MJK1 and MJK3

[Rob Clack]

Hi Rob,

Perhaps they [did what?].

Perhaps they didn't [do what?].

Please take a few more lessons at your local polytechnic before attempting to come across as enigmatic.

Regards,

Simon

Split femur. That is what you were on about.

Regards

Rob

[Wickerman]

It's hard to say what the doctors missed when they never wrote about what they saw.
We only have the opinions of Bond and Hebbert in writing.

[Amanda Sumner]

What I think is the main problem with the hand is that it appears to be so swollen. Even in MJK1 it appears swollen, don't you think? There is no evidence in MJK3 of any knuckles at all.

I hope and pray she got a real good punch in before he killed her.

Hi, Brenda,
I don't see any particular swelling in MJK1, but certainly there is in MJK3, especially if that is a little finger, which, to me, looks odd.
I rather hope she was asleep and knew nothing about it, poor girl.

Amanda

[Stewart P Evans]

Wrong

...
In the case of Kelly the notes at the post mortem were taken down by Hebbert. Phillips and Bond were both present. One of the doctors thereafter had to prepare a post mortem report, that person was Bond we know that because we have that report.
From that report he prepared his second report to Anderson
There was no need for Phillips to prepare a report. As stated his inquest testimony stops short of introducing any post mortem report.
...

The above comments by Trevor Marriott merely show how wrong he is on this topic. He fails to comprehend the situation.

The post mortem examination, proper, on the body of Kelly was made at the mortuary and not at the crime scene. Thus Bond's notes (apparently scribed by his assistant, Hebbert, at his dictation) do not form the official post mortem examination report on Kelly's body. They are merely Bond's preliminary notes on what he found at the scene.

[Stewart P Evans]

Post Mortem Report

The post mortem report, proper, would have been written by the police surgeon in charge, Dr. Phillips, and has not, apparently, survived.

For an example of a proper post mortem report (which has survived) we merely have to look at Dr. Phillips' comprehensive report on the examination of the body of Alice McKenzie dated July 22nd 1889 (MEPO 3/140 ff. 263-271). This is a proper post mortem report which admirably demonstrates the fact that the seven pages of notes credited to Bond (MEPO 3/3153) are merely that - notes.

[Amanda Sumner]

Thanks, Rob. I've seen a number of similar press reports down the years, including one which stated that Kelly's eyes were photographed in the belief that the killer's image might have been retained on her retinae. Given Matthews enquiry on this very subject, it certainly provides food for thought.

I read somewhere, but I can't remember where, that, in fact, her eyes were not photographed. Moreover, these were newspaper reports and how would they have known how many photos were taken of the remains when they were not there?
Macnaghten specifically mentioned one photograph was taken of Mary, and it was later reported missing. Where is the mention of other photos of her that had gone missing? They may have been more taken but there is no physical record of them. Even if there were, that does not mean that any of them was this particular one.
No one has described the photograph in detail to me. If I am wrong, and all you lot are so right, where is the pelvis? The hip socket? Where is the head of the femur? Where are her legs? Where's the white flesh that we see so much of in MJK1? Where's the cloth in MJK1 that we see in MJK3? Why does the table appear longer, or the body shorter in MJK3? Where's the flex if indeed that is a remote shutter in the middle of Mary's body? Why is it in her body? Did they have remote shutters in 1888?
Why do we see paint brush strokes on the raised part of the 'knee'? Why is there a painted leg, a camera and a hand, painted in the bottom part of the photo? Why is it not clear that it is a left hand? Why does the hand give the impression that it is raised higher on the body than MJK1? Why are the table contents different? Why does the 'femur' look like a pair of tongs?
If all these can be explained to me with rational explanations, then I will gladly bow out and apologise for wasting people's time.

[Amanda Sumner]

I fancy that there were at least 5 more photos taken that day.

Trouble is, when they do surface... will we believe them?

All rather depends if they resemble anything like MJK1

[Observer]

I read somewhere, but I can't remember where, that, in fact, her eyes were not photographed. Moreover, these were newspaper reports and how would they have known how many photos were taken of the remains when they were not there?

By interviewing the photographer.

Macnaghten specifically mentioned one photograph was taken of Mary, and it was later reported missing. Where is the mention of other photos of her that had gone missing? They may have been more taken but there is no physical record of them. Even if there were, that does not mean that any of them was this particular one.

How did Macnaghten know that only one photo was taken of Mary Kelly? After all, he wasn't at the scene either

[Garry Wroe]

We have no conclusive evidence how many photographs were taken at the scene. We do know, however, that Macnaghten wrote that one photograph was taken of Mary. One. He did not say several, and as he had the photographs at one time in his possession, one would expect him to know.

Sorry, Amanda, but Macnaghten cannot be treated as a reliable source. Ask Ostrog.

Newspapers had to get their information from other sources, they were kept away from the scene.

Newspapers had their informants within the police force, Amanda. The so-called ‘bent copper’ is by no means a modern phenomenon. Payola aside, the Star managed to get a reporter and a sketch artist on to a roof overlooking the crime scene, so I wouldn’t underestimate the ingenuity of the late-Victorian press if I were you.

However your suggestion is a good one and, if we could prove that this is a genuine photograph then clearly context is the issue here, if, indeed, it was part of a series … I do not believe it was …

The evidence indicates otherwise.

One thing that we can agree on, I think, is that this photograph is indeed a puzzle.

Not at all. It is clearly a visual record of a discrete set of injuries inflicted upon a recently killed victim. It focuses on the groin and left inner thigh. Other photographs would have centred on other areas of injury. As I said in an earlier post, one newspaper stated that the eyes were also photographed. Other sources made mention of a series of photographs. Why else do you think that the photographer remained on the scene for upwards of four hours?

[Amanda Sumner]

How did Macnaghten know that only one photo was taken of Mary Kelly? After all, he wasn't at the scene either


He had them in his possession for a while. He wrote about the one photograph of MJK.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Rob,

Dr. George Bagster Phillips / 2 Spital Square
Dr. Percy John Clark (Assistant to Dr. Phillips) / 22 Margaret Street [Cavendish Square]
Dr. Thomas Bond / 7 The Sanctuary, Westminster
Dr. Charles Alfred Hebbert / Westminster
Dr. J. R. Gabe / 16 Mecklenburgh Square
Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown / 17 Finsbury-Circus
Dr. Dukes / 75 Brick Lane

How careless of seven doctors to miss the split femur.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Not to mention the lack of mention to a missing weapon used on a murder victim in the most grotesque murder case ever encounterd by the who's who of ranked policemen from all over the Met who visited that scene.
Not one mention of a hatchet used as a weapon of murder by any of them. Ever.

How many were there known to have been there again?

And amongst all the chit chat- nobody notes a hatchet is missing from the scene as well as the mentioned few sharply pointed knives.

Best regards

Phil

[Observer]

How did Macnaghten know that only one photo was taken of Mary Kelly? After all, he wasn't at the scene either


He had them in his possession for a while. He wrote about the one photograph of MJK.

Them? How did he know that there were not other photographs taken of Mary Kelly, he was not at the crime scene. Who informed him that the one photograph he had of Mary Kelly was the only one took of her that day?

[Amanda Sumner]

Sorry, Amanda, but Macnaghten cannot be treated as a reliable source. Ask Ostrog.


Newspapers had their informants within the police force, Amanda. The so-called ‘bent copper’ is by no means a modern phenomenon. Payola aside, the Star managed to get a reporter and a sketch artist on to a roof overlooking the crime scene, so I wouldn’t underestimate the ingenuity of the late-Victorian press if I were you.


The evidence states otherwise.


Not at all. It is clearly a visual record of a discrete set of injuries inflicted upon a recently killed victim. It focuses on the groin and left inner thigh. Other photographs would have centred on other areas of injury. As I said in an earlier post, one newspaper stated that the eyes were also photographed. Other sources made mention of a series of photographs. Why else do you think that the photographer remained on the scene for upwards of four hours?

I would like to see this evidence that this photograph was part of a series...

Could you please explain the various parts of the body it is focusing on then? Which part is the groin and where is the inner thigh? Perhaps you can answer all the questions I put in my the other post too.
I hope you don't mind me asking you but you seem to have all the answers.

Amanda

[Phil Carter]

By interviewing the photographer.



How did Macnaghten know that only one photo was taken of Mary Kelly? After all, he wasn't at the scene either

Simple. We are told he kept " the victim photographs under lock and key in his desk"

He would know the difference between one single photo of MjK and a wholf set of 6 or 8 or more (RE his words in the MM)

Phil

[Observer]

Hey Amanda, I hope you don't mind me asking you if you think it's possible that the reason the reporter knew that there were several photographs taken of the remains was down to the fact that the reporter interviewed the photographer? You don't seem to have addressed this point in my earlier post.