MJK1 and MJK3

[richardh]

It's not, it's not, it's not!

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

[MrBarnett]

I'm confused. I've blown it up and indeed it looks too short to be a full length thumb. But it also looks too thick to be a pinkie. And if I use my imagination as Simon suggests I get a foetal badger.

Help!

[Jon Guy]

. But it also looks too thick to be a pinkie. And if I use my imagination as Simon suggests I get a foetal badger.

I am normally set in my ways, but yes, I too, see a foetal badger.
Things aren`t as black and white as they seem.

[Rob Clack]

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

Over imagination in this case Simon. So you believe some unknown person crouched by the side of the bed and put his/her hand inside a mutilated body? Well they should be easy to find. They have got no thumbnail.

Rob

[The Good Michael]

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.

A smidgen of cargo this size would provide enough ballast for the Lusitania. Maybe that's what brought her down.

Mike

[Amanda Sumner]

Over imagination in this case Simon. So you believe some unknown person crouched by the side of the bed and put his/her hand inside a mutilated body? Well they should be easy to find. They have got no thumbnail.

Rob

It would not take too much imagination to see a head covered where the purported raised left knee should be. As for the thumbnail, well just as easy to erase one out as paint a whole shin in, as they did.

[Rob Clack]

And that brings us back to the question nobody from the conspiracy, dodgy doings camp can be bothered to answer. WHY?

Rob

[Amanda Sumner]

We could argue until the end of time. I don't believe we are looking at MJK. I've studied the photographs, I've tried to see what everyone else, apparently, sees and it continues to baffle.
Who actually knows the history of it beyond 1988? Where had it been before then, for the last 100 years? Macnaghton did not mention having it or reported it missing.
Unless we have provenance, these debates will continue.
A proof of its authenticity would be great.

[Rob Clack]

Just as I thought. There is enough authenticity just by reading and looking.

Rob

[Amanda Sumner]

And that brings us back to the question nobody from the conspiracy, dodgy doings camp can be bothered to answer. WHY?

Rob

Well I don't think I'm in any 'camp'. I'm just querying something that makes no sense to me at all. As I said it may have been a mock up, reenactment for a ? lecture, training, newspaper article? Who knows? Why was the diary written?
The answer to why is as baffling as the photograph itself.

[Rob Clack]

Well I don't think I'm in any 'camp'. I'm just querying something that makes no sense to me at all. As I said it may have been a mock up, reenactment for a ? lecture, training, newspaper article? Who knows? Why was the diary written?
The answer to why is as baffling as the photograph itself.

There is no way you can compare the two. They are two different beasts. I am happy with the authenticity of the photo. I took the trouble to go and see it. The problem is if you are saying there is a problem with it you are also questioning the other interior photo as well.

Rob

[Lechmere]

Or it may have been a picture of something else that was misidentified as being of Kelly, deliberately or innocently.
I don't pretend to be able to determine what the picture represents one way or another.

The other picture isn't difficult to interpret and I believe it's provenance is clear.

[Rob Clack]

There are no other murders remotely similar for it to be mistaken for anybody else.

Rob

[Amanda Sumner]

There is no way you can compare the two. They are two different beasts. I am happy with the authenticity of the photo. I took the trouble to go and see it. The problem is if you are saying there is a problem with it you are also questioning the other interior photo as well.

Rob

No, I am not. By the time Mjk1 went missing, there were other copies of it doing the rounds.
MJK3 had never been seen by the public until 1988.
There is no recorded history of it anywhere before then.
If there was, why has no one yet posted the proof?
I, for one, would like to see it.

[Rob Clack]

MJK3 had never been seen by the public until 1988.
There is no recorded history of it anywhere before then.

But why should there be? The MJK1 didn't turn up until the mid 1960s along with the Eddowes photographs. It's not enough to say there's an issue with these photographs without saying why.
I've wasted enough time here and o have better things to do.

Rob