MJK1 and MJK3

[Phil Carter]

"I did find in the police records photographs of the last victim"

It says 'Photographs' Learn to read or stick me back on ignore. I don't care which.

And with that new insult... remember that MJK1 and MJK2 are different photographs. Practically the same, but different.. i.e. PHOTOGRAPHS-plural

doesnt mean MJK3...... learn to diferentiate between what you think and what you read before you write.

You havent been on ignore for a long time actually....

Never assume.. You make an ASS out of U and ME

(1st lesson , 1st Day, Secret Service and CIA)

[Rob Clack]

And with that new insult... remember that MJK1 and MJK2 are different photographs. Practically the same, but different.. i.e. PHOTOGRAPHS-plural

doesnt mean MJK3...... learn to diferentiate between what you think and what you read before you write.

You havent been on ignore for a long time actually....

Never assume.. You make an ASS out of U and ME

(1st lesson , 1st Day, Secret Service and CIA)

Oh yes, how silly of me, Hall Richardson looked at 5 copies of the same photograph. Do you really think he did? Yes you probably do. Using a bit of common sense and knowing the history of the photographs (MJK1 was with the City and MJK2 was with the Met) we can easily assume it was different photographs of Mary Kelly.

Here endeth the lesson.

[Amanda Sumner]

Mr Stewart P Evans, and all.
Thank you for sparing time to put some things straight on what you consider to be such an invalid debate.
This thread started out about a particular photograph, and debates could continue forever about how many photographs were taken of MJK that day, but the sad fact is, even if 60 photographs were taken, there is no evidence that this particular one was one of them.
There is no question that MJK1 is an original and several copies were made. When one went missing there was, not to my knowledge, ever reported that other images of MJK went missing too.
My issue has been with MJK3. You say that you believe it to be a genuine photograph but have not answered where it had come from or, indeed, explained the content of the photograph itself.
I am aware of touching in on photographs, usually to enhance, but one has to question the amateur brushstrokes on this one.
Neither is it clear what part of the anatomy we are looking at. There seems to be some confusion as whether it is a side view or an internal view of the genitalia and thigh. As it seems to have, in my opinion, no bearing on the original MJK1 and a total lack of any anatomical evidence, except an odd swollen hand, I felt that it was a natural step to question further the discrepancies, of which there are many.
Throughout my thread not one person was able to give me a satisfactory answer to any of the questions I raised, not even those that supported me were able to give a definitive answer.
However, as the general consensus seems to be that everyone is happy with it, especially as work on the hand seems to conclude it is a left one, then I'm happy to bow out with my integrity intact that I, at least, challenged.
I know I'm not the first and I doubt that I'll be the last to question a photograph that gives very unsatisfactory answers or, more correctly, no answers at all.
With its lack of provenance and dubious beginnings, MJK3 will always remain to me an enigma.
There is no evidence that it existed before the 1970's.
I can only hope that whoever owns it did not pay too much for it and understands it better than I do.

Regards,

Amanda

[Phil Carter]

Oh yes, how silly of me, Hall Richardson looked at 5 copies of the same photograph. Do you really think he did? Yes you probably do. Using a bit of common sense and knowing the history of the photographs (MJK1 was with the City and MJK2 was with the Met) we can easily assume it was different photographs of Mary Kelly.

Here endeth the lesson.

So there is no possible way that MJK1 and MJK2 were ever known to be together at any time since 1888? Totally impossible isn't it. Common sense says that they could well have been given the amount of copies of certain photos there were knocking around. If MJK1 was copied and sent off or handed out... why not MJK2? There wasnt exactly a copyright being stamped on the variations...

Which reminds me...

Really odd isn't it... that in all the copies of the MJK photos...France included I might add... not one 2ND copy of MJK 3 has been found anywhere.....or was it an exclusive MJK1 copy giveaway only?

COMMON SENSE will tell you that if collections have copies..they normally have all the photos copied.

Which if you think about it, is logical..because they call it a collection (Sims, for example)

[Phil Carter]

And of course...there is no way on God's Earth that if there were 5 MJK photos..all different... they would all be slight variations of MJK1...just like MJK2 is......nah..unthinkable that.

[Rob Clack]

So there is no possible way that MJK1 and MJK2 were ever known to be together at any time since 1888? Totally impossible isn't it. Common sense says that they could well have been given the amount of copies of certain photos there were knocking around. If MJK1 was copied and sent off or handed out... why not MJK2? There wasnt exactly a copyright being stamped on the variations...

I believe a copy was made in 1888 and given to the City Police.
We know Don Rumbelow found MJK1 in the sixties with the City Police and the other was in a Met album so it seems pretty obvious to me those two were never together.

Which reminds me...

Really odd isn't it... that in all the copies of the MJK photos...France included I might add... not one 2ND copy of MJK 3 has been found anywhere.....or was it an exclusive MJK1 copy giveaway only?

You could say the same about one of the Eddowes photos. We know atleast four were taken of her and only one ended up in France.

COMMON SENSE will tell you that if collections have copies..they normally have all the photos copied.

Which if you think about it, is logical..because they call it a collection (Sims, for example)

Not necessarily. Again you just have to look at the Eddowes photographs.

[Rob Clack]

And of course...there is no way on God's Earth that if there were 5 MJK photos..all different... they would all be slight variations of MJK1...just like MJK2 is......nah..unthinkable that.

Since you don't know the history of the photographs I don't think you are in a position say anything.

[Phil Carter]

Since you don't know the history of the photographs I don't think you are in a position say anything.

I can say what I want as an opinion. But you aren't ther world's greatest living historical crime photography expert either... so in relation to that... , it would be offensive to tell you where your opinions sit. I wont.

Have a pleasant evening.

[jmenges]

With its lack of provenance and dubious beginnings, MJK3 will always remain to me an enigma.

Yes we know. That's probably the reason your request for "rational explainations" to all of your "Why Why Why" questions fell on deaf ears. All of your questions have been answered in this thread, in other threads, in books, and by people who have researched this case for decades and have viewed the photo personally. None of the correct answers will ever be "rational" enough for you, as you've shown many times.

JM

[Rob Clack]

I can say what I want as an opinion. But you aren't ther world's greatest living historical crime photography expert either... so in relation to that... , it would be offensive to tell you where your opinions sit. I wont.

Have a pleasant evening.

Well I think I know quite a bit more about them, then you do. I've taken the trouble to go and look at them and studied their history. What have you done?
I can state my opinion with a bit more authority then you can.

[Wickerman]

Why would that be? Not specifying the exact number of images he took rules out his being interviewed by a reporter? I'll ask you the same question. Where do you imagine the reports of more than one image of Mary Kelly's remains emanate from? Or do you believe the reporter made the story up?

What I'm getting at is, as no set number is given by any of the press, then that might suggest the photographer was never interviewed, as he is the most likely subject to provide the actual number.
What the press did write could have been sourced from any constable, or any of the witnesses held within the court, not necessarily the photographer himself.

[Bridewell]

What I'm getting at is, as no set number is given by any of the press, then that might suggest the photographer was never interviewed, as he is the most likely subject to provide the actual number.
What the press did write could have been sourced from any constable, or any of the witnesses held within the court, not necessarily the photographer himself.

Is this a possibility, do you think? That the journalist waited on Dorset Street near the entrance to Millers Court and counted the number of photographic plates which were carried out. No need for a police informant, no need for guesswork, just good observation by a competent reporter.

[Wickerman]

Bonds report, post mortem or otherwise is the only report there is detailing the wounds and the injuries. It is clearly in the form of a post mortem report,..

There was no 'form' for a post-mortem, it was an Autopsy - they are not the same.
As I said before, an Autopsy IS a post-mortem yes, but it is so much more than that, so a post-mortem is NOT an autopsy.

Dr. Bond was present at a post-mortem (on Friday in Millers Court), Dr. Phillips conducted an Autopsy (on Saturday at Shoreditch) - two different events.

I have pointed out that Phillips inquest testimony stops at the point where he should have gone onto give his PM report. Why was that ?

In a word, Macdonald, he was the cause Dr Phillips presented no further details.

The answer is there was no need for two doctors to prepare the same report, One would suffice.

"One", for who?
Dr Bond's private notes were not presented at the inquest.

Trevor, you really need to brush up on the differences between a post-mortem and an autopsy.

In a 19th century autopsy there are standards, guidelines, expectations, in a post-mortem there are none of those beyond the requirement that the physician is sufficiently experienced to examine the corpse.

[Wickerman]

Is this a possibility, do you think? That the journalist waited on Dorset Street near the entrance to Millers Court and counted the number of photographic plates which were carried out. No need for a police informant, no need for guesswork, just good observation by a competent reporter.

I understand glass photographic plates were transported in a closed wooden box. I have seen a 19th century example of one of these box's. I'm just sure how many plates one of these box's contained. I think it was more than six but less than twelve - at the time I wasn't thinking about counting the slots

Something like this..

[GUT]

G'day Jon

The short answer is that they came in different sizes, I've seen some that only hold 2 I've seen one that held 20 [it was a damn big box].