MJK1 and MJK3

[Amanda Sumner]

But I don't see a right thumb minus a nail. I see a left pinkie.

We need to solve it once and for all Debra, otherwise it will be forever on our minds....
I am limited with what I have got to blow up the images. If we could superimpose one on top of the other would be really helpful, but fiddly, and in MJK1 her fingers are hidden anyway.

Will we ever know for sure?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Richardh,

I'm not in the least affronted. It's time it went. A much better fate than your idea of me slapping a "caveat emptor" sticker on it.

I thought MJK3 was suspicious the first time I clapped eyes on it ten or so years ago.

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

I'm still happy it's a left pinkie Amanda. In MJK1 the position of her left little finger curled under can be seen exactly and nothing about MJK3 and the little finger contradicts that position for me. If this is not MJK it is a perfect reconstruction of MJK1 from a different angle that had us all fooled for how many years? Falls a bit flat as a prank though?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra,

If they're one and the same scene the bolster on the table should be visible in MJK1, as should all the other paraphernalia from MJK3.

It falls even flatter as a genuine scene of crime photograph.

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

If they're one and the same scene the bolster on the table should be visible in MJK1, as should all the other paraphernalia from MJK3.

It falls even flatter as a genuine scene of crime photograph.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon
No, to be honest, I think the bolster would be out of shot...if that isn't it under the table in MJK1?
As a crime scene picture it hammers home the horror of a woman being stripped of the flesh and skin of her abdomen and external organs of generation plus buttock, having her thighs stripped of skin and muscle fascia. Not very funny.

[Amanda Sumner]

Hi Simon
No, to be honest, I think the bolster would be out of shot...if that isn't it under the table in MJK1?
As a crime scene picture it hammers home the horror of a woman being stripped of the flesh and skin of her abdomen and external organs of generation plus buttock, having her thighs stripped of skin and muscle fascia. Not very funny.

MJK1 certainly does, but we shall have to disagree with MJK3.
As a hoax, prank, mock up, fake, spoof, whatever one wants to call it, I agree, not very funny at all.

[Rob Clack]

Rob,

Are the owners unequivocally stating that it is a genuine image of the MJK murder scene? I don't just mean that that is how they have it labelled but do they claim they have researched it and believe it to be genuine?

MrB

I've no idea. I haven't asked. I have no doubts with what I have read/seen and the people I have spoken with about it over the past 26 years since it came to light that it is a genuine photograph of Mary Kelly.
All I have read on this thread from the people who don't think it is genuine is that it is fake, doesn't look right, don't believe it, it's a mock up. And not one person has given any reason for it or has done anything to back up their opinion. To me, that's not good enough.

Rob

[Rob Clack]

I think that is rather unfair, considering that no one agreed with me for the greater part of the debate and I was interested in whatever everyone had to say, including your good self. I just was not easily convinced, sorry.

Not really unfair of me. I just think if someone is going to call something into question then they should at least do some research and back up their opinion with it. Just saying it is a mock up/fake isn't in my opinion good enough.

Rob

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra,

MJK3 does nothing of the sort. There's no corpse in the picture.

It's years of suggestion plus your imagination at work.

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

MJK3 does nothing of the sort. There's no corpse in the picture.

It's years of suggestion plus your imagination at work.

Regards,

Simon

Sorry, but that's what it does to me, Simon. Real or not.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good afternoon Simon,

MJK3 was a prank.

What is its prankenance?

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra,

Just for the sake of argument let's say that MJK3 was unequivocally proved to be the work of Chicago's Whitechapel Club.

In what possible way could it matter?

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

Just for the sake of argument let's say that MJK3 was unequivocally proved to be the work of Chicago's Whitechapel Club.

In what possible way could it matter?

Regards,

Simon

It wouldn't matter in the slightest to me, Simon as I've been saying all along, right from my first post to the thread. It doesn't change anything about Mary Kelly's murder or the case. Should it matter?

[Monty]

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

I'm not hopeful.

Simon has let us down in the past. Apparently evidence is really personal interpretation.

I look forward to being proved wrong.

Monty

[Beowulf]

"This single photograph went missing, or so it seemed, until 1988 when it turned up again, with a variant of the original photo (MJK2) and what we now call MJK3. These were sent anonymously to Scotland Yard, in a package postmarked Croydon. It has never been proven who sent the photos back, but a fingerprint was discovered."

I have no problem with believing the MJK3 photo is genuine.

But what struck me is that the photo disappeared for exactly 100 years and then was sent in, plus the addition.

Any thoughts that 100 years later might be significant? 1888...1988?

Wonder if there are any more photos floating about that can turn up, though I'm sure it's been thought of by all. Photographers never take just two.