MJK1 and MJK3

[Amanda Sumner]

I think it is foolish to make statements such as "I believe I am right" regarding MJK3 when an entire album, or pieces of another album could very well turn up and have in it the same image. But if we are fortunate for that to occur, I suppose it still will not convince the very few who question it's authenticity.

JM[/QUOTE]

Perhaps I should make it clear, here, that I am partly questioning it's authenticity, based on what I see.

If anyone could actually point to me any part of the human anatomy on MJK3, I would be grateful.

Should any album turn up with similar images with limbs and daubing painted on, then yes, indeed I would question it again.

Amanda

[Amanda Sumner]

I am now 100 per cent certain that this is a wind up.

No wind up.

I feel that these things do matter.

[jmenges]

Whilst I perhaps lack a degree of sympathy for certain posters, I do have to admit that to a certain extent I am personally acting purely out of faith, Robert McLaughlin's book being, in practise, completely unavailable...not just at a price...but simply not there...

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,

The quote of Robert's was from a post he made to this forum, not from his book. I know how few people possess his book so I wouldn't quote from it for that reason, plus, doing so for more than a paragraph would violate a major Casebook rule.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=2605#post2605

Sorry I didn't make the source clear.

JM

[Debra A]

Debra commented in her post, earlier, does any of this matter? It does not add or take away the fact that a young woman was butchered to pieces. She certainly has a point.
Does it really matter whether MJK3 is genuine or fake? Does it matter if we don't know anything about it beyond the 1970's? Does it matter that Macnaghton only ever spoke of one picture taken of Mary on her bed? Does it matter if the strictures of provenance can be stretched or ignored? Does it matter that some people doubt the authenticity of this photograph?
If the answers to these questions are all " no", then I don't know what Ripperology is about. Neither do I understand why, if none of these things matter, the diary has not been held up as the solution to the case and everyone accepts Maybrick did it.

The difference is the diary presented a whole new suspect , a new solution. MJK3 does nothing but show the full horror from another angle. No one has ever used it to prop up a theory or propose a new suspect as far as I recall. For me it marries up with MJK1 so that its provenance beyond a certain date is not concrete means little to me in light of the fact it isn't pretending to tell us anything we didn't already know.

It wasn't too long ago some were questioning the authenticity of the outdoor shot of Miller's Court. They were trying to tell us that a photograph of PAV was photo-shopped into the picture of Eddowes in her shell and that someone had also photo-shopped a row of teeth under her chin! Same people. What is their motive?

[Monty]

Hello Monty,
I think you are being persnickety about who took the original photos. Whether the police had their own camera man or hired a photographer is neither here nor there. The point I was making was that they were not allowing any reporters in, so the only photos taken that day were in control of the police.

No, I have not read Rob Mclaughlin's book. I will put it on my "To Read" list.

As far as the outside shot of the dwelling in Miller's court, yes I'm happy with that. There were many drawings published of the place for the photograph to be recognisable for what it was.
I am aware of the photographs of the other victims, and MJK2, and how they came about and I am happy to leave it to others to determine that they are the real thing. I, personally have no issue with them. MJK2 seems to be a cleaned up version of MJK1, but it is, clearly, the same photograph.

My issue with MJK3 is altogether different.
I find it odd that I cannot relate to any part of the photograph that makes sense. Nothing is consistent with MJK1, in my opinion, but as I've been through all these issues before, there seems little point going over them again. The added fact that it's provenance is dubious, and nonexistent for over 70 years, does support my theory that the photograph is not MJK.
I believe I am right.
There is nothing anatomically recognisable in the photograph except the hand, and even that has it's problems.

Debra commented in her post, earlier, does any of this matter? It does not add or take away the fact that a young woman was butchered to pieces. She certainly has a point.
Does it really matter whether MJK3 is genuine or fake? Does it matter if we don't know anything about it beyond the 1970's? Does it matter that Macnaghton only ever spoke of one picture taken of Mary on her bed? Does it matter if the strictures of provenance can be stretched or ignored? Does it matter that some people doubt the authenticity of this photograph?
If the answers to these questions are all " no", then I don't know what Ripperology is about. Neither do I understand why, if none of these things matter, the diary has not been held up as the solution to the case and everyone accepts Maybrick did it.

Hi Amanda,

Yep, I'm just merely pointing out an error.

I suggest you obtain Robs book if you can, it addresses many issues re the photos.

So you have an issue with one photo, a photo sent in a batch of photos of which you are happy with? So basically this is personal interpretation, clouds in the sky? Personally, I feel the photo is consistent with the other image and contemporary information.

Yes, its important, as is getting Macnaghtens name correct. It must be remembered that he was not involved in the initial investigation, and therefore it is questionable if he was aware of other photos.

In Ripperologist 127, Rob Clack and myself presented a photograph of some wall writing signed by Jack the Ripper. The image had not been published anywhere previously, and had not been seen by eminent researchers such as Stewart Evans, Paul Begg, Keith Skinner and Don Rumbelow. Obviously the issue of provenance was raised by us, and discussed amongst ourselves.

Then a document published in 1890 was bought to our attention by Debs. It mentioned a photo of wall writing connected to Jack, and quoted the wording on the photo in its text.

The lack of provenance does not necessarily mean such evidence does not exist, and certainly does not mean the photo is fake.

Monty

[Debra A]

The 17th September letter claimed to be the earliest reference to Jack the Ripper.
The diary claimed to be the diary of Jack the Ripper and brought a new suspect.

Whether or not these had providence was more important for establishing if they were fakes as they would change the historical record. Even if MJK3 was proven to be a mock up-it would not change anything, not one thing I can think of anyway?
Of course any new find must be scrutinised if it is claiming something that will change our knowledge or perception of the case, I agree with that much.
We can read that several photographs were taken of the body itself, according to some newspapers and we know that this photograph originated from a police source. I accept this is genuine more readily because I don't see the glaring differences between MJK1 and MJK3 that some say they do and I accept the research already done on it.

One of the people questioning the authenticity of this photograph has a track record of claiming the same for other documents and pictures and has an agenda. I know that person thinks there is a massive conspiracy to fool the public and so his motive is to plant the seeds of doubt at every opportunity.
Shouldn't this motive also be taken into account when looking at authenticity issues brought up? One person has confirmation of his conspiracy theory to gain.

[Monty]

The 17th September letter claimed to be the earliest reference to Jack the Ripper.
The diary claimed to be the diary of Jack the Ripper and brought a new suspect.

Whether or not these had providence was more important for establishing if they were fakes as they would change the historical record. Even if MJK3 was proven to be a mock up-it would not change anything, not one thing I can think of anyway?
Of course any new find must be scrutinised if it is claiming something that will change our knowledge or perception of the case, I agree with that much.
We can read that several photographs were taken of the body itself, according to some newspapers and we know that this photograph originated from a police source. I accept this is genuine more readily because I don't see the glaring differences between MJK1 and MJK3 that some say they do and I accept the research already done on it.

One of the people questioning the authenticity of this photograph has a track record of claiming the same for other documents and pictures and has an agenda. I know that person thinks there is a massive conspiracy to fool the public and so his motive is to plant the seeds of doubt at every opportunity.
Shouldn't this motive also be taken into account when looking at authenticity issues brought up? One person has confirmation of his conspiracy theory to gain.

Yes Debs,

Some do seem to have previous.

Monty

[Debra A]

I'm aware of me mentioning a certain insurance company rather than the word I intended in my last post btw in case anyone was thinking of pointing it out. It was too late to edit.

[GUT]

I'm aware of me mentioning a certain insurance company rather than the word I intended in my last post btw in case anyone was thinking of pointing it out. It was too late to edit.

G'day Debra



I for one could never fault anyone's spelling or typing. And the "i" on my keyboard need replacing.

[Debra A]

G'day Debra



I for one could never fault anyone's spelling or typing. And the "i" on my keyboard need replacing.

Have you been eating crisps or toast over your keyboard, GUT? I lost a 't' to that with my last laptop.

[Tom_Wescott]

One of the people questioning the authenticity of this photograph has a track record of claiming the same for other documents and pictures and has an agenda. I know that person thinks there is a massive conspiracy to fool the public and so his motive is to plant the seeds of doubt at every opportunity.
Shouldn't this motive also be taken into account when looking at authenticity issues brought up? One person has confirmation of his conspiracy theory to gain.

And some of the individuals who like to cast doubt on otherwise undoubtable documents and photos also like to argue for the legitimacy of clearly fake documents, such as the Sept. 17th letter. Fortunately, these individuals are very few.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Amanda Sumner]

I feel that I have done what I intended to do, and that was to raise the question of the authenticity of MJK3. I have no ulterior motive or agenda other than to raise a subject that has puzzled me for some time.
If it had been a simple question of its provenance and others are satified with the lack of that, then who am I to question those that believe it to have sufficient history to warrant it the status it now has. If it was just a simple case of me, not understanding the photograph, then who am I do question those that do. It was the two issues combined that led me to believe, and I still do, that at the very least MJK3 is suspect. There is absolutely no proof that it existed before the 1970's and certainly no one in the public domain knew anything about it until 1988.
No one on here has been able to explain the lack of anatomical content in this photograph or point out the consistencies between the two photographs because there isn't any.
Having said that, Debra has,quite rightly, pointed out that whether it was proved to be a forgery, fake or a mock up, it actually has no bearing on the overall case. It changes nothing. It does, however, raise concerns about other things that may turn up in the future purporting to be something they are not and, seemingly, they are accepted with very little evidence to go on. The fact that this photograph turned up with other genuine documents does not mean that it is genuine too.
Having said everything that I need to say about this subject, and I hope it has given food for thought in some people's minds, I have only one duty left. I want to thank DiscoStu for taking time out of his busy schedule to explain the photo in detail as he sees it, even if that left me more bemused than ever,Phil Carter for supporting the argument of provenance,Tom Wescott for his kind words of encouragement to question, Simon Wood for supporting me, Debra, for her prosaic common sense and all those that have contributed to what I consider to be a worthwhile debate.
It would have been nice to have had more that supported me in the complexities of the photograph itself. I do not believe I am the only one that finds the photograph bizarre.

[Disco Stu]

I'm always happy to bemuse, amuse, or just be used. For research purposes. I may not see what you're seeing, but I'm glad you had the guts to put it out there and agitate for answers. As I've told you before, agitation prevents stagnation.

The (hopefully) funny thing about all this is, I asked you to start this thread to avoid de-railing another: I'm not sure I've seen many threads so thoroughly de-railed as this one ended up. It may not have got you the answers you sought, but at least it's stirred things up. Hopefully it's also reminded everyone of just how little undisputable evidence there is in this case. I find it comforting to know that the waters are muddy enough to guarantee a steady flow of new, highly entertaining, books on the subject for years to come.

[Debra A]

Threads like this are always enlightening.

[richardh]

But.... it is a little finger *













* [putting the cat firmly back amongst the pigions]