MJK1 and MJK3

[lynn cates]

significance

Hello Amanda. Thanks.

No doubt, addressed to her.

Yes, many mysteries in her death. These, I think, are significant. Doubt MJK3 is, though.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

paucity of information

Hello Mr. B. Thanks.

Yes, could be postmarked Ireland. But she could have claimed family in UK.

So not sure this tells me much?

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Hi Observer,

The digit, whatever it is, broadens at the base. Where the two circular marks are. My fingers do not broaden significantly from middle joint to knuckle, but my thumb does.

When I've finished the bottle, I'll take a couple of picks and post them.

MrB

Don't see that Mr B, it all looks in proportion to me. Enjoy the liquor, and mind, no mock ups!

[Observer]

Hello Observer,
You were asking Simon but I am perplexed by this too. It seems to be a rather foolish thing to do when one considers the elaborate lengths gone into to mock up the scene.
I do wonder if Millen genuinely believed the photo was genuine. I rather think he did, and it was sent by the family with other photos to Scotland Yard, and the rest is history.
I wonder where he got it from?

I've no idea where he got it from Amanda. I havn't seen the photo, and nor have you I suspect. It needs someone who has seen it in the flesh to report on it's condition. Does it look like a 125 year old photograph? It would be very difficult to replicate the age of a genuine 125 year old photograph.

[Observer]

Hi Observer,

MJK3 was a prank.

An intended fake, forgery, fabrication - call it what you like - would surely have paid closer attention to detail.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon

Yes it would. As I have pointed out does it appear to be a 125 year old photograph? Did the pranksters go to the lengths of replicating a 125 year old photograph? How would they artificially age the image?

[Observer]

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

So do I Debra.

[Amanda Sumner]

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?

You have a valid point. I can't speak for others but I suppose, for me, personally is to be proved right. I've never felt that the two photos were consistent. Having seen bodies, myself, at different angles, the photograph makes no sense to me. I actually believe it's not a body. However, should I be proved rightly or wrongly, it does not actually change anything, except perhaps feeling a sense of satisfaction if, indeed, it is a hoax and that it is finally exposed. I always feel sad when I look at MJK1, a young woman whose life was snuffed out so viciously. That photo is bad enough. To create a mock up was and still is a sick joke and not funny.
Does it change the case in any way? Not a jot but it could change how things are received in the future.
No one likes to be made fools of, but on the other hand if people are happy to go along with it then, you are right, it should make no difference to me.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Lynn,

By my very lax standards of evidence it lends weight to her story of an Irish background and to MK being her real name. But only if we believe McCarthy...

Cheers,

MrB

[lynn cates]

address

Hello Mr. B. Thanks.

Happy to assume an Irish background. But the female population of Ireland in 1888?

Let's believe McCarthy, and let's assume the letters were addressed to "MJK." What follows? Surely not that her birth name was "MJK"?

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Does it change the case in any way? Not a jot but it could change how things are received in the future.

Not to discerning researchers Amanda. I'm sure they'll treat each new item that may emerge on it's own merit

[Jon Guy]

Not to discerning researchers Amanda. I'm sure they'll treat each new item that may emerge on it's own merit

Absolutely, Observer.
Everyone should (and generally do) reach their own conclusions as to the validity of material.
My only concern is that this hysterical questioning of material may result in someone not making any new finds available to all, and keeping such material to themselves.

[Observer]

Absolutely, Observer.
Everyone should (and generally do) reach their own conclusions as to the validity of material.
My only concern is that this hysterical questioning of material may result in someone not making any new finds available to all, and keeping such material to themselves.

Slim chance of that happening Jon, I'd agree. I doubt it would affect me personally, should I lay hands on any new material. Highest bidder would carry the lot. No doubt about it? Any bids for Annie Chapman's stolen rings?

[Jon Guy]

Slim chance of that happening Jon, I'd agree. I doubt it would affect me personally, should I lay hands on any new material. Highest bidder would carry the lot. No doubt about it? Any bids for Annie Chapman's stolen rings?

To be fair , there`s nowt wrong with starting a thread pointing out perceived inaccuracies in an item, but demanding provenance !! Especially when it`s our very own hysterical, paranoid poster apparently fighting the good fight for the sake of us all :-)

[Rob Clack]

I've no idea where he got it from Amanda. I havn't seen the photo, and nor have you I suspect. It needs someone who has seen it in the flesh to report on it's condition. Does it look like a 125 year old photograph? It would be very difficult to replicate the age of a genuine 125 year old photograph.

I have. Or so I believe.

Rob

[Debra A]

You have a valid point. I can't speak for others but I suppose, for me, personally is to be proved right. I've never felt that the two photos were consistent. Having seen bodies, myself, at different angles, the photograph makes no sense to me. I actually believe it's not a body. However, should I be proved rightly or wrongly, it does not actually change anything, except perhaps feeling a sense of satisfaction if, indeed, it is a hoax and that it is finally exposed. I always feel sad when I look at MJK1, a young woman whose life was snuffed out so viciously. That photo is bad enough. To create a mock up was and still is a sick joke and not funny.
Does it change the case in any way? Not a jot but it could change how things are received in the future.
No one likes to be made fools of, but on the other hand if people are happy to go along with it then, you are right, it should make no difference to me.

That's fair enough, Amanda. We all seek assurances we aren't imagining things now and again. I hope it won't bother you too much if the question is never answered because I don't think it will be. Perhaps Simon does have an answer, or perhaps he really is only basing his statement it is a 'prank' on the fact he sees a thumb in place of a pinkie finger and then we are all back to square one again!