MJK1 and MJK3

[jmenges]

Maybe the reason for that is because it is the only thing that we recognise as human?

Just my opinion, of course....

I disagree. Even if the hand was not in the photo, lending a bit of orientation, I still believe I would recognize the photo to be of a person who has had their guts ripped out.

the only way the photo could have been taken is with the bed right across the room

I believe the wall on that side of the bed was a movable partition.

JM

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Since writing my Rip article nine years ago I've learned a few things.

MJK3 was not taken in Room 13 Millers Court on 9th November 1888.

There is no corpse in MJK3.

The only visible human feature is somebody's right hand.

The photograph has been staged for purposes we do not yet understand.

Stubbornly insisting it's the opposite view of MJK1 gets us absolutely nowhere.

Regards,

Simon

[Amanda Sumner]

I disagree. Even if the hand was not in the photo, lending a bit of orientation, I still believe I would recognize the photo to be of a person who has had their guts ripped out.



I believe the wall on that side of the bed was a movable partition.

JM

Hello again, JM.

The only time I've seen a body similar to that, but not identical, is one that was charred. It did not look particularly human, either, but there were parts still identifiable.

As far as I'm aware, the partition was made up of doors nailed together and I have not read any reports of that being removed. That is not to say that it wasn't possible but I find that an awful lot of effort just to take one photo. Especially when I have read that the new occupant who rented that room had to live with the blood on the partition that had still not been washed off....

Amanda

[jmenges]

Hi All,

Since writing my Rip article nine years ago I've learned a few things.

MJK3 was not taken in Room 13 Millers Court on 9th November 1888.

There is no corpse in MJK3.

The only visible human feature is somebody's right hand.

The photograph has been staged for purposes we do not yet understand.

Stubbornly insisting it's the opposite view of MJK1 gets us absolutely nowhere.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Hopefully your new info doesn't involve Druitt in a boat.

Fingers crossed that we've seen the last of the earthquakes. Secure your valuables.

All the best

JM

[Amanda Sumner]

Hi All,

Since writing my Rip article nine years ago I've learned a few things.

MJK3 was not taken in Room 13 Millers Court on 9th November 1888.

There is no corpse in MJK3.

The only visible human feature is somebody's right hand.

The photograph has been staged for purposes we do not yet understand.

Stubbornly insisting it's the opposite view of MJK1 gets us absolutely nowhere.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Now why does any of that not surprise me?

That is quite a statement....I am hopeful that you have some evidence to back these statements, Simon.

Of course, if we had known its history and where it originated from we would not be having this debate now.

It seems that provenance is important after all...it would not allow conspirators or theorists or even doubters, like myself, have a leg to stand on.

I am now more perplexed than ever, although I have never been happy with MJK3 since the first time I saw it a few years ago

[Debra A]

Hi All,

Since writing my Rip article nine years ago I've learned a few things.

MJK3 was not taken in Room 13 Millers Court on 9th November 1888.

There is no corpse in MJK3.

The only visible human feature is somebody's right hand.

The photograph has been staged for purposes we do not yet understand.

Stubbornly insisting it's the opposite view of MJK1 gets us absolutely nowhere.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,
There must be some indication of the reason it was done if you have discovered it is definitely a mock-up?

[Rob Clack]

Of course, if we had known its history and where it originated from we would not be having this debate now.

It seems that provenance is important after all...it would not allow conspirators or theorists or even doubters, like myself, have a leg to stand on

I have suggested to you and the others that doubt its authenticity, if you or the others can't be bothered then fine. But you lot shouldn't go around saying it's not right, it's fake without some evidence for it.

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

Since writing my Rip article nine years ago I've learned a few things.

MJK3 was not taken in Room 13 Millers Court on 9th November 1888.

There is no corpse in MJK3.

The only visible human feature is somebody's right hand.

The photograph has been staged for purposes we do not yet understand.

Stubbornly insisting it's the opposite view of MJK1 gets us absolutely nowhere.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Let us go along with the argument that the photograph is not of a human being but is, as you suggest, staged- a mock-up, for purposes we do not yet understand. In which case-(as it is quite plausible to ACCEPT such a thing to have been attempted at one or time or another) what is so wrong in accepting this?

Why then the (at times) vehement resistance to the possibility that the photo is not infact a genuine photo of a body in Millers Court taken 9th November 1888?

If it is a mock-up....so what? What would anyone be worried about if it is shown to be a clever piece of staging?


Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra,

It's a mock-up all right, as sure as British eggs have little lions.

There are indications of what parts of its symbolic content might represent, but making sense of it is difficult when we don't know the mindset of its creators, of which there were two at least—the photographer and the owner of the right hand. Were they cultists, pranksters . . ? We just don't know.

One possibility which struck me was that it might be the work of Chicago's Whitechapel Society. They were an odd bunch.

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

It's a mock-up all right, as sure as British eggs have little lions.

There are indications of what parts of its symbolic content might represent, but making sense of it is difficult when we don't know the mindset of its creators, of which there were two at least—the photographer and the owner of the right hand. Were they cultists, pranksters . . ? We just don't know.

One possibility which struck me was that it might be the work of Chicago's Whitechapel Society. They were an odd bunch.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,
So it would be a mock-up not done for deceptive purposes? They did an excellent job whoever did it.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra,

It's a top-notch prank that's had everybody fooled since the moment the photographer said "Watch the Birdie."

In terms of Prankiness it's up there with the Maybrick Diary.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Geezus Christ!

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

It's a top-notch prank that's had everybody fooled since the moment the photographer said "Watch the Birdie."

In terms of Prankiness it's up there with the Maybrick Diary.

Regards,

Simon

Well they certainly had me fooled, Simon. I couldn't even see it was a thumb! It marries so well with what I see in MJK1.

[Observer]

Hi Simon,
So it would be a mock-up not done for deceptive purposes? They did an excellent job whoever did it.

I think not. They stuck a right thumb(with the thumbnail removed) where there should have been a left pinky.

[MrBarnett]

Table

Apologies if this has already been answered, but if the table in MJK1 is the same as the oblong table as in MJK3, is the long edge parallel to the bed in both images?

MrB