My attempt to decipher the MJK in situ photograph

[Karl]

You can see the S the t and the k. The k is the giveaway as it's very distinctive as it's a v with a tail off it in Sickert's signature. I can not make someone see it if they refuse to accept it and look for alternative explanations but the complete signature as a whole has all the physical attributes, same length,same heights of the letters. I was not looking for evidence of Sickert and if I found druitt or kosminsky written there I'd have posted it just the same.
Yes, other things can be seen, there's no denying,there will be blood splashes as there are sketches but all the attributes of the signature are identical to Sickert's.. I mean really....What's the chances eh?? Find me something that looks like druitts signature,kosminsky,rembrandt, winnie the pooh,anything you like and upload it for me. It will prove your point that you can make things what you want them to be.I dont think you will find anything else comparable to a known signature...but most significantly, someone who's already been linked to the murders on more than one occasion.
Bear in mind, this is from a photo taken on a mobile phone of a photo in a book.
I would dearly love to see the original in a lab.... If it's not there,it's not there.... Fair enough but I'm 100% convinced otherwise

What are the odds? Pretty good, I'd say. The reason I don't see "Sickert" is not because I refuse to see it, but rather the opposite: the only way I can see "Sickert" is if I force myself to see it. And I do not see a "k" either, for that matter. Where the "k" should be, I see simply a dark patch which goes neither high nor low. It could be any of these letters: m, n, o, v, w... but it has no top part, like the "k" does, unless you derive that from a patch of different colour above it. And then only if you include a sliver of the patch, which is otherwise indistinct from the rest of the blob which is in lighter colour from the rest of the alleged signature. And you still ignore that the dark colour of the signature indicates that one of the letters goes low, in the middle there. I'm sorry, but of all the names that could possibly be, were it even a signature, "Sickert" is not among the candidates. What makes you so sure it doesn't say "Simpson", for example?

[packers stem]

The signature is unquestionably there in that last picture, but in the first picture of the alleged signature, it is just one cluster of darker patches amongst many others. And just because one particular bunch of dark blots is in a line, that does not make it a signature. That's just the odds. If you claim that particular pattern of blots is made by ink, then what about the surrounding blots which seem to be of the same quality? In that picture where you have two dark patches underlined (at first I had no idea why you had placed those lines there), there are several other dark patches you have not underlined. I assume the reason you underlined the one on the right is because of what appears to be a capital S, but could easily also be a sigma character (the difference is whether or not you ignore the line underneath the "S"). What you have underlined on the left I assume you take to be a W, but at best it looks like a V or reversed N. There is also a similar "signature"-like patch below the "W" and to the left of "Sickert", which you have not underlined. And between that word, and what you take to be "Sickert", there is what appears to be the word "og", which is Norwegian for "and". Or possibly I can pretend it says "of". But you have underlined none of these. Why not? Because you pick anything that fits into the pattern, and discard anything which does not. Our brains do that. For example, I see:

"SOU" - going from high left to low right, 90 degree angle down from the "S" in your Sickert
"Ryan" - at the very top, the "R" being in a direct line above your "W"
"SSS" - going from high right to low left, the first "S" being the same as as the "SOU" previously
"666" - same blotches as "SSS" before
In fact, it seems exceedingly easy to find the letter "S" anywhere.

Also, there seems to be a low letter in the middle of your "Sickert". If I were to imagine those as letters, ignoring real words, it looks like "Seoym" But the brain wants a word, so it will shape those letters to something intelligible and significant instead. The only way I can make that out to be "Sickert" is if I want it to be "Sickert". But I don't believe those are letters at all. They are just a bunch of dark patches for which there is no reason to assume design. The very first time I saw that picture posted - without any hints as to what we were supposed to see - I saw a cartoon professor in semi-profile, with a high brow and an upward-turned lock of hair on top, facing our left.

You can see the S the t and the k. The k is the giveaway as it's very distinctive as it's a v with a tail off it in Sickert's signature. I can not make someone see it if they refuse to accept it and look for alternative explanations but the complete signature as a whole has all the physical attributes, same length,same heights of the letters. I was not looking for evidence of Sickert and if I found druitt or kosminsky written there I'd have posted it just the same.
Yes, other things can be seen, there's no denying,there will be blood splashes as there are sketches but all the attributes of the signature are identical to Sickert's.. I mean really....What's the chances eh?? Find me something that looks like druitts signature,kosminsky,rembrandt, winnie the pooh,anything you like and upload it for me. It will prove your point that you can make things what you want them to be.I dont think you will find anything else comparable to a known signature...but most significantly, someone who's already been linked to the murders on more than one occasion.
Bear in mind, this is from a photo taken on a mobile phone of a photo in a book.
I would dearly love to see the original in a lab.... If it's not there,it's not there.... Fair enough but I'm 100% convinced otherwise

[Karl]

Hi Karl
I don't agree at all.You can claim pareidolia if you like but you can say the same thing about art. I can see it clearly enough...
The signature is there ,so just keep comparing the two.One day, someone will clean up MJK1 enough to convince

The signature is unquestionably there in that last picture, but in the first picture of the alleged signature, it is just one cluster of darker patches amongst many others. And just because one particular bunch of dark blots is in a line, that does not make it a signature. That's just the odds. If you claim that particular pattern of blots is made by ink, then what about the surrounding blots which seem to be of the same quality? In that picture where you have two dark patches underlined (at first I had no idea why you had placed those lines there), there are several other dark patches you have not underlined. I assume the reason you underlined the one on the right is because of what appears to be a capital S, but could easily also be a sigma character (the difference is whether or not you ignore the line underneath the "S"). What you have underlined on the left I assume you take to be a W, but at best it looks like a V or reversed N. There is also a similar "signature"-like patch below the "W" and to the left of "Sickert", which you have not underlined. And between that word, and what you take to be "Sickert", there is what appears to be the word "og", which is Norwegian for "and". Or possibly I can pretend it says "of". But you have underlined none of these. Why not? Because you pick anything that fits into the pattern, and discard anything which does not. Our brains do that. For example, I see:

"SOU" - going from high left to low right, 90 degree angle down from the "S" in your Sickert
"Ryan" - at the very top, the "R" being in a direct line above your "W"
"SSS" - going from high right to low left, the first "S" being the same as as the "SOU" previously
"666" - same blotches as "SSS" before
In fact, it seems exceedingly easy to find the letter "S" anywhere.

Also, there seems to be a low letter in the middle of your "Sickert". If I were to imagine those as letters, ignoring real words, it looks like "Seoym" But the brain wants a word, so it will shape those letters to something intelligible and significant instead. The only way I can make that out to be "Sickert" is if I want it to be "Sickert". But I don't believe those are letters at all. They are just a bunch of dark patches for which there is no reason to assume design. The very first time I saw that picture posted - without any hints as to what we were supposed to see - I saw a cartoon professor in semi-profile, with a high brow and an upward-turned lock of hair on top, facing our left.

[packers stem]

A textbook example of pareidolia. Personally, I see nothing resembling a mural or a signature. Except for that last picture, of course - which is a picture of a signature.

Hi Karl
I don't agree at all.You can claim pareidolia if you like but you can say the same thing about art. I can see it clearly enough...
The signature is there ,so just keep comparing the two.One day, someone will clean up MJK1 enough to convince

[packers stem]

Hi,

What we see is the result of the police writing on the envelope in which this picture was kept.

"...writing is indeed visible all over the photograph... Most of it is illegible or nonsensical, probably the result of people writing on the envelope in which the photograph was kept. But at some point an original print was die stamped. In the area below the raised left knee clearly visible concentric circles contain the letters HO. Home Office? Within the circles, and to the left, a notation reads 'SIB8FGA' and, beneath, a second reads: 'pd 2/4'.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-swood.html

Regards Pierre

Afraid not Pierre
Already been through this once before haven't we?
You're talking about MJK3 which is the one that's most likely a fake from the other side of the bed
You know the one, the one with the impossible sunlight and the bed being diagonal across the room...

[Pierre]

The image posted earlier, darkened and some of the apparent writing/words boxed. The word looking a bit like "Kevin" is underlined in light blue.

Hi,

What we see is the result of the police writing on the envelope in which this picture was kept.

"...writing is indeed visible all over the photograph... Most of it is illegible or nonsensical, probably the result of people writing on the envelope in which the photograph was kept. But at some point an original print was die stamped. In the area below the raised left knee clearly visible concentric circles contain the letters HO. Home Office? Within the circles, and to the left, a notation reads 'SIB8FGA' and, beneath, a second reads: 'pd 2/4'.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-swood.html

Regards Pierre

[Karl]

A textbook example of pareidolia. Personally, I see nothing resembling a mural or a signature. Except for that last picture, of course - which is a picture of a signature.

[packers stem]

Compare the highlighted signature to this one at your leisure

[packers stem]

A darker and more contrasty version which, if you download and enlarge, will "reveal" much more "writing". As far as I recall, there is no mysterious writing on the second MJK image taken after the murder.

Hi
Use MJK1 it's darker and much more revealing. It's not just writing there are sketches all over. It's a mural in effect

[Rosella]

I'm not laughing but If there had been a usable door there though, the police would have investigated the possibilities wouldn't they, and used it to come into the room (shifting the bed away) instead of waiting outside and finally breaking the door down?

I can imagine previous tenants scribbling things on the filth of the walls when they were drunk but really some of what looks like writing is probably just dirty markings.

Would Mary's bedclothes have run to a pair of sheets, with one over the mattress? It sounds rather elaborate in an age in which servants often slept with a couple of blankets only.

I know she had one sheet to protect her from the roughness of the blankets, which was slashed. Wasn't Mary's mattress just a thin woolen fleck one? If that was rucked up and cut up in places that would account for some of the folds and other shapes seen under the body.

[MysterySinger]

A darker and more contrasty version which, if you download and enlarge, will "reveal" much more "writing". As far as I recall, there is no mysterious writing on the second MJK image taken after the murder.

[MysterySinger]

The image posted earlier, darkened and some of the apparent writing/words boxed. The word looking a bit like "Kevin" is underlined in light blue.

[MysterySinger]

I don't know whether it's an optical illusion, but I do see a lot of writing on that door at the back and even what looks like the name Kevin!

Darkening the image in Photoshop helps a little to reveal some of the writing - a person with more expertise could probably clarify much of what the writing says. I suspect none of it was done by JTR but over a long period by different occupants of the room and MJK herself. Two sets of initials look to be MJK to me.

I will post again on this in a moment but here is another thought. I've always assumed that the back partition was fixed in order to provide a separate room from the back of 26 Dorset Street. But as it looks like a door there, what if the door actually opened the other way. Someone could have gained access that way - whats more may have had the element of surprise - we know that MJK was on that side of the bed when her throat was cut. A crazy thought of course. You can laugh now

[Panderoona]

Hope this works as ive not uploaded a pic before. my take on the photo.
the green bits are what i see as a base sheet and pillow. the blue possibly chemise, possibly sheets. wonder if thats a small pillow under her arm?

[Pierre]

Pierre, I'm generally very open-minded and after your post, I think I've found him, I thought fair enough if it takes a year to find whatever you're after then it takes a year.

At the same time I wondered if you'd be making more posts inbetween now and a year's time, what those posts might be and how they'd be taken by the other forum members.

Surely you must understand that with posts like the one about MJK's arm you're just winding people up and I think it would be better if you just disappeared and then when you have this info that takes a year to get, well then you can make a post.

I'm a member of a number of forums and have never made a request such as the one I just made. I like meeting people of all types. Usually it's quite easy to work out if somebody is trolling but not in your case. I honestly don't know if you're a troll or not. I'm still prepared to wait a year, afterall I've followed ripper studies since the year that the first edition of Stephen Knight's book came out.

But if you're level headed and have some common sense then you must be able to understand how some of your posts, such as MJK's arm, are annoying to read, and I could say to myself, OK I'll just ignore Pierre's posts, but that doesn't really work - at least not all the time, in the context of a thread with many posts and some quoting others. I'm happily reading posts here about what people see in the MJK photo and all of a sudden up you pop putting an end to that happiness.

So don't get me wrong Pierre, I've nothing against you and I'm not calling you a troll as I honestly don't know if you are one or not, but I wish you'd just stop posting for a year, or however long it takes before you're happy to reveal your suspect.

I'm aware that I'm going off-topic. If you want to reply Pierre then maybe do so in paul g's Pierre and his research thread. I believe that would be suitable. Here's a link.
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9211

Hi Ozzy,

and thanks for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate that. And I am truly sorry for annoying you with some of my posts.

But I think you shouldnīt listen so much to what I say. I have explained that I might very well be totally wrong. And I mean it.

At the same time, if I share some thoughts with you all, perhaps that could lead to someone else finding out something interesting about this case just by mere chance. I understand that people get a lot of inspiration here and that they develope new ideas all the time.

Anyway I think that my posts shouldnīt be taken so seriously.

And I can assure you it is as annoying to me not being able to write certain things as it must be to you reading some of my rather enigmatic posts - if thatīs any comfort.

Regards Pierre