MJK1 and MJK3

[Rob Clack]

As Neil has pointed out, there were other photographs with the MJK3 one. Including a different print of the full length Kelly photograph. The Eddowes and Kelly photograph have been seen before so sometimes you just need to use a bit of common sense and say, if they are genuine then so must be the others.

Rob

[Debra A]

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.

It's no bother, Amanda- it was just a general question for all those who voiced strong concerns that this photograph wasn't genuine.

You've highlighted the problems you personally have with MJK3 but I don't have those, for me there is absolutely nothing strange about what is depicted in MJK3 against MJK1, nothing untoward or out of place. Therefore I would say it has to be a very elaborate and well done 'mock up' or it is genuine.

Continuing to demand provenance is pointless. I can't see what difference it makes? Roy, Rob and Neil have explained very well why some of us accept it as genuine. Is anyone who believes it is genuine using it to back up any sort of theory or idea about Mary's murder? Does it tell us anything contrary to what the shocking MJK1 tells us-that some lunatic horrifically slaughtered a woman in her own room and butchered her beyond recognition?

On the other hand, might there be a motive for promoting the idea it may be a fake?

[Lechmere]

Debra
When you said in post 9:
If it is a fake what was the point of it? What does it show that we didn't already know, prove or disprove?

I answered your points twice!
In post 10:
There are many reasons why people forge things - vanity being a major one.
It could simply be a picture of something other than Kelly, that was at some point wrongly attributed to being Kelly…
Vanity might have led him to claim that a gory non Kelly picture was actually of Kelly. Or it could have been a genuine mistake…
It would have been all too easy for pictures relating to other cases to get muddled up over the years.

(you actually replied to this)

And here in post 72:
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.

To Rob Replied:
There are no other murders remotely similar for it to be mistaken for anybody else

I would suspect that in a say 20 year period following the Kelly murder there would have been an opportunity to take a photograph of that nature – maybe not of a murder. Maybe not in this country even.
It may have been a deliberate after-the-event ‘mock up’ to illustrate what they could not show en situ.
Millen may have acquired that photograph and innocently assumed it was of Kelly.
There are endless possibilities that do not require conspiracies.

With respect to Roy’s much quoted post, the key parts with respect to the MJK3’s ‘provenance’ is:
‘…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…
…in this field, not everything is cut and dried.
…they are actually going out on a limb and doing the best they can.’

This is saying that the picture has no provenance but on the basis of an educated guess by several experienced ‘Ripperologists’ the picture was given the all clear.
That is fair enough.
But – I would suggest somewhat misleadingly - much firmer claims as to the pictures provenance have been made.
I think it is fair enough to question whether there was any more tangible evidence that the photo had real provenance. It seems there isn’t.
I had assumed that there was – as I have said I have never taken much interest in this photo and usually look away when I see MJK1, MJK2 and MJK3 (not out of squeamishness I hasten to add).
I can’t see that the photo is of use to anyone on promoting or debunking any theory of which I am aware. So I see no motive so far as that aspect is concerned.

What we have is some press references to other photos being taken in November 1888 and the circumstances under which they were taken.
The MJK3 photo appeared in 1988 along with other definitely genuine photos associated with the Jack the Ripper files that had been retained by Millen.
Some people think the picture doesn’t match up to MJK1 and 2, others, the majority, think it does.

[Debra A]

Debra
When you said in post 9:
If it is a fake what was the point of it? What does it show that we didn't already know, prove or disprove?

I answered your points twice!
In post 10:
There are many reasons why people forge things - vanity being a major one.
It could simply be a picture of something other than Kelly, that was at some point wrongly attributed to being Kelly…
Vanity might have led him to claim that a gory non Kelly picture was actually of Kelly. Or it could have been a genuine mistake…
It would have been all too easy for pictures relating to other cases to get muddled up over the years.

(you actually replied to this)

And here in post 72:
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.

To Rob Replied:
There are no other murders remotely similar for it to be mistaken for anybody else

I would suspect that in a say 20 year period following the Kelly murder there would have been an opportunity to take a photograph of that nature – maybe not of a murder. Maybe not in this country even.
It may have been a deliberate after-the-event ‘mock up’ to illustrate what they could not show en situ.
Millen may have acquired that photograph and innocently assumed it was of Kelly.
There are endless possibilities that do not require conspiracies.

With respect to Roy’s much quoted post, the key parts with respect to the MJK3’s ‘provenance’ is:
‘…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…
…in this field, not everything is cut and dried.
…they are actually going out on a limb and doing the best they can.’

This is saying that the picture has no provenance but on the basis of an educated guess by several experienced ‘Ripperologists’ the picture was given the all clear.
That is fair enough.
But – I would suggest somewhat misleadingly - much firmer claims as to the pictures provenance have been made.
I think it is fair enough to question whether there was any more tangible evidence that the photo had real provenance. It seems there isn’t.
I had assumed that there was – as I have said I have never taken much interest in this photo and usually look away when I see MJK1, MJK2 and MJK3 (not out of squeamishness I hasten to add).
I can’t see that the photo is of use to anyone on promoting or debunking any theory of which I am aware. So I see no motive so far as that aspect is concerned.

What we have is some press references to other photos being taken in November 1888 and the circumstances under which they were taken.
The MJK3 photo appeared in 1988 along with other definitely genuine photos associated with the Jack the Ripper files that had been retained by Millen.
Some people think the picture doesn’t match up to MJK1 and 2, others, the majority, think it does.

I know you did, Edward. I didn't say you hadn't. I was even going to acknowledge you had in my post to Amanda but forgot.

[Lechmere]

Just checking in case I was invisible.

[Debra A]

Just checking in case I was invisible.

No you're not, but you are sarcastic.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Edward,

Another example of why people will do things comes about with the 17th September 1888 letter...

I quoted from a description thread about the JTR letters here on Casebook...

Dated September 17th, 1888, this letter was only recently discovered by Peter McClelland in a sealed report envelope in the British Public Record Office in 1988. Its authenticity is hotly debated, many believing it to be a recent hoax placed surreptitiously in the records. It was first published in Paul Feldman's Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter. (my emphasis)

It reads...

Dear Boss


So now they say I am a Yid when will they lern Dear old Boss! You an me know the truth dont we. Lusk can look forever hell never find me but I am rite under his nose all the time. I watch them looking for me an it gives me fits ha ha I love my work an I shant stop until I get buckled and even then watch out for your old pal Jacky.


Catch me if you Can
Jack the Ripper


Sorry about the blood still messy from the last one. What a pretty necklace I gave her.


If one wonders why people do this sort of thing.. some do it for a laugh...a joke... to get one over on Ripperologists...the authorities even. Some do it to enhance theories such as The Maybrick Diary perhaps...



I refer to the following thread..

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=484

and show that Norma (Natalie Severn) a respected crime historian and Ripperologist makes various comments..one being the comparison of 17th Sept letter with other items that surfaced around the centenary.(post 3 amongst others is written in jest but making a point)

and Dan Norder, former Ripperologist said in relation to hoaxes and fakery....

....Yes, there is a difference between questionable and fake. The overwhelming weight of the evidence, for the reasons already given and more, show this to be a fake. If there were some actual evidence to support any other conclusion, then it might move up to being merely questionable. Considering the sheer amount of evidence that it is a fake, there would have to be some pretty amazing evidence to ever go beyond questionable to thinking it was authentic. It would have to be something reliable and verifiable by neutral third parties. If something like that ever turns up, great...

and Sam Flynn, currently on here and a very respected Ripperologist said of the 17th September letter...

...Whilst I strongly believe that several indicators point to its being a fake, neither I nor any of us can say that it is one, anymore than one could say that it is genuine.


Now in relation to that and other quotes that could be made either way by the way, we have the MJK3 photo. Some people will regard it as genuine, some will not, and some will waver.

And Sam Flynn's post is just about the most reasonable regarding what is real and what isn't. We just do not have the provenance going back to 1888 with this photograph. We can ask each other questions all day.. but that is how it stands. And before anyone asks or suggests I am cherry picking quotes... it is a long thread... read what you will from it.

Why doesn't someone ask Peter McClelland what he feels about the discovery of his being hailed as a fake? Or do we have definitive proof that someone KNOWN placed it in the archives? Do we have a name of the person who wrote it? Well, as far as I know... the answer is no. Perhaps I am in err.

But THAT is how far some people will go to play a game. And way way further, if one believes the Diary is a modern hoax...for example.

So playing a game with a mock up photo using an old camera with a glass plate is tiddlywinks in comparison.

That is ONE reason why people do it... to play silly little games of one-upmanship. I don't know if this be the case with MJK3...I have no idea. But perhaps someone does know?

It isnt just you or I, Amanda or Simon for example that has queried this photograph down the years... very very many have. That must tell us all something... the photograph is in need of a better and more complete provenance.. one way or the other.


Phil

[Brenda]

.

Now I happen to believe the photo is real, but someone mentioned earlier in this thread that Millen was giving lectures using these photos? A possible and very reasonable explanation for a "mock up" would be simply to provide another view for his lectures...maybe he would use it to reference certain information he was presenting. So there would be no intent to forge or otherwise deceive, yet would account for some of the inconsistencies?

But like I say, I think it's real, though it's a shame it's been retouched.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Roy,

Allow me to put something to you if I may?

When Patricia Cornwell spent all her money on trying to prove Sickert was JTR did you believe it? Lesser.. did you believe she had a reason to prove her theory? Lesser still...did you listen to and believe any of her experts that spoke with authority? Was their research sufficient for you?

When The Maybrick Diary surfaced...did you believe it to be genuine? Was it presented professionally enough for you to waver? And the watch... when that FIRST was presented, late in the book... did it fool you? Did you listen to the experts who spoke about that? did you believe THEM? Was the research sufficient for you?

When "Jack the Ripper- The Final Solution " appeared on the shelves...did you believe it?... did you believe that Stephen Knight might just have cracked the case? Did you believe his research? Was it sufficient for you?

And when you read Donald McCormick's book, from 1959.... did it convince you at all? Did you see any flaws? Was his research satisfactory enough for you to swallow the story?

Infact... has any suspect book ever taken your fancy enough for you to say...yup...thats the one? Suspect book I wrote..none other.

Even better... did you believe former President Bush's experts when he declared he had certain PROOF of weapons of mass destruction being harboured in Iraq under it's leader? Well I didn't. And you wont find many who will admit to having had the wool pulled well and truly over their eyes now today by that man.. even though they stood on the sidewalks and waved the US flag in gay abandon with cries of "go get 'em Joe" after 9/11. I didn't believe that presentation..... because I have become very cynical. It comes with age.

I read my first JTR book in 1972 ish..and have never believed a word of any theory...even though Stephen Knights was excellently put forward and even though Stewart Evans' work on Tumblety really was a breakthrough book..it didn't quite convince me... I didn't believe all the mess around 1988 because of all the shenanigens going on... and as for the Diary...well... it is safe to say that I don't believe a word of it. I've seen the 17th Sept letter attempt.... is that a hoax? I think so.. as many others do... some do not...
Ive seen the Cornwell book and the joke that has played out since...

I have the right (as we all do) in this case to have doubts over this photo and its provenance. What you find "wierd" is me presenting an informative piece on something that has not, as far as I could see, ever been written on this site... a post about the strictures of provenance..and how it relates to our problem. I wasn't aware that "everyone" was already in great knowledge about it....but...hey ho...You didnt like it?.. well.. thats because it wasn't to your taste....fair enough... but I will remind you that the very vast majority on here are the silent masses... they read and do not comment. (for one reason or another)...they are young and old, educated and some perhaps less so...some are experts in a field of some sort, some are not. Some may well be experts in provenance for all I know... they might be 19 year old students of the case with an avid interest... and want to know, want to read up.... It was for EVERYONE I wrote the provenance posts... not just you, Mr A, Mr B and Mrs C... it was informative... the parameters and guidelines and some strictures to a very complicated but interesting (imho) subject. (Apparently not very interesting to you.. but.. well, we all have different tastes don't we?) You may find that "strange"...you may call it "preaching" and a "sermon" (being non-religious it is rather strange to be compared to a lay preacher...lol).. but I am not going to comment on your written personal views on me further nor be drawn into any form of slanging match with anyone... shame eh?..I only believe it serves to deflect the argument toward the personal and not stay on the subject.. the problem of the MJK3 photograph. The above shows some comparison within choice of belief that some can make if they wish to. That is up to them.


Phil

[Lechmere]

Phil
I'm not sure whether that was actually addressed to Debra but...
If better provenance isn't there, then it isn't there.
Not everything has perfect provenance.
When something hasn't got even decent provenance this should be openly accepted so people can make their own judgment on the material itself - in this case the photograph.
I am a naturally sceptical person and if things turned up in the future my starting position would be that they (whatever 'they' were) were not genuine.

[Phil Carter]

Now I happen to believe the photo is real, but someone mentioned earlier in this thread that Millen was giving lectures using these photos? A possible and very reasonable explanation for a "mock up" would be simply to provide another view for his lectures...maybe he would use it to reference certain information he was presenting. So there would be no intent to forge or otherwise deceive, yet would account for some of the inconsistencies?

But like I say, I think it's real, though it's a shame it's been retouched.

Hello Brenda,

Indeed... a very plausible possibility. Can't be proven of course.. but yes, plausible..to the open mind that is.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Phil
I'm not sure whether that was actually addressed to Debra but...
If better provenance isn't there, then it isn't there.
Not everything has perfect provenance.
When something hasn't got even decent provenance this should be openly accepted so people can make their own judgment on the material itself - in this case the photograph.
I am a naturally sceptical person and if things turned up in the future my starting position would be that they (whatever 'they' were) were not genuine.

Hello Edward,

No, addressed intentionally to your good self as another example of how, like Brendas, or why, the photo could be either a hoax, a fake or a deliberate mock-up.

Agreed as you saw in my earlier post very FEW things have perfect provenance. Sadly, what you and I call lack of decent provenance, others call sufficient..hence the discussion.. I too am sceptical and perhaps cyncial but that comes with age.


Phil

[Monty]

So all we need to do it look for someone who had a Victorian Bellows camera, with plates, flash powder, chemical, etc, in 1988, and had access to the image of Chapman.

That, or had photoshop on their Commodore 64.


Yep, easy as Tiddlywinks.

Monty


PS Oh, and they like a giggle.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Were you, perchance, thinking about something along these lines?



Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

What were you doing in 1988 Simon?

Anticipating a book by any chance?

Monty