MJK1 and MJK3

[The Good Michael]

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.

I wonder about that too Mr. Evvvans.


Mike

[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.

I will kindly ask you, Mr Stewart P Evans, if you can post the irrefutable evidence as to it's authenticity. Who sent it to Scotland yard and what is its history before 1988?

At least then, we can put this particular aspect of the debate to bed.

Regards,

Amanda

[Rob Clack]

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

This is what you said on another thread:

"Nothing will convince me that this is a genuine photo taken in the afternoon of that fateful day. I don't know why or when it was taken and I'm not even sure that it is a corpse we are looking at. It is certainly not Mary Jane Kelly."

So it is a bit pointless having a debate if you have already closed your mind. I have read your posts so I already know the limits of your 'research.'

And could anyone seriously think this is a thumb!!



Rob

[Lechmere]

Macnaghten had an unusual name so spelling it wrong is not the worst sin in the world.
Many topics are discussed repeatedly on here and on the other forum. Getting all hot under the collar about this is strange behaviour.
The Kelly photos crop up every so often, but not so frequently as other subjects, although I have to confess that I don’t pay much attention to these threads.
There are a few threads specifically about the close up picture that is taken to be of Mary Kelly, and attempts are made to align it with the other photograph, but this tends to involve moving things around the room, so it is not surprising that some degree of controversy exists.
There is very little discussion about the provenance of this picture. Maybe it was discussed long ago and done to death, such that it is boring and tiresome to re-raise the subject. But there is no readily accessible account of its provenance. I haven’t been able to find anything anyway but maybe I haven’t looked hard enough.

[richardh]

Someone of stature on these forums (or ripperology in general) needs to write a dissertation specific to the provenance of this particular photo. Then it would be simply a matter of referring all future inquiries to the dissertation. If credible research and certifiable answers have been found by anyone here then this needs to be documented in a single document for us all to reference. Trouble with these forums is that it's easy to miss something and lots of great info is quickly buried and lost to the archives.

Also, a pet hate for me is when someone says something like 'nothing will convince me...' because, as has already be pointed out, it suggests the speakers mind is a closed and locked room. I suspect that if the provenance of this photo was to be proven without a shadow of doubt then Amanda would graciously acknowledge this. If not then there is no pointing continuing the debate.

[DRoy]

From The Standard Nov 10th...

"The Chief Commissioner remained until the completion of the post-mortem examination, and then returned to Scotland Yard, taking Mr. Bond with him. Previous to the post-mortem examination a photographer was brought on the scene to take a permanent record. The state of the atmosphere was not favourable to good results, but the photographer secured several negatives, which he hopes will be useful." [my emphasis]

So there were several negatives taken but who knows how many turned out.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Here is an enhanced photo from one of the other threads. Nothing has been taken out or added.

I think this really adds detail such as 'the feathers' Amanda comments on. It is obvious they aren't feathers in the photo.

Cheers
DRoy

[jerryd]

Whatever it is, it appears that the piece in red fell out of the piece in green. It also appears the "feathers" (cloth like material) are attached to it.

The piece that fell out (red) looks to have a round eye in the middle of it. To me it doesn't look like a body part. I have often wondered if it were part of a camera. I am probably completely wrong but those thoughts came to mind years ago.

[Amanda Sumner]

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.

Hi Disco Stu,

I was waiting for the pitch fork....

You make it sound so feasible and I'm trying to understand what, to you, makes perfect sense.
I am aware of the work you and Richard have done on these photos, so I am also aware that the two of you know more about them that most.

I have looked at the photos again....

It is puzzling that the measurement and placement of things are generally exact, as I have seen some of the work Richard has done. However, I cannot deny the evidence of my own eyes and things just don't seem to tally with me. You say that the position of her right knee tallies with the one in MJK1, but how can that be so, when it is painted in? Maybe you are talking about the knee on the right side of the picture, on the table side, but how does that tally with the table, that ends at the elbow in MJK1 but ends at the kneww on MJK3he edge of the table is at knee level in MJK3? It also seems much higher up, raised from the bed in 3 but resting almost flat on the mattress in 1. Also, I am puzzled by the amount of white flesh that is exposed on Mary's left leg but there is no evidence of it in MJK3. You say it is exposed muscle and sinew that I'm seeing and not paint but it does not look like that to me. I can distinctly see what appears to be brushstrokes across the raised knee area. The knee shape is odd too. The feathers you explain away by saying that that it is detritus when the intestines were pulled out. Well, I have seen intestines pulled out and I can't say that any part of it looks like those feathers!
There seems to be confusion about right and left here. The raised leg is Mary's left leg. I have referred to left and right, as HER left and right and not on the photograph itself.
As for the table, well we have both covered that. I can't agree that it is the same thing, at all. There also seems to be a knife shape object on the table in MJK3, that is definitely not there in MJK1.
The sunlight on the table is puzzling too. One would expect the sun to continue under the table but it is all black. I find that very odd.

I am trying very hard not to sound loopy. Maybe I'm confused at what I am seeing, but I would have expected to have found SOME consistency between the two pictures, but I do not. The only thing that remotely looks human, to me, is the hand, and I'm not totally convinced yet that that is a left hand.

Not that any of this matters really. What I can or can't see is immaterial really, and the fact that I have come to the conclusion that it is a fake, a mock up, and that I need more convincing, matters not a jot either, but what does matter, is where has it come from?

The fact that it's history is so obscure and there has been no mention of it, ever, before 1988, does add some weight to my argument that the photo is not genuine.

I will concede, however, that you have worked with these photographs and MJK3 obviously makes more sense to you. I just don't understand, though, how you don't see the things that I do...

[richardh]

Wonder if those items (marked red/green) belonged to suspenders:

E.g. centre image:

[Amanda Sumner]

Here is an enhanced photo from one of the other threads. Nothing has been taken out or added.

I think this really adds detail such as 'the feathers' Amanda comments on. It is obvious they aren't feathers in the photo.

Cheers
DRoy

Hi DRoy,

Thank you for blowing it up, I tried but it just went really blurry.
I have to agree, here, that it does not look like feathers at all, but, equally puzzling, it looks like neatly gathered cloth, or sheeting. There is no sign of that in MJK1 either. Your blow up shows up the brushstrokes better on the raised knee, and if I don't come across totally loopy, that looks suspiciously like a plate in the middle of the picture....

No, Surely not...all I can say is I must have very vivid imagination!

[Amanda Sumner]

This is what you said on another thread:

"Nothing will convince me that this is a genuine photo taken in the afternoon of that fateful day. I don't know why or when it was taken and I'm not even sure that it is a corpse we are looking at. It is certainly not Mary Jane Kelly."

So it is a bit pointless having a debate if you have already closed your mind. I have read your posts so I already know the limits of your 'research.'

And could anyone seriously think this is a thumb!!

[ATTACH]16129[/ATTACH]

Rob

Hi, Rob.
Actually, blown right up like this, it does look more like a folded little finger, but it does have the shape of a thumb too.

Yes, I also agree that I was being rather obstinate in my initial posts, an you are absolutely right that there is no point discussing it if I'm not open to debate.
However I am far from convinced this is a genuine photograph of MJK. With it's lack of provenance and oddities in the photograph, I still find the whole thing very suspicious indeed.

[Amanda Sumner]

Someone of stature on these forums (or ripperology in general) needs to write a dissertation specific to the provenance of this particular photo. Then it would be simply a matter of referring all future inquiries to the dissertation. If credible research and certifiable answers have been found by anyone here then this needs to be documented in a single document for us all to reference. Trouble with these forums is that it's easy to miss something and lots of great info is quickly buried and lost to the archives.

Also, a pet hate for me is when someone says something like 'nothing will convince me...' because, as has already be pointed out, it suggests the speakers mind is a closed and locked room. I suspect that if the provenance of this photo was to be proven without a shadow of doubt then Amanda would graciously acknowledge this. If not then there is no pointing continuing the debate.

Hello Richardh,

I totally agree that that these things should be documented and easily referred to. The fact that I do not understand MJK3, and do not believe that it is genuine, is based partly on what my eyes tell me and it's obvious lack of provenance.
I cannot go back further than 1988, although there was some alleged reference to it, possibly in the 1970's. That's still 90 years of it's history that we do not know.
If, however there should be irrefutable proof that this photograph existed since the 9th November 1888, then I will be more than gracious to admit that I was wrong.

[Amanda Sumner]

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

Thank you Simon,

It's nice to know that some people out there do not think I am totally bonkers!

[Observer]

Hello Richardh,

I totally agree that that these things should be documented and easily referred to. The fact that I do not understand MJK3, and do not believe that it is genuine, is based partly on what my eyes tell me and it's obvious lack of provenance.
I cannot go back further than 1988, although there was some alleged reference to it, possibly in the 1970's. That's still 90 years of it's history that we do not know.
If, however there should be irrefutable proof that this photograph existed since the 9th November 1888, then I will be more than gracious to admit that I was wrong.

You have conveniently failed to address Roy's point that several negatives were taken of the Kelly crime scene.

I quote Roy

" From The Standard Nov 10th...

"The Chief Commissioner remained until the completion of the post-mortem examination, and then returned to Scotland Yard, taking Mr. Bond with him. Previous to the post-mortem examination a photographer was brought on the scene to take a permanent record. The state of the atmosphere was not favourable to good results, but the photographer secured several negatives, which he hopes will be useful." [my emphasis]

So there were several negatives taken but who knows how many turned out"

As I said in an earlier post, those negatives will not have been the best considering the lack of available light, also, touching up does not seem to have been the photographers forte, in fact he's made a bit of a pigs ear out of MJK3. This is why it looks unreal. Also I agree with Rob Clack, how on earth you can visualise a thumb, which is plainly a little finger is beyond me.