MJK1 and MJK3

[Wickerman]

Actually, Amanda had already been given the "several negatives" quote on another thread and, from a different source.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=302340&postcount=34

Though it looks to me that she is resigned to the idea that MJK3 was not one of them?

We can only do so much...

[jerryd]

. Also I agree with Rob Clack, how on earth you can visualise a thumb, which is plainly a little finger is beyond me.

Many have visualized a thumb. I did at first, too. Weren't you the person that thought you picked out Mary Kelly in a picture of random women on the street because she matched Mary's description? In that case, I've got a binder full of pictures of men matching the description of Jack the Ripper. Hmmm, maybe one of them is actually him. I'll get back to you on this....

[MrBarnett]

Surely it does look a bit like a thumb? It's just on the wrong side!

[Amanda Sumner]

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.

I noted it was stated that several negatives were taken, but was this not a newspaper report? Reporters were not allowed near the place so one cannot believe everything that was printed then. However, we do know that the outside of the house was taken, and we know that a full shot of Mary was taken on her bed. What we do not know is whether any more photographs were taken, in particular a close up of Mary's body that could only have been taken by moving all the furniture around. Her bed would have had to have been placed in the middle of the room. Why would they have gone to all those lengths, to then paint and daub in the bits they could not fit in? It does not make sense. So to answer both yours and Wickerman's posts, no, I don't believe that any of the several negatives they speak of in this report, was this one.

[Observer]

Many have visualized a thumb. I did at first, too. Weren't you the person that thought you picked out Mary Kelly in a picture of random women on the street because she matched Mary's description? In that case, I've got a binder full of pictures of men matching the description of Jack the Ripper. Hmmm, maybe one of them is actually him. I'll get back to you on this....

Really? You do realise that it is pinky now though? If so, then all I can say is you didn't look hard enough in the first place.

Regarding my supposition that the "ghost" of Mary Kelly appeared in a photograph which was taken after her death, all I can say is that my tongue was very firmly in my cheek at the time, as is my won't. Trouble is, people take me far too seriously at times.

By the way, you have an excellent memory, and to be honest, I wasn't aware that anyone took any notice of my posts. If I was me I wouldn't take any notice of my posts. It appears I am mistaken.

[jerryd]

I do not want to derail this thread so... I always knew it was a pinky. I'll leave it at that.

[Observer]

I noted that it was stated that several negatives were taken, but is this not a newspaper report? Reporters were not allowed near the place so one cannot believe everything that was printed then. However, we do know that the outside of the house was taken, and we know that a full shot of Mary was taken on her bed. What we do not know is if any more photographs were taken, in particular a close up of Mary's body that could only have been taken by moving all the furniture around. and placing her bed in the middle of the room. Why would they have gone to all those lengths to then paint and daub in the bits they could not fit in? It does not make sense. So to answer both yours and Wickerman's posts, no, I don't believe that one of the several negatives they speak of in this report, was this one.

Without the newspaper's of the time we would not have the Inquest reports. There comes a time when we must trust the newspaper reports, this is such a time. It's obvious the reporter interviewed the photographer, and may have also learned from him that the Chief Commissioner removed to Scotland Yard taking Dr Bond with him upon the completion of the post mortem. I'd say this was the point that MJK3 was taken.

Paint and daub the bits they could not fit in? That's not the case. The right leg will have been on the negative, but so out of focus, and underdeveloped that the photographer has painted it in.

In fact the newspaper report endorses the authenticity of MJK3, when the reporter writes

" The state of the atmosphere was not favourable to good results, but the photographer secured several negatives, which he hopes will be useful."

The poor quality of the image mirror's this statement exactly.

Seeing that Mary Kelly's body lay inside, out of the way of prying eyes It makes perfect sense that the photographer would want to take close ups of the body, to record the horrific injuries that were inflicted. I would not be surprised to learn that other negatives other than the ones we know of, were taken.

Your big problem stems from looking too much into the photo. You are seeing problems that do not exist.

[Observer]

The left hand doth not know what the right hand doeth

I do not want to derail this thread so... I always knew it was a pinky. I'll leave it at that.

Allow me to quote you

"Many have visualized a thumb. I did at first, too."

By the way, you've already derailed the thread.

I'm interested in those photo's you have of potential JTR's, could you pin a few up?

[Observer]

Surely it does look a bit like a thumb? It's just on the wrong side!

Blow the image up Mr B. All will be revealed'

[jerryd]

Allow me to quote you

"Many have visualized a thumb. I did at first, too."

By the way you've already derailed the thread.

I'm interested in those photo's you have of potential JTR's could you pin a few up.

And I did. But visualizing it as a thumb and believing it to be a thumb are different things. I knew it was a pinky yet looked like a thumb. And no, I won't play your game.

[Observer]

And I did. But visualizing it as a thumb and believing it to be a thumb are different things. I knew it was a pinky yet looked like a thumb. And no, I won't play your game.

What game would that be? Let's visualise some body parts that aren't actually the body parts we visualise them to be? Any other parts you visualised that turned out to be completely different parts?

[Observer]

Time for some sleep though. By the way, went to slumber there, and visualised I was in bed, turns out I'm lying in the bathtub.

[jerryd]

Time for some sleep though. By the way went to slumber there, and visualised I was in bed, turns out I'm lying in the bathtub.

Hopefully it's full of water! Sleep well!

[Tom_Wescott]

Rob's blow up of the hand should settle it. It's too short to be a properly proportional thumb. It's a pinky bent at the joint. And as Debs observes, when standing back on the image, the blood patterns produce a shadowing effect that lends to the thumb illusion. But when looking at it up close and with objectivity, it can only be seen as the pinky of a left hand.

I should note that if someone went to the trouble of falsifying this photo to the extent that they hired a special effects guy (or were themselve one) to produce the excellent Mary Kelly corpse and obtain a Victorian camera (and film), then we might expect they'd put a left and not right hand in frame. So, even if the photo is a fake, it's still a pinky.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but it is a thumb in MJK 3.

But as it can't be the thumb of the victim's left hand, it must be the thumb of someone else's right hand.

A smidgen of imagination is always useful in these matters.

Regards,

Simon