MJK1 and MJK3

[Debra A]

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 the picture matches up too well with MJK1 to be a different crime scene picture altogether.

I still love Simon's simple old reconstruction of where the camera was placed for MJK3:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=76839&postcount=5

[Observer]

A dyed in the wool Troll?

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.

How do you know it's a mock up? Have you evidence that it is a mock up? The photograph has certainly been touched up, but this is due to the fact that the camera was too close to the body and was not capable of bringing into focus the foreground. The photographer has painted in,( and not very successfully)the out of focus areas.

[Observer]

Looing again at the photograph the far end of the bolster, on the table is also out of focus, the depth of field of this photograph is very shallow. I would suggest that the photographer used available light, and had the lens on the camera wide open, the resulting image(due to limited depth of field) is thus not the best. Furthermore, I believe he has focussed on the hand, because the hand is the only thing that looks remotely human, that's why it is in focus.

[Observer]

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.

It's all very well saying that there was a genuine reason it was mocked up. Give us one of those genuine reasons. Enlighten us.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Edward,

It is nice to see your comment. The provenance issue outweighs much else as many here are aware. The strictures of dealing with this supposedly antique photograph have not been adhered to and the farthest the known provenance can go back to is when this photo was apparently (even that is not proven) in the posession ofCol Millen ex C.I.D. who apparently used it in giving lectures in the early 70's I believe. Beyond that? Nothing at all in any reference written down or researched- anywhere. Thats over 80years WITHOUT provenance.

THAT makes a problem worse...because if this photo cannot be proven to be FROM 1888- what chance other ones waiting in the wings for an appearance?

No contemporary documentary evidence you see......SO MANY things have been burnt or disappeared....shame eh?

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Why?

[ATTACH]16123[/ATTACH][ATTACH]16124[/ATTACH]...
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: ...
...

Why do people have such difficulty in spelling Macnaghten's name correctly? If they do not know how it is spelt, all they have to do is refer to a book.

[Stewart P Evans]

Lack of knowledge...

[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.

The above post exhibits a singular lack of knowledge and correct interpretation of the subject matter. There is absolutely no doubt as to the authenticity of the second Kelly photograph and the provenance is good (as may be ascertained from all the evidence available). Ergo, this debate lacks validity.

[Amanda Sumner]

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

Thank you for your reply, Rob, but you are being a little presumptuous, I fear. You have no idea how much research I have done, or the time I have spent studying these photos. All I asked was for you to give us the benefit of your knowledge as you seemed to imply that you know far more than Phil, or myself, about the provenance of this particular photograph. If your extensive research has shown that this photo actually existed before 1988 then I am fairly sure that Phil, and certainly myself, will be very interested to hear it.
As for jumping to conclusions, I have studied these pictures for quite some time and thought long and hard before putting my conclusions forward.
As for my lack of anatomical knowledge, well, I hope I know enough considering that I am a qualified nurse, and I like to think that I would know a dead body when I see one!
As for the thumb/finger issue, there have been debates about this before so I doubt that I am the only one who believes they are looking at a thumb. It all comes down to opinion here, I think.

When you feel ready to impart with some of your "quite a lot of" research, I will be more than happy for us to debate like adults.

Amanda

[Amanda Sumner]

The above post exhibits a singular lack of knowledge and correct interpretation of the subject matter. There is absolutely no doubt as to the authenticity of the second Kelly photograph and the provenance is good (as may be ascertained from all the evidence available). Ergo, this debate lacks validity.

Good day to you too, Stewart P Evans,

Whether I have a singular lack of knowledge and correct interpretation of the subject matter, or not, I still cannot see how a photograph that turns up out of the blue nearly 100 years later, but never recorded as having existed before, can be automatically assumed to be a genuine picture of MJK. Apart from the obvious, to me, flaws in the photograph itself there should always be doubt about something that turns up anonymously. If the provenance is good, what is the history of it? Why would Macnaghten (I do apologise for spelling his name wrongly) write only of one photograph taken of Mary on her bed and only one, as far as I'm aware, reported missing?
I do not pretend to be an expert in this field but as I am someone who has been fascinated with this case and has developed deep concerns about an aspect of it, what's more natural than turn to those who may have some answers? More over, I do not believe that I am the only person who can see the discrepancies between the two photographs, and the fact that I have formed the opinion that MJK3 is not what it is purported to be, I am well within my right to come to that conclusion.
That does not mean that I am not open to debate and be proved wrong. Most debates have opposing views and opinions so I am not sure why this debate should be any less valid than any other.

[Amanda Sumner]

The above post exhibits a singular lack of knowledge and correct interpretation of the subject matter. There is absolutely no doubt as to the authenticity of the second Kelly photograph and the provenance is good (as may be ascertained from all the evidence available). Ergo, this debate lacks validity.

Good day to you too, Stewart P Evans,

Whether I have a singular lack of knowledge and correct interpretation of the subject matter, or not, I still cannot see how a photograph that turns up out of the blue nearly 100 years later, but never recorded as having existed before, can be automatically assumed to be a genuine picture of MJK. Apart from the obvious, to me, flaws in the photograph itself there should always be doubt about something that turns up anonymously. If the provenance is good, what is the history of it? Why would Macnaghten (I do apologise for spelling his name wrongly) write only of one photograph taken of Mary on her bed and only one, as far as I'm aware, reported missing?
I do not pretend to be an expert in this field but as I am someone who has been fascinated with this case and has developed deep concerns about an aspect of it, what's more natural than turn to those who may have some answers? More over, I do not believe that I am the only person who can see the discrepancies between the two photographs, and the fact that I have formed the opinion that MJK3 is not what it is purported to be, I am well within my right to come to that conclusion.
That does not mean that I am not open to debate and be proved wrong. Most debates have opposing views and opinions so I am not sure why this debate should be any less valid than any other.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Amanda. Is it getting hot in here yet? LOL. I'm not speaking for anyone else, but I speculate that part of the heated reaction you've received is because this is rather well-trodden territory. Others have made the same observations as yourself and this has been well-discussed. By the same token, the fact that others have indeed made the same observations as yourself means you're neither crazy nor blind! I confess I was at one time quite stumped by what appeared to be a right hand where a left hand should be. Then Debs pointed out to me that what appeared as a thumb was in fact a pinky finger bent at the top joint, which makes sense as the fingers of that hand would have been bent downward. Once she pointed that out to me I could easily see it. I then started studying the photos a little closer myself and noticed that Kelly's legs really don't appear in MK3. What appears as her legs are the bundle of blankets on her right side and the 'fluff' of bloodied white sheet on her left side. The focal point of the photo is supposed to be her vaginal and abdominal area. The photo really does match perfectly with MK1 when you allow for the concession that either the table or bed were moved. They weren't taking the photos to preserve the crime scene, they were taking photos to preserve the crime itself - the mutilations and body parts.

I agree with that newbie Stewart that the provenance of this photo is not in question and the image on it is unquestionably Mary Kelly, so there's really nothing to debate once you've studied it objectively. But there's nothing wrong with you posting passionately about something you believe in. It is however irksome to many when someone posits something as fact (i.e. bad provenance when it's not, two images that don't jive when they do, etc) when it's anything but. That's because a lot of us have been on these boards for 10 years, 15 years, or more. That's not your fault, nor an excuse for calling you a 'troll' as someone did, but it's something to be aware of if you should chose to create a thread and argue something you think might be new or original without first checking to see if it's been discussed before and what folks who've studied this stuff for years have to say on the matter.

I hope this didn't come off as preachy. I fear that it did. But that wasn't my intent. I thought I should say it because on the one hand I thought you were treated a bit harshly by some, while on the other hand I could understand why they reacted that way, if that makes sense.

Anyway, enjoy your research. Discoveries are fun, even when it turns out they've been discovered many times before. I should know as I'm an American. We still celebrate Columbus Day.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

Hi Amanda. Is it getting hot in here yet? LOL. I'm not speaking for anyone else, but I speculate that part of the heated reaction you've received is because this is rather well-trodden territory. Others have made the same observations as yourself and this has been well-discussed. By the same token, the fact that others have indeed made the same observations as yourself means you're neither crazy nor blind! I confess I was at one time quite stumped by what appeared to be a right hand where a left hand should be. Then Debs pointed out to me that what appeared as a thumb was in fact a pinky finger bent at the top joint, which makes sense as the fingers of that hand would have been bent downward. Once she pointed that out to me I could easily see it. I then started studying the photos a little closer myself and noticed that Kelly's legs really don't appear in MK3. What appears as her legs are the bundle of blankets on her right side and the 'fluff' of bloodied white sheet on her left side. The focal point of the photo is supposed to be her vaginal and abdominal area. The photo really does match perfectly with MK1 when you allow for the concession that either the table or bed were moved. They weren't taking the photos to preserve the crime scene, they were taking photos to preserve the crime itself - the mutilations and body parts.

I agree with that newbie Stewart that the provenance of this photo is not in question and the image on it is unquestionably Mary Kelly, so there's really nothing to debate once you've studied it objectively. But there's nothing wrong with you posting passionately about something you believe in. It is however irksome to many when someone posits something as fact (i.e. bad provenance when it's not, two images that don't jive when they do, etc) when it's anything but. That's because a lot of us have been on these boards for 10 years, 15 years, or more. That's not your fault, nor an excuse for calling you a 'troll' as someone did, but it's something to be aware of if you should chose to create a thread and argue something you think might be new or original without first checking to see if it's been discussed before and what folks who've studied this stuff for years have to say on the matter.

I hope this didn't come off as preachy. I fear that it did. But that wasn't my intent. I thought I should say it because on the one hand I thought you were treated a bit harshly by some, while on the other hand I could understand why they reacted that way, if that makes sense.

Anyway, enjoy your research. Discoveries are fun, even when it turns out they've been discovered many times before. I should know as I'm an American. We still celebrate Columbus Day.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

G'day Tom

If there was a like button I'd click it, and I don't see anything remotely preachy in what you say. Indeed I wish that I could have said it so eloquently.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Amanda,

Whenever in Ripperology you display a "singular lack of knowledge and a correct interpretation of the subject matter" it's a sure sign you might be onto something.

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

I confess I was at one time quite stumped by what appeared to be a right hand where a left hand should be. Then Debs pointed out to me that what appeared as a thumb was in fact a pinky finger bent at the top joint, which makes sense as the fingers of that hand would have been bent downward. Once she pointed that out to me I could easily see it.

Part of the problem is also that the blood on the back of the hand helps create the illusion of the web space that we'd normally see between a thumb and index finger.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Amanda,

Whenever in Ripperology you display a "singular lack of knowledge and a correct interpretation of the subject matter" it's a sure sign you might be onto something.

Regards,

Simon

I will endorse that Simon whole heartedly