explain something that interests me - that is not 'suspicion', in my view.

[Amanda Sumner]

I'm sure I have also read that Dr. Phillips ordered the photographer to Millers Court, not the police. If that is the case he did it for medical reasons to capture the mutilations before the autopsy changed it all. Therefore, moving the furniture around was of no concern to the medical men.
.
.
.



I think we view suspicion differently. In my case the fact I do not know the answer to any question does not make that question 'suspicious'.
This approach is also used in Hutchinson arguments, the lack of answers raises suggestions of 'suspicion', but there is no suspicion just unanswered questions.
Many questions we cannot possibly know the answers to, like the provenance of that MJK3 photo before 1988.

I only think of suspicion when I am presented with contradictory evidence. Not when I cannot explain something that interests me - that is not 'suspicion', in my view.

Hi Wickerman,

I have to disagree here.
A photo turns up, anonymously, with other photos that are instantly recognisable, but this one has never been seen before. More to the point, it is not consistent, either, with the original photograph. There are just too many inconsistencies within the picture. This particular photo was developed on different sized paper too. Don't you think that is odd in itself?

There is no evidence of it's existence before 1988. Macnaughton does not mention it, it's not reported missing, nothing is discussed or written about it before this date.

I find that extremely concerning.

As if the photo of Mary in MJK1 was not bad enough, this is a mock up, in my opinion, and not a good one at that. Why it was done, I have no idea. Whether it was an reenactment or for a news story, is anyone's guess, but in my opinion, MJK it is not.

[Amanda Sumner]

I am also surprised that you do not see the different positioning of the limbs. I think, just by looking at them, they are not the same things at all.

[Wickerman]

A photo turns up, anonymously, with other photos that are instantly recognisable, but this one has never been seen before. More to the point, it is not consistent, either, with the original photograph. There are just too many inconsistencies within the picture.

Hi Amanda.
Are you sure those inconsistencies are not the result of you assuming nothing should have changed between the taking of those two photographs?

I can see clearly that the bed had to be moved in order to take MJK3, but I am not limiting myself to that single possibility. Likewise we have no idea what time passed between the taking of those photo's, so the fact her left knee appears higher in MJK3 as opposed to MJK1 may be the result of the doctors moving limbs, or, equally possible, due to the change in angle of the MJK3 photo.

This particular photo was developed on different sized paper too. Don't you think that is odd in itself?

Well, not really. If they are both from the same batch then they are both from glass plates. We do not know if either of those prints are actual size do we?
I'll be honest I have not looked into the various sizes of glass plates in the 1800's, or maybe they were all the same size?
Once a print is made cannot it be enlarged or reduced as required?

There is no evidence of it's existence before 1988. Macnaughton does not mention it, it's not reported missing, nothing is discussed or written about it before this date.

That applies to all the rest of the photo's that were taken. Does the fact Macnaghten only mentioned one of potentially a dozen photo's suggest suspicion?

As if the photo of Mary in MJK1 was not bad enough, this is a mock up, in my opinion, and not a good one at that. Why it was done, I have no idea. Whether it was an reenactment or for a news story, is anyone's guess, but in my opinion, MJK it is not.

Ok, so you don't have a theory about why you think it is a mock-up, thats a relief
No, seriously, I don't see any conflicting evidence here.

The photo's are the evidence. Your interpretation of what you see is not evidence. I'm sorry if you feel frustrated by this reception of your suspicions, what can I say, I don't see what you see.

I am also surprised that you do not see the different positioning of the limbs. I think, just by looking at them, they are not the same things at all.

I see it, but I don't attach suspicion to that.
I can appreciate what was going on in that room at the time and see no reason the doctors should not move the furniture about to facilitate the photographers equipment.
Likewise if one photo was taken before the autopsy, and the other after, then we have just cause to see the limbs have been moved.

[Amanda Sumner]

"The photo's are the evidence. Your interpretation of what you see is not evidence. I'm sorry if you feel frustrated by this reception of your suspicions, what can I say, I don't see what you see."

I'm sorry you don't see it either and it is frustrating because it's obvious to me that this is not a genuine photograph. Have you actually studied both photos? I wanted them side by side but this is how they uploaded.
Perhaps I'm tackling it the wrong way. Ok, so you say you see nothing wrong. Can you tell me, then, what is right about MJK3. What do you see that is consistent with the original MJK1 photo?
How do you explain the painted leg?
The feathers?
The funny painted hand, right in the foreground?

You have reasoned why the body is in a different position and that the limbs are not where they should be, but you have not considered the rigor mortis that would have made MJK stiff as a board. It would have been almost impossible to have moved her limbs at all, and why would they wish to?

As for your point about the knowledge of the existence of the photos before 1988, we were certainly made aware of a photo, one, which was was taken of Mary when she lay on her bed, because Macnaughton said so. " one " was the word he used. As he had them in his possession, one would think he was the most likely person to have known.
I am also surprised that the provenance of the photo appears to have been taken so lightly. Compared to the diary, which equally came out of the blue, around the same sort of time, oddly enough, has been rigorously tested and examined. I have not read of any particular tests that have been scientifically done on this photo so why the general acceptance then, that just because it appeared with original photos that this must be one too?

I can't believe that I am the only one on here that sees this. I find the whole thing odd, to be perfectly frank with you.

I will even go so far as to say it's not even a corpse we are looking at. Why? Because we see no face, a hand that does not appear to be hers, material that covers the furthest leg, a painted bone and shin in the foreground and odd black feathers stuck between her legs, supposedly depicting body debris.

It is a forgery, a hoax, a mock up intended to deceive, or,as I stated earlier , made for reenactment purposes.

I'm sorry too that you can not see all that..

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jon,

The simple fact that cannot be ignored is that there is no provenance for the existance of this specific photograph before it turned up out of the blue 100 years or so after the murder it is supposed to depict.

Provenance is, by law, very clear..

a) A record of ownership of a work of art or an antique, used as a guide to authenticity or quality.

(This is an antique photograph)

b) The history of the ownership of an object, especially when documented or authenticated. Used of artworks, antiques, and books.

(My emphasis, there is no documentation pertaining to ownership or authenticity)

c) The records or documents authenticating such an object or the history of its ownership.

(There are no known records of any documents that indicte authentification, as the history of ownership can only be assumed at best, not proven, to go back to ca.1973..leaving 85 years additionally unproven provenance)

d) In most fields the primary purpose of provenance is to confirm or gather evidence as to the time, place, and if appropriate the person responsible, for the creation, production or discovery of the object, but this will normally be accomplished by tracing the whole history of the object up to the present. Comparative techniques, expert opinions, and the results of various kinds of scientific tests may also be used to these ends, but establishing provenance is essentially a matter of documentation.


e) It is stated clearly that Macnaghten had in his desk, under lock and key, the victims photographs. When referring to MKJ in the Memoranda, he states A photo.. as in one singular. He could quite easily have been describing MJK3 but we know that very many copies of MJK1 were floating around. We have no record of any copies of any other non MJK1/2 photo in existance. Macnaghten can count.. I am sure that had he known of MJK3, which would ALSO have been in his desk, under lock and key, he would have written "photos", plural in reference to MJK and what condition she was photographed in. Ipso facto... Macnaghten actually supplies anti-provenance for the existance of this photograph.



If we are allowed to ask for provenance for "The Diary", "The Abberline Diaries", etc etc ...then we are also allowed to ask for provenance for anything that is laid before us. And it doesn't matter who presents it...for that doesn't put anybody above the rest of us in terms of provenance. Because if that is the case...

Commander Millen, for example, was head of the CID... a man that supposedly has, because of his position, complete trustworthyness. Yet this fellow APPARENTLY walked around with evidence from the most famous set of murders in English History, presenting these photos at lectures AFTER he retired fromn the force. He didnt do those lectures for free I bet either. So WHO a person is, determines nothing. Millens apparent behaviour tells me much... questionably legal posession of Scotland Yard/Home Office documentary evidence of a series of murders.

That is IF you believe the story that Millen had the photos in an album, and loose ones, and loose documents (Bond Papers, hand written apparently, and are they stamped?) the paper sent in with the marginalia, (which I am yet to see if it is officially stamped, as there is no reference to an official stamp in Sourcebook either by the way..) . In general, what was sent into the Black Museum in general in 1987 has been questioned by many more than me. On all of the above things.



Now you can argue until you are blue in the face. There is no provenance, and, should have, for this to be considered authentic. No art expert would even start to consider this as authentic without provenance.. and that is BEFORE you start looking at very, very many problems WITHIN the photograph itself. To lable this photograph "genuine" is showing that there are no strictures of provenance and that it has never been properly assessed
at any time by any experts on the basis of lack of said provenance. It is therefore unqualified to be called authentic, and unqualified to be called genuine. Period.

And if you don't accept the same strictures of provenance as in other antiques, then why want it for the Abberline Diaries, The Maybrick Diary...etc etc etc.


Phil

[Debra A]

If it is a fake what was the point of it? What does it show that we didn't already know,prove or disprove?

[Lechmere]

It's difficult to make sense of the close up picture.
It isn't of much importance to me in understanding the case one way or another.
Yet, I have to say, from what I have read about it, it has no provenance, so I have to wonder why it was so readily accepted as genuine.
There are many reasons why people forge things - vanity being a major one.
It could simply be a picture of something other than Kelly, that was at some point wrongly attributed to being Kelly.
I think I read that it was discovered that the family of a deceased policeman sent the items to Scotland Yard, but it was decided not to name them.
Such a policeman might shown these pictures to visitors and shown off about them, or even done talks to societies and so forth. Vanity might have led him to claim that a gory non Kelly picture was actually of Kelly. Or it could have been a genuine mistake.
I have heard of a police doctor who used to have Ripper victim pictures on the wall of his consulting room (in the 1960s I think). It would have been all to easy for pictures relating to other cases to get muddled up over the years.

[Rob Clack]

Threads like this is one of the reasons I hardly post. Such a lot of nonsense written by people who don't know the first thing about the photos or there history.

[Amanda Sumner]

Threads like this is one of the reasons I hardly post. Such a lot of nonsense written by people who don't know the first thing about the photos or there history.

Do you? Perhaps you can let us know the history of it then, because that particular photo is sadly lacking in that area.

I will kindly point out to you too, that the word is spelled 'their' and not 'there', should you feel inclined to post again in future. :-)

Amanda

[Amanda Sumner]

It's difficult to make sense of the close up picture.
It isn't of much importance to me in understanding the case one way or another.
Yet, I have to say, from what I have read about it, it has no provenance, so I have to wonder why it was so readily accepted as genuine.
There are many reasons why people forge things - vanity being a major one.
It could simply be a picture of something other than Kelly, that was at some point wrongly attributed to being Kelly.
I think I read that it was discovered that the family of a deceased policeman sent the items to Scotland Yard, but it was decided not to name them.
Such a policeman might shown these pictures to visitors and shown off about them, or even done talks to societies and so forth. Vanity might have led him to claim that a gory non Kelly picture was actually of Kelly. Or it could have been a genuine mistake.
I have heard of a police doctor who used to have Ripper victim pictures on the wall of his consulting room (in the 1960s I think). It would have been all to easy for pictures relating to other cases to get muddled up over the years.

I think you are spot on. I don't feel that it was necessarily a deliberate intention to hoax, no money was made out of it, and there may well have been a genuine reason why it was mocked up in the first place. However I am certain that it is not MJK that we are seeing here. The photo just does not make sense. The fact that there is no previous recorded history of it, anywhere, does surprise me that it has been very readily accepted as the genuine thing.

[Disco Stu]

Hi Amanda,

Glad to see you finally got your post up, and that not everyone leapt down your throat. Time for the pitch fork.

*IMO

I believe that MJK3 was taken at the same time as MJK1. The provenance point is fair cop, it shouldn't be automatically taken as genuine. However, I believe the photographs themselves support each other, or at the very least provide evidence of a Diary-quality forgery. Comparing both pictures:

The near vertical position of the right knee in MJK3 tallies with the position of the right knee in MJK1. "How?", you ask? "The right knee is near horizontal!", you cry? It's an optical illusion in MJK1*. The bedding, "under" the right knee in MJK1 looks clean. Under a skinned thigh and knee, next to a skinned and emptied abdomen. The far more likely explanation* is that the clean bedding is behind the right leg, out of the path of leaking blood. MJK3 shows the right knee in exactly this position. Further evidence of this comes from the PM, where Dr. Bond noted theposition of the right leg compared to the pubes (ie. centrally, nearer vertical) rather than the trunk (ie. to the side, nearer horizontal, like the left leg).

I notice that the dark line visible beneath the knee in MJK1 is faintly visible on the right side of MJK3. The leg below this line is a markedly lighter tone in MJK1, suggesting that above the line the skin was stripped*. Exposed muscle and sinew may well explain the, "painted", appearance you refer to.

Where's the left leg? Mostly hidden by bunched sheeting*. It may be partially visible under the right knee, lost in the shadow cast by the flash charge, but that's just guesswork. If you're wondering how the leg can be sunk so far in to the mattress as to be lost, I point to the left shin in MJK1 as an indicator.

The left/right hand debate has been going for some time. The thumb/finger observation is subjective. The anatomical positioning of the protruding styloid process is not open to debate. It shows on the upper right side of the right wrist, and the upper left side of the left wrist. It's visible and consistent in both pictures, and shows it's a left wrist. Assuming the camera (for MJK3) was placed closer to the feet, and angled more towards the head, as would appear likely given the position of everything else in the photo, the hand is in the same place as in MJK1.

The table is tricky: There's no way of identifying what's there from either picture without referring to the PM. The PM notes that the matter on the table is skin flaps from the thighs and abdomen. It doesn't specify whether additional matter (muscle, fat etc) was still attached, but both pictures would suggest there was some such matter present. Given the relative focal lengths of the two photos, and the clarity of the matter on the table in MJK3 compared to MJK1, is it really surprising that the opposite sides of the same thing look different? Regarding the table itself, if it's a fake they did their homework. The slats of the table surface are practically invisible in MJK1 (I suggest referring to a clearer version of the photo than the enlargement on this thread).

You raise an objection about, "feathers", in the, "nether regions" in MJK3. Assuming the raised leg in MJK3 is the right, you're actually looking at detritus pulled out to the right side of the body* when the intestines were pulled out, as the PM states. It looks different to the exposed pubic region in MJK1 because it is different.

Have a look, and see what you think.

[Rob Clack]

Do you? Perhaps you can let us know the history of it then, because that particular photo is sadly lacking in that area.

I will kindly point out to you too, that the word is spelled 'their' and not 'there', should you feel inclined to post again in future. :-)

Amanda

You must be joking. Do what I did and get off your backside and do some research instead of jumping to conclusions with something you know nothing about.
It is typical of people like you and Phil to jump to conclusions about subjects you know nothing about, but it is pointless discussing these things with someone who has a closed mind. So when you have done as much research into these photos as I have had, (which is quite a lot) let me know as you will be up to my level then and then we can debate it like adults.

Thanks for pointing out my spelling error, it is only fair to point out to you that you have a serious problem with anatomy and you can't tell the difference between the left hand and the right hand. I would work on that as well if I was you.

Rob