MJK1 and MJK3

[MrBarnett]

She didn't suggest anything. She didn't ask anything and neither did I or anyone else. We're invisible. This is your magic show, Simon.

We're all patiently waiting for rabbit to exit hat in full view

Roy

We already have a table that extends itself like a magician's bunch of flowers, what need is there for a rabbit?

[jmenges]

I suggested people question how the "prank" photo ended up in an album(s) along with other photos that were new to modern day researchers. The context of it's rediscovery is important, whether its fake or genuine.

Boo.

JM

[Observer]

Now, in that reenactment I spent time showing the knife and rubbing the edge with a thumb. Now suppose I had that one shot freeze framed and included with my effects.

There are poster's contributing to this thread who would swear down you were rubbing the knife with your pinkie finger.

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

If the provenance of MJK3 is so unimportant, why are you suggesting we don't question it, don't doubt it, just lay back and accept it as the real deal?

I said it's either MJK or an excellent mock-up , I don't go with it being from another crime scene and mistaken for MJK so arguing provenance is pointless I think because wherever it comes from, real or fake, it changes nothing.
I still see a pinkie not a thumb, I would go real over mock-up, mock-up over deliberate deception because I think it reflects well what is seen in MJK1 and there is nothing contradictory, nothing that changes our perception of this murder, nothing that suggests a suspect or motive to be gleaned from it. No motive for presenting it as anything but an illustration of what happened to MJK whether mock-up or real.

[richardh]

I'm still waiting for proof that MJK3 IS a 'spoof'. Until then, it's open to legitimate question........ but it's still a little finger (and a left hand)

[Debra A]

I'm still waiting for proof that MJK3 IS a 'spoof'. Until then, it's open to legitimate question........ but it's still a little finger (and a left hand)

I hope the proof of the spoof is more than just 'it's a thumb' seeing as we know it isn't.

[Amanda Sumner]

I suggested a theory, guess I'm invisible

Hi Natasha,
You're not invisible and for what it's worth I found your theory very interesting.
However, I do think a murder did take place there and I believe MJK1/2 are evidence of that.
I do agree, though, that there is a mystery surrounding her death, and, indeed, a mystery about her life. Where did she come from? Who was she? Certainly Mary Kelly was not her real name.
It is odd, as you say, that no family came looking for her but we only have McCarthy's word, I believe, that she received letters from home, certainly none were found in that little room. What I also found odd was that Barnett stated that he read the paper to her, suggesting she could not read, so who read the letters from home to her? Someone must have known more about those letters and who they were from but no information came forward, it seems.
As for MJK3. Well, the debate has taken an unexpected turn and I am rather intrigued now to find out more, as we all are...

[GUT]

Hi Natasha,
You're not invisible and for what it's worth I found your theory very interesting.
However, I do think a murder did take place there and I believe MJK1/2 are evidence of that.
I do agree, though, that there is a mystery surrounding her death, and, indeed, a mystery about her life. Where did she come from? Who was she? Certainly Mary Kelly was not her real name.
It is odd, as you say, that no family came looking for her but we only have McCarthy's word, I believe, that she received letters from home, certainly none were found in that little room. What I also found odd was that Barnett stated that he read the paper to her, suggesting she could not read, so who read the letters from home to her? Someone must have known more about those letters and who they were from but no information came forward, it seems.
As for MJK3. Well, the debate has taken an unexpected turn and I am rather intrigued now to find out more, as we all are...

G'day Amanda

Two points from your post.

How are you so certain that Mary Jane Kelly wasn't her real name, yes there are questions over her background but in my opinion we can no more say with certainty that it wasn't her name than we can say for certain that it was.

The issue of Joe reading to her has been done to death, it does not prove that she was illiterate, in fact it was common the little lady would be going about her domestic tasks and the man of the house would sit back, often with a pipe and a beer and read the paper to her, just like today she might listen to the radio or TV while going about her work.

[jmenges]

Well, the debate has taken an unexpected turn and I am rather intrigued now to find out more, as we all are...

This thread has traveled a pretty routine course from where I'm sitting.

JM

[Wickerman]

Hi All

You may have read my post 'murder, what murder' where I suggested that there never was a murder at Millers Court. This theory was based on the fact that no family member ever came forward to claim MJK. Is that not strange?

We are aware that the police did make some attempt to find the family.

What we are not aware of is the possibility that they chose not to attend because Mary was an embarrassment to them, or that one or two family members did attend but unannounced, due to the same reason.
So, it is not a fact that no family member came forward, only that as far as we know they didn't. Which is not the same thing.

Even if Kelly never wanted to be found, family would still come looking.

We do read that her father did come looking for her, and the story about letters from home, so if true, they knew where she was.

[Amanda Sumner]

This thread has traveled a pretty routine course from where I'm sitting.

JM

Really? Well, I was not expecting it, considering most people were against my conviction that MJK3 was not a genuine photograph of Mary Jane Kelly.
I am certainly intrigued even if you are not.

Amanda

[Amanda Sumner]

G'day Amanda

Two points from your post.

How are you so certain that Mary Jane Kelly wasn't her real name, yes there are questions over her background but in my opinion we can no more say with certainty that it wasn't her name than we can say for certain that it was.

The issue of Joe reading to her has been done to death, it does not prove that she was illiterate, in fact it was common the little lady would be going about her domestic tasks and the man of the house would sit back, often with a pipe and a beer and read the paper to her, just like today she might listen to the radio or TV while going about her work.

Well I am aware that a lot of research has gone into her background story and nothing has held up so far. A logical conclusion from that would be that she was born under a different name. I also believe she was called " Fair Emma " which suggests she was known by at least one other name.
I concede that she may well have been able to read, so maybe she just liked being read to. It is still a mystery though, that none of these letters were ever found.

[GUT]

G'day Amanda

Well I am aware that a lot of research has gone into background story and nothing has held up so far. A logical conclusion from that would be that she was born under a different name. I also believe she was called " Fair Emma " which suggests she was known by at least one other name.

My Paternal Grandad's name was Newman, everyone and I mean everyone even his wife knew him as Jack, does that make his name Jack? No way. My mum's name is Janet she would never answer to that as t has never been used for her.

His dad was born we think in Australia in 1853 we can find records of the births of all the siblings but not Great Grandad does that mean he wasn't who we think he was, not on your nelly.

I concede that she may well have been able to read, so maybe she just liked being read to. It is still a mystery though, that none of these letters were ever found.

IF as some suggest she was estranged from her family would you expect to find them. Living in a tiny box of a room with hardly a possession to her name and no room to store them do you think it's possible she read them and then used them to start a fire?

Though I am glad to see that you now concede that Joe reading to her does not mean she could not read herself.

[Amanda Sumner]

G'day Amanda



My Paternal Grandad's name was Newman, everyone and I mean everyone even his wife knew him as Jack, does that make his name Jack? No way. My mum's name is Janet she would never answer to that as t has never been used for her.


Though I am glad to see that you now concede that Joe reading to her does not mean she could not read herself.

I am sure that whatever your grandad was called there would still be a record of him somewhere, a marriage record, for instance. There have been no records found of her at all, as far as I'm aware, so I think I can be pretty certain Kelly was not her name. It might have been, but fairly unlikely, in my opinion.
Believe it or not, I do concede sometimes. I think you may be right about her using the letters to start her fire.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Richardh,

I eagerly await a scintilla of proof—aside from all the usual blind belief and wishful thinking baloney—that MJK3 is a crime scene photograph taken in Room 13 on 9th November 1888.

Until then, MJK3 should be struck off the list of admissible evidence.

Regards,

Simon