MJK1 and MJK3

[The Good Michael]

Possibilities:

1. The photo was done at the scene of the murder at the same time.

2. The photo was done at the scene of the murder at the same time as the other, but was doctored.

3. The photo was done at the scene of the murder at the same time as the other and an extra right hand/arm was added.

4. The photo was done at a later date and is a fake

5. The photo was done at a later date, is fake, and someone stuck an extra right hand/arm on the body to confuse modern students of the case.

1 is the most plausible. 2 needs a reason. 3 means idiots were at work. 4 needs a reason. 5 would have given us stitches.

Mike


6. The first photo was taken, Kelly's body was somewhat disassembled. A request for another picture was made by someone. The disassemblers reassembled the body poorly. I forgot this possibility.

[Disco Stu]

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...

Hi Amanda,

Nice to see some agitation, and the hardest questions often bring the best answers. I do have to point out that Richard's the digital 3D wizard, I'm a humble hands only artist. I've certainly got no expertise on the photos either, only observations. We're probably in the same boat there, you see one thing, I see another, and the establishment sees the established facts. I once tried looking at MJK1 from the side, and the face suddenly became a lot more real. Now I just stick to front on and abstract thoughts.

Anyway, back to the debate: Alignments. The raised knee is, I believe the right knee in both pictures. I believe what you see as the left knee in MJK3 is the right knee, and that what you see as a painted right knee is the bundled blanket in MJK1, behind the right leg. With that established, the raised knee is nearer vertical, as shown in MJK3, and as described in the PM, and as supported by the lack of blood on the bedding upon which it appears to rest in MJK1.

The table is a champion to some, and a bugbear to others. If only we had the edge that's visible in MJK1 in the camera shot for MJK3, it'd answer a lot of the questions about movement and alignment. Using the visible slats and edges for orientation, and a ruler (hi-teknikaaal), I don't think it would need to have moved a significant amount between photos, if at all. By this method, the edge roughly aligns with the strip of fabric draped next to the (oh-so-contentious) wrist in both pictures.

Brief points:
With due respect to your medical experience, have you seen a grainy B&W photo of detritus left from intestines being pulled out? (Though, this is probably a moot point now, as the enhanced shot does seem to show fabric, and I'm happy to concede I was incorrect about it.);
You must surely concede that your, "knife shape object", would be obscured by the flesh in MJK1, assuming its the, "object", visible on the near table edge (a skin flap, running from the white slat to the matter over-hanging the table edge);
Everyone sees what you do, your eyes don't deceive you. Only interpretations are differing. Taking the photos and the PM as a starting point, I work through the question marks and see what I can see. I then test my conclusions as best I can (and thoroughly abuse Richard's work ethic); and
I want to get back to Richard's 3D thread with this enhanced picture and put him to work!

[Debra A]

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.

It looks like I'd imagine the pelvic region stripped of the external organs of generation would, plus a left thigh at right angles to the trunk and stripped of fascia and muscle down to the knee. It has to be genuine or a mock up of Mary Kelly's mutilations?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Amanda,

Provenance.

The lawful definition. (Black's Law Dictionary)

The official record of origin of a document or work of art where the document was created or received initially or it is the place where the document is now stored. A provenance can be proved by following the records of ownership.

-------------------------------------------------

Assessing the quality or validity of an antique item is not usually done in isolation. One normally examines the context into which the antique item appears and try to determine its original sources or review the process through which it was created. This is not always straightforward. The results may have been derived from numerous sources and by applying complex successive transformations, possibly over long periods of time, i.e. ownerships.

Keeping track of how different sources and changes of provenance are related to each other can be be very difficult. This may strain at the ability to answer questions regarding a result's history, such as: What were the underlying assumptions on which the result is based? Under what conditions does it remain valid? etc etc

The information needs to be systematically, historically and chronologically captured to answer those (or similar) questions is called provenance (or lineage) and refers to a the resul in describing the relationships among all the elements gathered together, in historical, chronological and systematic order (sources, changes of ownership, contextual information and dependencies) that contributed to the final piece of information, i.e. the provenance of an item.

First of all we have the strictures that need be used, and the underlying parameters of acceptable provemnance...in other words, the ability to point at a piece of information, e.g. research result or anomaly in a system trace, and ask: Where did it come from? Originally. This can never be assumed and MUST be proven.

The provenance for each run of such questions contains the links between results and corresponding starting conditions or strictures whilst using some sort of configuration parameter. However, manually tracking all the parameters from a final result through intermediatary information back to the original sources can be a great burden and prone to mistakes.

Then we have to ask the first set of questions.
Where is the item now, and how long has it been there.
When did it arrive there, and from whence did it come.
Dating is important here as well.
If the present source, i.e. where the item lies now is point A, then the previous place of storage or ownership is point B, and so on and so forth back as far as can be traced.

In the next phase we have the problem of ownership when not definitively known. If there is a gap of ownership, then as long as some connection can be made between (for example) point Z and point X, by showing the transition to point Y or from Y to X the provenance is witheld in accordance with a steady and reliable flow of information, even though we may not have any proof that Y held the item or any dates pertaining to it.. so transfer is important.

Problems arise when the provenance of an item cannot be traced back further than a certain amount of time, only one or two steps... leaving a considerable time gap to it's supposed original source. Which means that not all items have a discoverable provenance attached to them. It is here I refer to the following article..


Provenance Guide

http://www.ifar.org/provenance_guide.php

and quote the following short passage..

An ideal provenance history would provide a documentary record of owners’ names; dates of ownership, and means of transference, ie. inheritance, or sale through a dealer or auction; and locations where the work was kept, from the time of its creation by the artist until the present day. Unfortunately, such complete, unbroken records of ownership are rare, and most works of art contain gaps in provenance.


Because of that rarity, parameters are in place for accepted provenance. However, The more the gap in time and record, the stricter the parameters and stricter the need for an absolute definitive position at any given moment in time.

One will also find that there are specific areas needed to define authenticity, and if there is a reasonable amount of query over an item, then the item itself will be even more greatly examined.. quality of paper, age of paper etc etc. (All according to the item material) etc etc etc



I put this up as a short note... maybe some will consider it a tentative guide.. but also I hope as a consideration.

The one thing that is entirely certain is that before Ernest Millen was apparently in posession of the photo, we know nothing of it's whereabouts.
Neither do we know whether the photo was put into a photograph album by Millen himself, nor how old the album itself is, nor what type of album, size, shape, other pages, writing in any part of the album by hand, etc etc etc etc, in order for us to comprehend the provenance further. We do not know if the photograph was taken in 1888, nor perhaps made as a trial mock up for some unknown use. Or for that matter if it was done deliberately to fool anyone., or if it is indeed an original that has been completely defaced by a photographic painter. There are far too many unanswerables. That does NOT help provenance.

Some will be adamant that they are happy to call it an original-fair enough... Some will refer to a secondary source, e.g. the word "negatives" used in a newspåaper to counter Sir MM's words in the Marginalia... which is supposedly a prime source....albeit after the fact so to speak.
Some will be unsure and want greater provenance... and some will be very unhappy with the photograph being authentic at all.

However. The point that nobody can argue with is that we are missing well over 70 years of provenance. That gap does not align itself to satifactory proof of provenance under any standard set of strictures regarding provenance.

I hope that this posting avoids the usual "take the mickey out of it and insult it" jokers and pranksters. Perhaps we can rise ourselves above that level of stupidity for once? It would be appreciated. Thank you.


Phil


Ref: James Cuno -Who owns antiquity
John Henry Merryman- Law Ethics and the Visual Arts
Patrick J. O'Keefe - Trade in Antiquities: Reducing Destruction and Theft
IFAR- International Foundation of Art Reasearch.
Various Guides to Antiques and their histories.

[Amanda Sumner]

Hi Amanda,

Nice to see some agitation, and the hardest questions often bring the best answers. I do have to point out that Richard's the digital 3D wizard, I'm a humble hands only artist. I've certainly got no expertise on the photos either, only observations. We're probably in the same boat there, you see one thing, I see another, and the establishment sees the established facts. I once tried looking at MJK1 from the side, and the face suddenly became a lot more real. Now I just stick to front on and abstract thoughts.

Anyway, back to the debate: Alignments. The raised knee is, I believe the right knee in both pictures. I believe what you see as the left knee in MJK3 is the right knee, and that what you see as a painted right knee is the bundled blanket in MJK1, behind the right leg. With that established, the raised knee is nearer vertical, as shown in MJK3, and as described in the PM, and as supported by the lack of blood on the bedding upon which it appears to rest in MJK1.

The table is a champion to some, and a bugbear to others. If only we had the edge that's visible in MJK1 in the camera shot for MJK3, it'd answer a lot of the questions about movement and alignment. Using the visible slats and edges for orientation, and a ruler (hi-teknikaaal), I don't think it would need to have moved a significant amount between photos, if at all. By this method, the edge roughly aligns with the strip of fabric draped next to the (oh-so-contentious) wrist in both pictures.

Brief points:
With due respect to your medical experience, have you seen a grainy B&W photo of detritus left from intestines being pulled out? (Though, this is probably a moot point now, as the enhanced shot does seem to show fabric, and I'm happy to concede I was incorrect about it.);
You must surely concede that your, "knife shape object", would be obscured by the flesh in MJK1, assuming its the, "object", visible on the near table edge (a skin flap, running from the white slat to the matter over-hanging the table edge);
Everyone sees what you do, your eyes don't deceive you. Only interpretations are differing. Taking the photos and the PM as a starting point, I work through the question marks and see what I can see. I then test my conclusions as best I can (and thoroughly abuse Richard's work ethic); and
I want to get back to Richard's 3D thread with this enhanced picture and put him to work!

Thank you for sparing the time to write this. Yes you are probably right that I am misinterpreting some of the picture. Maybe the painted leg in the foreground confuses the issue I don't know.
I shall look at it again with the points you have raised and see if I can make better sense of it.
I do concede that the knife shaped object may well be hidden in MJK1. It's certainly a possibility.
No, I can't say I've seen a grainy photo of intestines pulled out, but I have to admit to a certain relief that no part would involve feathers! Folded pleats of sheeting is far more acceptable! However I don't see this in Mjk1 either.
The odd thing about this photograph is the need to have to interpret it at all. At least in MJK1 we understand what we see.
As I have a sneaky suspicion that I'm never going to understand the photograph, I can only hope that news of its provenance will be posted on here soon or the reasons why it was accepted as genuine despite of its lack of history. Perhaps, then, the debate can be put to bed for good.

[Disco Stu]

Hi Amanda,

I didn't say misinterpretation, just different. I'm sure we're all relieved there's no feathers, wherever we stand on the photo's legitimacy.

You wouldn't see the bundled sheeting in MJK1 as you would in MJK3 if they show opposite sides of the body. That would be like trying to see the edge of the table visible in MJK3; all you see, if anything, is the upper edge.

I have to agree with you about the need to interpret the photo. Being really bullish, I could say the murder shouldn't have happened. Less so, why is the photo in the public domain? More relevantly, if this was part of a sequence, what chain of events led to this one being made available when all others are lost, perhaps permanently. Definitely one for the conspiracy theorists.

[Phil Carter]

Simon Wood's dissertation re. MJK1 and MJK3

I refer you all to this, an excellent dissertation by Simon D Wood quite a few years ago now

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-swood.html

It answers a lot of questions. Thank you Simon.


Phil

[Amanda Sumner]

I refer you all to this, an excellent dissertation by Simon D Wood quite a few years ago now

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-swood.html

It answers a lot of questions. Thank you Simon.


Phil

Thank you Phil, so MJK3 has no provenance for nearly a century and no proof that it actually existed at all before the 1970's.
Although it could have existed before but where, no one knows, it's dubious history does tend to lend weight that it is indeed a forgery, a mock up.
Simon Wood's theory tends to muddle the waters more.
Although an intriguing insight at what happened at Millers Court on the 9th November 1888, I find it very hard to believe that there was a conspiracy to cover up the original finding of MJK. The sheer amount of police that gathered at that dwelling, surely that story would have come out. Was the finding of Mary's bed in the middle of that room with strange paraphernalia surrounding her body actually any worse than finding the mutilated remains as she was in the photo of MJK1?
Surely a much more plausible explanation was that the photo of MJK3 was taken elsewhere and not in that room at all?
I don't want to offend Simon who has clearly gone to great lengths to try and explain the inexplicable, and he did have the benefit of access to an untouched version of MJK 3.However, this story is quite bizarre and if true, what the hell was going on?
One thing for sure, There's a lot more to MJK3 that meets the eye.

[DRoy]

Amanda,

I think Tom Wescott's post was dead on. You may want to read it again.

I posted the clearer photo not just so you could find more minute detail within it, but also so you would also consider that sometimes our eyes play tricks on us. A little clearer picture was enough for you to consider some of your previous findings which is proof it is best to question and then arrive at a conclusion rather than just concluding. Rob Clack tried to share this advice with you as well.

You're lucky to get advice from Tom and Rob who are two of the best in Ripperology so I wouldn't take their posts too lightly.

Cheers
DRoy

[Observer]

Hopefully it's full of water! Sleep well!

Thanks. Full to the brim, but do you know, strange thing, I never got wet.

[Rob Clack]

I think the best thing to do is that those who question the authenticity and provenance of the photograph get in contact with Scotland Yard/Metropolitan Police and tell them they have forgery on their hands and why have they willingly told the world for the past 26 years that they have mislead and lied to the general public about it.

I would be interested in their response.

Rob

[Amanda Sumner]

Amanda,

I think Tom Wescott's post was dead on. You may want to read it again.

I posted the clearer photo not just so you could find more minute detail within it, but also so you would also consider that sometimes our eyes play tricks on us. A little clearer picture was enough for you to consider some of your previous findings which is proof it is best to question and then arrive at a conclusion rather than just concluding. Rob Clack tried to share this advice with you as well.

You're lucky to get advice from Tom and Rob who are two of the best in Ripperology so I wouldn't take their posts too lightly.

Cheers
DRoy

Yes, and thank you, it made some things so much clearer, and emphasised on some of the things I still have issues with. I think many of us are relieved that it was not feathers at all.That would certainly have needed some explaining!
I don't think I have taken anyone's post lightly, I appreciate feedback on the obvious concerns I have of a photograph that does not appear, in my opinion, to be what it purports to be. I am not the only person, it seems to share that concern.
However, I do feel we are getting somewhere. The history of the photograph is still very obscure. For at least 70 years we were unaware of it's existence, or if it actually existed at all, before we were told that someone had had it in their possession in the 1970's. Where was it before then?
I think these things are important. We have had, since, the diary and watch fiasco and so we should all be wary of things suddenly turning up out of the blue with odd stories of how they came about.

Over all, I think most people on here have been very kind and have not dismissed my concerns which are very real, even if they disagree with them.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Why would the Metropolitan Police know if it was real or a fake?

They didn't even know the photograph existed until 1988, when the family of the late Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ernest Millen returned MJK2 and MJK3, plus some other stuff, to Scotland Yard.

I believe they used to form part of Ernest Millen's lecture material.



Where Ernest Millen obtained MJK3 is anybody's guess.

Regards,

Simon

[Brenda]

.

To look at MJK1, the whole pinky finger/hand area looks strange to me there as well! I've wondered before if she had a (prior) injury or some swelling going on there. Not really a "deformity", but maybe she just had sort of a strange looking hand!

I do believe the MJK3 photo has been "doctored"...Victorian Photoshop, if you will! I've seen this kind of thing before in other photos of the era. If a photo didn't turn out well due to lighting or other factors, someone would paint in what was missing to give it clarity. The right leg touch up is pretty obvious, the problem here is that we can't know what ELSE might have been tampered with as well. While I do believe the photo is real, the touch up work hinders us being able to accept the photo at a 100% confidence rating as "true evidence".

It WOULD be nice to know more about the provenance of this photo, or at least what is known of it. If it's already been discussed in the past, that is good but in the years I've been reading the boards, the discussion of this is always side-stepped. It just isn't good form to be told that the provenance is indisputable and not up for questioning with no further explanation given. I'd love to hear more about the research that people have done on this!

Amanda, I don't think you should be made to feel bad or "loopy" for questioning things. Not at all. It's how we learn. The questions and observations you have made are valid ones. Keep seeking the truth about everything!

[Phil Carter]

Hi Rob,

Why would the Metropolitan Police know if it was real or a fake?

They didn't even know the photograph existed until 1988, when the family of the late Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ernest Millen returned MJK2 and MJK3, plus some other stuff, to Scotland Yard.

I believe they used to form part of Ernest Millen's lecture material.

[ATTACH]16136[/ATTACH]

Where Ernest Millen obtained MJK3 is anybody's guess.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

In addition I believe that proof of authenticity is lawfully and formally recognised when said provenance is shown to be historically and chronologically beyond refute within the bounds of accepted parameters, and covering accepted chronological links.

The onus when provenance is questioned is for the chronological history, documented history, ownership history and actual content to be shown and brought forth. We do not know when the photo was actually taken due to a complete lack of written historical documentation. Although unfortunate, that is how things stand. As Brenda has pointed out most eloquently, the photo has been 'doctored' which itself adds to the problem of authenticity- for we know not when this was done either.

Amanda is quite within her rights to both question the content and authenticity based on the above. Being 'told' it is authentic just because it has been assumed so without any proven stricture applied- both chronological and historical is not acceptable provenance.

As I pointed out earlier- if both the Maybrick Diary and Maybrick watch requires proof of historical, chronological and legal provenance- then the same stricture should apply to any item. The disturbing thing for me personally is that the pages of the photo album itself with attached photos was first shown in full to the general public in exactly that book about the Maybrick Diary. Anybody remember the removable sticker on the front of that book? I do. It stated..."Is it genuine?"

Everything in that book raised massive alarm bells.


Phil