MJK1 and MJK3

[MrBarnett]

Hi All,

I know this going slightly off topic, but if MJK's name was not actuallyMJK, then either her family in Ireland or Jack McCarthy were complicit in the deception. Either he received letters addressed to MJK or he didn't.

MrB

[GUT]

G'day Amanda

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.

"I can be pretty certain Kelly was not her name" I can live with, it was the statement "Certainly Mary Kelly was not her real name." That I objected to.

[Phil Carter]

If the provenance of this photograph isn't of any importance on any level, then we have no need to approve or deny its authenticity.

Imho, although the provenance may very well not be important in the long run vis a vis the case itself, the murder of the woman in Millers Court or even as "known contemporary evidence", where and when it actually comes from does affect the way in which the field has reacted in the past upon any new discovery.

For IF the photograph is not the real deal and is infact some form of prank played out by individuals in order to have fun and fool others- then it has succeeded! The outcome now being that very many have been fooled. Ripperology takes a self effacing wallop in the ribs.

IF the photograph is a mock-up- a deliberately posed re-enactment- then WHEN this occured does have import, If done in relatively recent times (1960/70's) by Millen and or others for lecture purposes, then that possibility has been totally un-thought of by many, meaning that the photograph has been blindly accepted without this coosideration. Less important still is the possibility of the above re-enactment having been done at a much earlier date for reasons unknown.

However a third-more disturbing possibility IF the photograph is a re-enactment of later date (1980's) is that it has been encouraged and promoted as the genuine article for other unknown reasons. Then the prank has to be exposed. Why?

For any said perpetrators may have been involved in other known and unknown attempts to fool Ripperology. That is why I mentioned that any connection with The Maybrick Diary would be most dsturbing.

MJK3 was first seen in situ in the photograph album by the worldwide public in the book about The Maybrick Diary. The photograph was taken and used in that book. The book that has caused more trouble than any other. It is a horrible thought. That is why provenance is important imho.
Just my personal thoughts on the matter,

Phil

[jmenges]

I wonder which photograph of Mary Kelly Ingleby Oddie was shown, around the turn of the century, which he described as just a "mass of human flesh"?

JM

[Debra A]

However a third-more disturbing possibility IF the photograph is a re-enactment of later date (1980's) is that it has been encouraged and promoted as the genuine article for other unknown reasons. Then the prank has to be exposed. Why?

For any said perpetrators may have been involved in other known and unknown attempts to fool Ripperology. That is why I mentioned that any connection with The Maybrick Diary would be most dsturbing.

Like photo-shop teeth on to Eddowes chin or photo-shop a photograph of PAV into Eddowes coffin you mean?

[Debra A]

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

The post mortem itself is enough evidence that a poor woman was brutally murdered and mutilated beyond belief at 13 Miller's Court. MJK1 shockingly shows us exactly what that looked like for those who saw the body on 9th November 1888. MJK3 reflects the same horror but close up and from another angle, real or a mock up. What exactly does MJK3 show that you dispute? What has it fooled us into thinking all these years?

[Debra A]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3828

Similar type analysis of post mortem photographs by Simon and Phil of another victim of murder and mutilation, Catherine Eddowes.

[lynn cates]

Sequitur?

Hello Mr. B.

"Either he received letters addressed to MJK or he didn't."

Given that he did and they were so addressed, does it follow that they were WRITTEN by family?

Cheers.
LC

[Amanda Sumner]

I see nothing wrong with querying provenance of material that is presented to the public as genuine photographs of Ripper victims. I, personally, don't have any issues with these as we have to trust, to a degree, that those that put these things forward have already looked into it all.
Looking at the photographs we can certainly see that they are women victims of a vicious crime, as we can see, very clearly, the injuries inflicted in MJK1.
In MJK3 there is no human anatomy visible, except a hand. No obvious bone structure, no visible pale skin, no obvious limbs, knee caps, human tissue or debris remotely recognisable as belonging to a human body and where there might be it seems to be covered up with nearly pleated cloth. The ' feathers'.
I have no agenda but to question this because, to me, it has no bearing on what we are looking at in MJK1.
It would be nice if Simon elaborated more on his statement to back my claims but just the fact that I and others before me have questioned the photograph and its original source does suggest that it needs further investigating.
Where there is doubt, and there are serious issues here, it cannot be proven that what we are seeing is Mary Jane Kelly lying on her bed at 13 Milliers Court.
However dismissive people are now, there will be a time when others will question too, and the debate will never go to bed until there are some serious answers.

[Monty]

Please Amanda,

Don't dress your dog up as a cow and call it your cat.

You are not merely questioning the provenance of MJK3, but rather stating it is a fake.

Yeah, it would e nice if Simon expanded further on is bold statements, and provide evidence. However, I'm sure he is unwilling to reveal the punchline of his new book.

MJK3 is consistent with the known evidence of the scene, as is MJK1, and the external shot of number 13. From that fact alone, we know that the photographer took more than one photograph of scene.

Monty

[Amanda Sumner]

Hello Mr. B.

"Either he received letters addressed to MJK or he didn't."

Given that he did and they were so addressed, does it follow that they were WRITTEN by family?

Cheers.
LC

One must assume that the letters were addressed to Mary Kelly otherwise, surely, we would have learnt otherwise. I agree that the letters may not have been from family but it is unfortunate that none of these survived. Mary is as much of a mystery as the Ripper crimes themselves.

[Amanda Sumner]

Please Amanda,

Don't dress your dog up as a cow and call it your cat.

You are not merely questioning the provenance of MJK3, but rather stating it is a fake.

Yeah, it would e nice if Simon expanded further on is bold statements, and provide evidence. However, I'm sure he is unwilling to reveal the punchline of his new book.

MJK3 is consistent with the known evidence of the scene, as is MJK1, and the external shot of number 13. From that fact alone, we know that the photographer took more than one photograph of scene.

Monty

Ah, but can you prove one of the photos was this one??
Just saying so, does not make it a fact.
If you believe that the photo is so consistent , can you show me a knee cap please? The pale flesh on her legs that is so visible in MJK1?
I'm not going to keep going over it. I have nothing to prove or disprove but I, and others have asked questions and not had satisfactory answers yet.

[MrBarnett]

Lynn,

Non.

You are right, of course, the letters could have been written by somebody who was not a family member. But unless McCarthy had the curiosity of a slug, the letters must have borne Irish postmarks. So they were written by someone from her old life who knew the real story it would seem.

Unless of course the whole thing was made up by MCarthy to hide her true identity.

Cheers ,

MrB.

[Rob Clack]

Ah, but can you prove one of the photos was this one??
Just saying so, does not make it a fact.
If you believe that the photo is so consistent , can you show me a knee cap please? The pale flesh on her legs that is so visible in MJK1?
I'm not going to keep going over it. I have nothing to prove or disprove but I, and others have asked questions and not had satisfactory answers yet.

So exactly how do you expect to get a definitive answer here?

[Debra A]

Ah, but can you prove one of the photos was this one??
Just saying so, does not make it a fact.
If you believe that the photo is so consistent , can you show me a knee cap please? The pale flesh on her legs that is so visible in MJK1?
I'm not going to keep going over it. I have nothing to prove or disprove but I, and others have asked questions and not had satisfactory answers yet.

Simon himself said it was an excellent mock up that had everyone fooled for years. I agree with him. So good it looks exactly how I imagine it would if someone zoomed in on MJK1.
Those who think it fits with all we know, real or mocked-up, don't need to prove anything do we?We aren't the ones getting all upset about it. It changes nothing for us.
Phil has shown it changes things significantly for him-it's confirmation for him of his theory that we are all victims of a cover-up on a a massive scale involving photo-shopping of victim photographs. Simon has shown he thinks we've all been the victim of a prank all these years and now we have egg on our faces.
What does it change for you, Amanda, if it proved to be a fake?