MJK1 and MJK3

[GUT]

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.

G'day Bridewell

But the reporter would have no idea how many were exposed, even if that were possible.

[jmenges]

The reporters did wait around on Dorset street as they noted the exact time the photographer departed.

JM

[Debra A]

Amanda said this in her last post-


"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."

I'm not the only one who thinks that the 'external organs of generation' (genitalia)were actually removed am I?! Just wondering if I am reading the post mortem correctly as I don't have anatomical knowledge? This is why we can't see a recognizable point of reference in the pelvic region of MJK3 surely?
Hebbert's notes also seem to confirm this when they were used in a chapter about identification of a dead body?

[Stewart P Evans]

Provenance

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

The facts regarding this photograph have been pointed out to you. It seems to me that you have not bothered to do any proper research yourself, finding it easier to ask questions of others on these message boards. Also the invalidity of the points you raise casting doubt on the genuineness of the photograph has been pointed out to you.

Not wishing to drag this out much further I shall have one last word on the provenance of this photograph. It was returned to New Scotland Yard in 1988, mounted in an album which had been in the possession of the late Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Ernest Millen, who had retired in 1969, and who had used the album in talks he conducted. The album also contained other victim photographs of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes, as well as other murder victims. The photograph in question was affixed to an album page alongside the full crime scene photograph (referred to as MJK 1), and was captioned 'Mary Jeanette Kelly/Millers Court/9. 11. 88.' This album was one of several original Crime Museum ('Black Museum') albums dating back to the early 20th century and kept at New Scotland Yard. Obviously Millen took (borrowed) this one with him when he retired.

All these facts, if you had bothered to do some research, may be found in the public domain. The provenance is more than good enough for almost everybody (apart from a few odd and eccentric conspiracy theorists) and it should be good enough for you.

[Stewart P Evans]

See my last...

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...
...

See my last post. It is pretty obvious that the first photograph is the best one, showing much more of the scene and having a greater impact. The second is murky and takes, as we have seen, a bit of working out. It seems obvious to me why the one graphic photograph was the one that 'did the rounds' and was the one handed out by the Yard.

[Trevor Marriott]

Amanda said this in her last post-


"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."

I'm not the only one who thinks that the 'external organs of generation' (genitalia)were actually removed am I?! Just wondering if I am reading the post mortem correctly as I don't have anatomical knowledge? This is why we can't see a recognizable point of reference in the pelvic region of MJK3 surely?
Hebbert's notes also seem to confirm this when they were used in a chapter about identification of a dead body?

Hi Debs
The second reply back from my Foresnisc pathologist having been sent the MJK3 photos which is supposed to show the split femur

"Dear Trevor,

I take it the ‘split femur’ is the thing outlined in yellow? If that is the inner aspect of the left groin to thigh region that we can see, then I would suggest that the anatomical structure most likely to be responsible for creating that diagonal ‘shadow’ would actually be the sartorius muscle. But it is difficult to be certain of exactly what is going on in that picture!

It wouldn’t be unusual in today’s practice for police photos to be taken at the scene both before and after moving the body, so I think if it is genuine then there could be a ‘legit’ reason why the body has been moved between photos being taken.

If it’s a fake, they’ve done a good job of making it look bad enough to be convincing… ‘fakes’ usually look too good to be true to me!

[Debra A]

Hi Debs
The second reply back from my Foresnisc pathologist having been sent the MJK3 photos which is supposed to show the split femur

"Dear Trevor,

I take it the ‘split femur’ is the thing outlined in yellow? If that is the inner aspect of the left groin to thigh region that we can see, then I would suggest that the anatomical structure most likely to be responsible for creating that diagonal ‘shadow’ would actually be the sartorius muscle. But it is difficult to be certain of exactly what is going on in that picture!

It wouldn’t be unusual in today’s practice for police photos to be taken at the scene both before and after moving the body, so I think if it is genuine then there could be a ‘legit’ reason why the body has been moved between photos being taken.

If it’s a fake, they’ve done a good job of making it look bad enough to be convincing… ‘fakes’ usually look too good to be true to me!

Thanks for doing that Trevor.

Why does he say 'outlined in yellow?' -why didn't you just show him the plain copy of MJK3, MJK1 and the post mortem notes? It isn't really'supposed' to show a split femur btw, that was Nick Warren's opinion. Several people disagreed with him at the time from what I can gather, and Stewart has noted earlier that he did too. There was no need to mention that really as no one I can think of on this thread is using the 'split femur' identification to determine if this is Mary's mutilations on view or not.
I was hoping you would just show him the pictures and post mortem and ask if what he saw was consistent with it depicting the mutilated left thigh area and mutilated pelvis.

I'm still hoping someone will answer my question about the genitalia being removed.

[Brenda]

.

Thanks for doing that Trevor.

Why does he say 'outlined in yellow?'

Debra, he must have sent my HORRIBLE MS Paint outlining.

Someone else thought Nick Warren was talking about the other leg....of that I am not sure. I just remember when I was reading the raging arguments years ago, the area I outlined was what was being discussed at that time.

[Hunter]

The genitalia were removed according to Bond.

[Debra A]

Debra, he must have sent my HORRIBLE MS Paint outlining.

Someone else thought Nick Warren was talking about the other leg....of that I am not sure. I just remember when I was reading the raging arguments years ago, the area I outlined was what was being discussed at that time.

It looks that way, Brenda.

This is a quote from his Nick Warren's original article, I linked to the archived thread it was posted in much earlier in the thread.:

quote:
Some Medical Observations on the Ripper Case - Part 1
Nick Warren. From Ripperana, No. 18, Oct. 1996.

"Examination of the details shown in this photograph indicates that Kelly's left femur (thigh-bone) has been split logitudinally from the hip downwards, exposing the marrow cavity. The outer part of the bone (cortex) stands out in clear relief. It was presumably to record this detail that the photograph was taken, as the camera-angle has been selected to place this specific injury virtually in the centre of the exposure."



He clearly states 'left' femur so you were correct.

[Debra A]

The genitalia were removed according to Bond.

That's what I thought. Thanks, Hunter.
Anyone thinking they should be seeing genitalia would be naturally confused by the picture.

[Amanda Sumner]

That's what I thought. Thanks, Hunter.
Anyone thinking they should be seeing genitalia would be naturally confused by the picture.

I'm not aware that anyone thought they should be seeing genitalia, when clearly the area is seen mutilated and removed in MJK1

[Debra A]

I'm not aware that anyone thought they should be seeing genitalia, when clearly the area is seen mutilated and removed in MJK1

Yes. I just noticed you said internal view.

[Trevor Marriott]

Debra, he must have sent my HORRIBLE MS Paint outlining.

Someone else thought Nick Warren was talking about the other leg....of that I am not sure. I just remember when I was reading the raging arguments years ago, the area I outlined was what was being discussed at that time.

The so called split femur as shown on one of the MJK3 photos posted on here

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for doing that Trevor.

Why does he say 'outlined in yellow?' -why didn't you just show him the plain copy of MJK3, MJK1 and the post mortem notes? It isn't really'supposed' to show a split femur btw, that was Nick Warren's opinion. Several people disagreed with him at the time from what I can gather, and Stewart has noted earlier that he did too. There was no need to mention that really as no one I can think of on this thread is using the 'split femur' identification to determine if this is Mary's mutilations on view or not.
I was hoping you would just show him the pictures and post mortem and ask if what he saw was consistent with it depicting the mutilated left thigh area and mutilated pelvis.

I'm still hoping someone will answer my question about the genitalia being removed.

His reply clearly suggests that there is nothing to see