MJK1 and MJK3

[Phil Carter]

G'day Phil

I'll try please understand I don't claim to be an expert however once made a buck with a Camera and taught photography so have studied a bit of photographic history, so no guarantees and and happy with anyone has more accurate information.

I presume we are talking about the old plate camera's, rather than the new fangled device that Mr Eastman released in, from memory, June 1888.



There were generally two types of tripods in use, one a fixed tripod with no height adjustment, the other was a bit like wooden crutch if that helps. Basically each leg had two pieces of timber with a third [with a slot cut in it] between them, the three were sandwiched together with wing nut(s) holding the three pieces together, by loosening the nuts you could slide the middle piece up and down to adjust the length. Total height adjustment was probably only about 1 foot (30cm)



How longs a piece of string, it really depended on construction material, plate size and lens, but yes heavy as ... I have never actually weighed one but have handled quite a few and would guess about 10-15 kg or say 20-35 lbs.



Cameras that could be hand held were available, but where very much a rarity. This really only started to change with the introduction of film [as we knew it before digital, and some of us still use it]. Mr Eastman's Kodak company only released the first "Mass Market" camera as I said in '88. That came pre-loaded with, from memory about 100 shots and then the whole thing had to be sent back to the factory for processing. It was only in 1900 that "The Brownie (or box Brownie)" was released. Realistically photography only became available to the working man with WW I.



Yes they would carry a number of plates and had boxes to carry them in. There were two types of plates, wet and dry. Dry only improved to the extent that it could be considered a genuine alternate to wet, in terms of quality in the 1870's. One real disadvantage of wet plate was that it needed to be processed pretty much on the spot, where as dry you could take the exposed plates with you and develop them at a later time.

I might mention here that prints were, almost without exception, made be contact print that is the plate would be placed directly on the paper and then exposed, so the print was the same size as the plate probably 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 or 6 1/2 x 4 1/4 [I think they are the right measurements but if I'm out it's close], remember those photos you might have in a shoe box or album they are probably 5x3 or 6x4.




I hope that was some help, but yell f you want more and I'll actually pull some books out.

Hello GUT,

Many thanks for the extremely useful information you have supplied via this post and since. It is most appreciated. Also thank you to Monty for providing very useful pics of old cameras.

May I follow up with a question relating?

Would it, in your valued opinion, have been possible to have used a glass plate camera, hand held, at the low angle assumed used on MJK3?..or would one have to have used the 1ft tripod type of stand?Because I am not sure if the shorter FIXED tripod, with camera upon it, would have been sufficiently high for the photo we see.

Many thanks again GUT


best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Whatever, but it doesn't excuse the constant use of the term errors and omissions by highly qualified and well educated persons as an excuse by some so as not to accept the obvious.

Now if you haven't anything constructive to add to this topic then I would suggest you zip it. There is enough clowns in this circus as it is without you joining. Of course perhaps changing your name to Co Co might be more apt in your case!

The day I listen to you Marriott shall be the day I take you seriously. You still remain an amusement rather than an education to me.

As Debs points out, you are tediously repeating.

As Robs point, in case it has passed over that 'just for men' lacquered cranium of yours is the one cannot form a conclusion based on incomplete information, merely form an opinion, which is no different from anyone else.

So, apologies for pi$$ing on your parade, but you do not have the answers, therefore you are not repairing old damages. You are merely presenting a sensationalist response full of the obscure and ill informed.

How's that for 'zipping' it?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

The day I listen to you Marriott shall be the day I take you seriously. You still remain an amusement rather than an education to me.

As Debs points out, you are tediously repeating.

As Robs point, in case it has passed over that 'just for men' lacquered cranium of yours is the one cannot form a conclusion based on incomplete information, merely form an opinion, which is no different from anyone else.

So, apologies for pi$$ing on your parade, but you do not have the answers, therefore you are not repairing old damages. You are merely presenting a sensationalist response full of the obscure and ill informed.

How's that for 'zipping' it?

Monty

You are not pissing on my parade old chap I am presenting the facts as they are not as you and others perceive them to be, or want them to be.

If you cant handle the truth, then take yourself off. You know where the door is, don't slam it on the way out !

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed, as Bagster Phillips was the Divisional Surgeon for H division, not Bond, the onus was on him to compile the post-mortem report.

Something Trevor, as ex 'on the job', should be aware of.

Monty

And something you should be aware of to, is that there would have been no need for Phillips to prepare a PM report, Bond was brought in to do the post mortem and the subsequent PM report and the report to Anderson.

[richardh]

Phil
I posted a extreme close-up of the left hand on this thread when you requested. It's on this thread several posts back.

Hello Trevor,

I hate to state the obvious here, but seeing as Bond specifically referred to cuts and abrasions on the right hand- one would have thought he would state similar injuries to the LEFT hand no?

Excuse my pointing it out for the 2nd time- and I have asked for a close up of richardh, of the VERY CLEAR triangle on the left hand. I have done my own close up but want to see it through richardh's excellently clear shot.

Because that will tell you all what you need to know about that photograph.

Or was Bond negligent yet again? Talk about the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing!

Phil

[Monty]

And something you should be aware of to, is that there would have been no need for Phillips to prepare a PM report, Bond was brought in to do the post mortem and the subsequent PM report and the report to Anderson.

As the murder occurred in H division, not Bonds jurisdiction of A division, it would have been Bagster Phillips responsibility to complete the Post Mortem and report upon it.

Bonds report was supplimentary.

I can provide pictures if it helps you understand Trevor.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Here you are:

Hello Richardh,

Thank you for this... in the rush of all the posts last night I missed this and others. My apologies.

Is it possible to zoom further in on the triangle and the hand without creating too much distortion?

My appreciation for your splendid efforts :-)


best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

As the murder occurred in H division, not Bonds jurisdiction of A division, it would have been Bagster Phillips responsibility to complete the Post Mortem and report upon it.

Bonds report was supplimentary.

I can provide pictures if it helps you understand Trevor.

Monty

Both divisions came under the control of Anderson did they not? He would have had the final say. Note Phillips inquest testimony stops short of the actual post mortem report. Because the inquest was truncated for whatever reason Bond never got to give his inquest testimony. The results of the Pm were documented seemingly by Hibbert at Bonds dictation as he examined the body

They both didnt do the PM !

[Stewart P Evans]

Experts

And something you should be aware of to, is that there would have been no need for Phillips to prepare a PM report, Bond was brought in to do the post mortem and the subsequent PM report and the report to Anderson.

There are far too many experts on this case now.

The above poster has been, I believe, called an expert in this field. But when he makes basic errors such as the above post it is difficult to understand why.

[Monty]

Both divisions came under the control of Anderson did they not? He would have had the final say. Note Phillips inquest testimony stops short of the actual post mortem report. Because the inquest was truncated for whatever reason Bond never got to give his inquest testimony. The results of the Pm were documented seemingly by Hibbert at Bonds dictation as he examined the body

They both didnt do the PM !

"Notes of examination of body of woman found murdered & mutilated in Dorset St."

That is how Bond himself began his report. He stated quite clearly this write up was notes, NOT a post mortem report.

Bond does mention the post mortem later, however this is still part of his notes.

Ergo,, it is NOT a post mortem report.

Having to continuously take you back to school is becoming monotonous.

Monty

[Monty]

There are far too many experts on this case now.

The above poster has been, I believe, called an expert in this field. But when he makes basic errors such as the above post it is difficult to understand why.

Here is the voice of someone whose experience in this subject of post mortems, coroners hearings and matters police has no superior here.


Monty

[Phil Carter]

Old thread..interesting points made

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4921/7984.html

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

On the evening of November 9th 1888 Doctor George Bagster Phillips met Charles Beilby Stuart-Wortley, Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, at the House of Commons.

ECHO 10-11-88

Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, whose reticence is justified by an assurance he gave of secrecy, has copious notes of the result of the post-mortem examination, and with nearly every conclusion at which he has arrived Dr. Thomas Bond, of Westminster, a well-known expert on crimes of violence, agrees. Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren.

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

Rob
Even if the post mortem report is incomplete and having read it I find it hard to accept that fact, not forgetting Dr Hibbert was scribing for him.

Then he has come up short again with the report to Anderson. Could this really be so in such a high profile murder forming part of such a high profile series of murders ?

Would you not have not thought that they would have ensured that every I was dotted and evert t crossed?

As I have said before when holes are exposed out come the repair men and women !

It's Hebbert. Hibbert is the guy who worked for the Providence that I mentioned in an earlier post.

[Debra A]

Yes I did and no one produced anything conclusive to the contrary about the heart. So to coin a medical term "Its a no brainer"

As to the split femur it is not I who mentioned this in the first instance I am merely commenting on the fact that the photo does not show a split femur nor is a split femur mentioned in any medical report.

Destroy this mystery a piece at a time soon the whole thing will crumble

I mentioned it originally and also recently posted the link Phil just has. I mentioned it because I kept getting told that having anatomical knowledge gives a person a better insight into whether or not those are MJK's mutilations depicted in MJK3. Agree or disagree with Warren about the split femur, you can't deny he has anatomical knowledge and he didn't think there was anything 'fake' about the anatomy on show.