MJK1 and MJK3

[Michael W Richards]

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

I almost spit out my coffee when I read the above Simon, more from an eerie coincidence point of view than anything else. Hello by the way, hope you are still living long and prospering in LA..

Millen.

One conjures up an image of a relative of one Gen Millen, perhaps using an alias because of it or some other reason for hiding, who gets mixed up with some of the most infamous murders as a result of the manner and timing of her murder.

I just thought seeing Mary Janes name on a thread that contains mentions the owner of one of the photos of her as being a Millen, was a cheap thrill.

Cheers Simon.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Amanda, if there's one Ripper book above all others to refer to, not only for this question, but for, well, everything, it's Scotland Yard Investigates, by Evans & Rumbelow.

On page 185 the MJK3 photo is shown with the caption - "A view of the lower part of Kelly's body on the bed in room 13, Miller's Court, taken from the opposite side of the bed to the better known full view. This photograph was in an album returned to Scotland Yard in 1988 by the family of the late Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ernest Millen, which also contained photographs of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Stride (S. P. Evans/Metropolitan Police)"

On the previous page is MJK1, with the explanation it was "discovered by Donald Rumbelow in the City of London Police archives in the 1960's."

And the book has an excellent section where each author discusses the files, photos, the letters, what's left, what may be gone, the surviving material. It's very helpful.

I naturally assume that Stewart Evans has studied the photo from every angle, by that I mean to determine what it is, how it came to be, it's provenance such as it is, he's probably discussed it many times with not only Don Rumbelow but many others, and he puts his name to a caption saying, yes this is what it is. That's good enough for me.

This is one of those odd things about the Ripper case, the photographs, the missing files. It is what it is. That's why I am so glad there are people like Stewart Evans, Rumbelow, and really, many others who have taken such great care and spent so much of their time looking into these things. They know all about the rather odd history of the documentation, every thing there is to know. They've studied it, compared, sifted, cross referenced.

Amanda, you say we don't know where MJK3 was before such and such date. RIGHT. We don't. We, or rather somebody really knowledgeable can make some educated guesses, some assumptions. Based on the best knowledge, the best other information to fit with it.

I thought people knew that. I thought people knew that the experts who have been working in this field for a long time have had to make certain assumptions, certain leaps of faith. Or else they would have thrown MJ3 in the trash can years ago and we wouldn't be having this conversation. I thought people knew that.

Phil, I though you knew that. I thought you knew that in this field, not everything is cut and dried. Yet you want to give a sermon about provenance. As if what experts do is somehow wrong. When in fact they are actually going out on a limb and doing the best they can. Quite frankly, Phil, I find your sermons about provenance to be a little strange. Who is it you are lecturing exactly? Who is it that doesn't know what provenance is and needs to be talked to like that?

I don't need to be talked to like that. I know what provenance is. And I'm sure that some of the top people in this field know what provenance is, too, and anyone would give their eye tooth to be working with only things that have the most pristine, impecabble, spotless provenance. Wouldn't that be dandy. But we get this lecture on provenance, instead. Weird.

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

Amanda, here was something new which Maria Birbili unconvered in France and posted here on Casebook three years ago. How MJK1 and an Eddowes photo made its way to France and appeared in a book in the 1890's. A good example of what Rob was saying, someone getting out and doing real research.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5930

As you will see, the thread also contains some of the hundreds of documents and items that Stewart Evans has generously shared here on Casebook.

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

Stewart and/or Don making an assertion as to the mise en scène of MJK3 doesn't necessarily make it true.

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

Hi Amanda, if there's one Ripper book above all others to refer to, not only for this question, but for, well, everything, it's Scotland Yard Investigates, by Evans & Rumbelow.

On page 185 the MJK3 photo is shown with the caption - "A view of the lower part of Kelly's body on the bed in room 13, Miller's Court, taken from the opposite side of the bed to the better known full view. This photograph was in an album returned to Scotland Yard in 1988 by the family of the late Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ernest Millen, which also contained photographs of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Stride (S. P. Evans/Metropolitan Police)"

On the previous page is MJK1, with the explanation it was "discovered by Donald Rumbelow in the City of London Police archives in the 1960's."

And the book has an excellent section where each author discusses the files, photos, the letters, what's left, what may be gone, the surviving material. It's very helpful.

I naturally assume that Stewart Evans has studied the photo from every angle, by that I mean to determine what it is, how it came to be, it's provenance such as it is, he's probably discussed it many times with not only Don Rumbelow but many others, and he puts his name to a caption saying, yes this is what it is. That's good enough for me.

This is one of those odd things about the Ripper case, the photographs, the missing files. It is what it is. That's why I am so glad there are people like Stewart Evans, Rumbelow, and really, many others who have taken such great care and spent so much of their time looking into these things. They know all about the rather odd history of the documentation, every thing there is to know. They've studied it, compared, sifted, cross referenced.

Amanda, you say we don't know where MJK3 was before such and such date. RIGHT. We don't. We, or rather somebody really knowledgeable can make some educated guesses, some assumptions. Based on the best knowledge, the best other information to fit with it.

I thought people knew that. I thought people knew that the experts who have been working in this field for a long time have had to make certain assumptions, certain leaps of faith. Or else they would have thrown MJ3 in the trash can years ago and we wouldn't be having this conversation. I thought people knew that.

Phil, I though you knew that. I thought you knew that in this field, not everything is cut and dried. Yet you want to give a sermon about provenance. As if what experts do is somehow wrong. When in fact they are actually going out on a limb and doing the best they can. Quite frankly, Phil, I find your sermons about provenance to be a little strange. Who is it you are lecturing exactly? Who is it that doesn't know what provenance is and needs to be talked to like that?

I don't need to be talked to like that. I know what provenance is. And I'm sure that some of the top people in this field know what provenance is, too, and anyone would give their eye tooth to be working with only things that have the most pristine, impecabble, spotless provenance. Wouldn't that be dandy. But we get this lecture on provenance, instead. Weird.

Roy

Excellent post, Roy.

[Monty]

If it is a fake what was the point of it? What does it show that we didn't already know,prove or disprove?

Yet again, you ask THE question which the conspiracists just cannot answer Debs.

Monty

[Debra A]

Yet again, you ask THE question which the conspiracists just cannot answer Debs.

Monty

That's because they can't see me, Monty. Hadn't you noticed?

[Monty]

Sadly, yes, I have noticed.

Either you are too staight to the point, and therefore do not trigger their waffle attraction radar, or you simply ask the awkward question which they like to avoid.

Whichever it is, it sets out their mindset for all to see.

Monty

[Debra A]

Sadly, yes, I have noticed.

Either you are too staight to the point, and therefore do not trigger their waffle attraction radar, or you simply ask the awkward question which they like to avoid.

Whichever it is, it sets out their mindset for all to see.

Monty

I think it's Roy that has done the real straight talking here.
He's asked all the right questions about motives too IMHO.
They can ignore me all they want.

[Monty]

I think it's Roy that has done the real straight talking here.
He's asked all the right questions about motives too IMHO.
They can ignore me all they want.

True.

Monty

[Amanda Sumner]

Yet again, you ask THE question which the conspiracists just cannot answer Debs.

Monty

I was not aware that I had not answered Debra in an earlier post, certainly I did not deliberately ignore her.
I thought I had answered. I have no idea why but I have suggested a re enactment or mock up for some demonstration purposes? For a newspaper? I honestly don't know. Neither do I consider myself a conspiracist. Two photographs, supposedly depicting the same thing, yet seem to have no bearing on one another, one of which seems to have dubious history. It may well have been originally obtained with the belief that it was another photo of MJK. After all, we have no idea if Millen paid for that photo to add to his album It may well have been sent to Scotland Yard with no intention to dupe. However, I do believe that MJK3 is not what it's purported to be.

[Monty]

Hi Amanda,

Just a little pointer re your initial post.

[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.

That is incorrect. The Met police did not take photographs at the Kelly scene, their photographic Department did not exist until 1901. They actually hired private, trusted photographers to take the photos.

Can I ask? Have you read The first Jack the Ripper victim photographs by Rob McLaughlin? It covers a lot on the photos you cite.

I trust you do not doubt the provenance of the external shot of Millers Court, yes? As that image is clearly referred to by Bagster Phillips at Kellys inquest. So we know a photographer was present, at some stage, in and around Miller Court. The description of the broken pane, and the fact it is visible in the shot, along with the boarded up window photo, leads to one logical conclusion.

We also know that photographing the SOC was developing, Bertillon was experimenting with it in France, and both the Met and City police were in close liaison with the French police on such methods.

As far as I'm aware, the matter of the other photographs has not been raised during this discussion on here. MJK2 arrived with other photographs, yes? The mourtuary shots of Nichols, Chapman and Stride were also in that mysterious envelope. So with that in mind, where do you stand on those photos?

Genuine or fake?

Bearing in mind the photo of Chapman in life, as revealed by Neal Shelden, the provenance of which is imppeccable, as it was provided by Chapmans family.

I don't think even Simon would dare to question that.

Monty

[Monty]

I was not aware that I had not answered Debra in an earlier post, certainly I did not deliberately ignore her.
I thought I had answered. I have no idea why but I have suggested a re enactment or mock up for some demonstration purposes? For a newspaper? I honestly don't know. Neither do I consider myself a conspiracist. Two photographs, supposedly depicting the same thing, yet seem to have no bearing on one another, one of which seems to have dubious history. It may well have been originally obtained with the belief that it was another photo of MJK. After all, we have no idea if Millen paid for that photo to add to his album It may well have been sent to Scotland Yard with no intention to dupe. However, I do believe that MJK3 is not what it's purported to be.

No newspaper would publish such an image, and the image, I believe, is out of copyright, meaning it was free to use in 1988.

The only motive to forge is....?

Monty
: )

[Rob Clack]

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

Because it is their photograph. And they would be the best people to ask for provenance. Sorry of that sounds to much like common sense.

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Hi Amanda, if there's one Ripper book above all others to refer to, not only for this question, but for, well, everything, it's Scotland Yard Investigates, by Evans & Rumbelow.

On page 185 the MJK3 photo is shown with the caption - "A view of the lower part of Kelly's body on the bed in room 13, Miller's Court, taken from the opposite side of the bed to the better known full view. This photograph was in an album returned to Scotland Yard in 1988 by the family of the late Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ernest Millen, which also contained photographs of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Stride (S. P. Evans/Metropolitan Police)"

On the previous page is MJK1, with the explanation it was "discovered by Donald Rumbelow in the City of London Police archives in the 1960's."

And the book has an excellent section where each author discusses the files, photos, the letters, what's left, what may be gone, the surviving material. It's very helpful.

I naturally assume that Stewart Evans has studied the photo from every angle, by that I mean to determine what it is, how it came to be, it's provenance such as it is, he's probably discussed it many times with not only Don Rumbelow but many others, and he puts his name to a caption saying, yes this is what it is. That's good enough for me.

This is one of those odd things about the Ripper case, the photographs, the missing files. It is what it is. That's why I am so glad there are people like Stewart Evans, Rumbelow, and really, many others who have taken such great care and spent so much of their time looking into these things. They know all about the rather odd history of the documentation, every thing there is to know. They've studied it, compared, sifted, cross referenced.

Amanda, you say we don't know where MJK3 was before such and such date. RIGHT. We don't. We, or rather somebody really knowledgeable can make some educated guesses, some assumptions. Based on the best knowledge, the best other information to fit with it.

I thought people knew that. I thought people knew that the experts who have been working in this field for a long time have had to make certain assumptions, certain leaps of faith. Or else they would have thrown MJ3 in the trash can years ago and we wouldn't be having this conversation. I thought people knew that.

Phil, I though you knew that. I thought you knew that in this field, not everything is cut and dried. Yet you want to give a sermon about provenance. As if what experts do is somehow wrong. When in fact they are actually going out on a limb and doing the best they can. Quite frankly, Phil, I find your sermons about provenance to be a little strange. Who is it you are lecturing exactly? Who is it that doesn't know what provenance is and needs to be talked to like that?

I don't need to be talked to like that. I know what provenance is. And I'm sure that some of the top people in this field know what provenance is, too, and anyone would give their eye tooth to be working with only things that have the most pristine, impecabble, spotless provenance. Wouldn't that be dandy. But we get this lecture on provenance, instead. Weird.

Roy

As Debs said, this is an excellent post. I think we all know by now what Phil's motives are.

Rob