My attempt to decipher the MJK in situ photograph

[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]

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]

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]

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?

Erm...because we have real copies of Sickert's signature. A signature is not a collection of letters it is a sweep of the pen.. It is distinct and that's why we sign documents etc.... It's distinctive to us.
Not the letters... My letter e will be exactly the same as millions of others but the way I put all the letters together will be distinctive.
The overall flow of the signature is identical from what is visible to the known signature of Sickert whether you like it or not, it's the case.
If someone wants to test it maybe the images can be equally sized and printed onto plastic if possible then overlayed.
The k is definitely there.Maybe it's like art, some can see it,some can not.
Strange though that people I've shown it to on my phone who are not ripperologists and are neutral can see it straight away..... No axe to grind,no theory to protect.
I said earlier that it's not possible to convince someone who refuses to be convinced so I won't argue the point further, the point can't be won one way or the other

[Pierre]

Were the police not able to read?

Hi packers stem,

I have an important question for you.

If the name "Sickert" was written on a wall of the murder scene of Mary Jane Kelly -

WHY didnīt the police go and arrest Sickert?

Pierre

[Karl]

Erm...because we have real copies of Sickert's signature. A signature is not a collection of letters it is a sweep of the pen.. It is distinct and that's why we sign documents etc.... It's distinctive to us.

So they are. However, we have real copies of lots of people's signatures. What made you compare the unintelligible blots on a 100+ year photograph with that specific signature? I'll be up front and say I am more than suggesting wishful thinking here.

Not the letters... My letter e will be exactly the same as millions of others but the way I put all the letters together will be distinctive.
The overall flow of the signature is identical from what is visible to the known signature of Sickert whether you like it or not, it's the case.

No it isn't, and I have already explained why. There are no "letters" going up on the "signature" in the MJK1 photo, whereas there is in the actual Sickert signature (the letter "k"). There is, however, a "letter" going down in the MJK1 photo, suggesting a "g", "q", "y", "p" or perhaps even an "f", but there are no letters going down in the Sickert signature. But you choose to conveniently ignore these facts, because they do not fit. You are, to quote Sherlock Holmes, shaping facts to suit theories rather than shaping theories to suit facts.

If someone wants to test it maybe the images can be equally sized and printed onto plastic if possible then overlayed.
The k is definitely there.

Simply saying it is doesn't make it so. You picture that it is there. In reality, in can be anything. And "k" is not the top candidate.

Maybe it's like art, some can see it,some can not.

Or maybe it is like pareidolia, some can see it, some cannot. So far that is a far better theory than Walter Sickert placing his signature at the crime scene for god knows what reason. Not only place his signature, but do so just as perfectly as he would on paper. I challenge you to write on a wall, maybe a blackboard, and manage to copy your regular signature perfectly. I discovered when I worked as a substitute teacher that writing on a vertical surface was harder than expected. And the surface of the wall - be it wallpaper or anything else - would not be the same as the surface on paper. I enjoy writing in ink, with fountain pens, and if it's the wrong kind of paper, the writing may easily bleed. If wallpaper, it might be too soft for the nib (it'd dig into the wallpaper and you would definitely not be able to write well, much less copy your signature perfectly), and if wooden panels the grain would obstruct the nib in a different manner. So what was the ink? And what was the surface? And what was the pen? And why didn't the police spot it? And why on earth was it there to begin with? I put it to you that it was never there in the first place - it is only there for those who want it to be there.

Strange though that people I've shown it to on my phone who are not ripperologists and are neutral can see it straight away..... No axe to grind,no theory to protect.

I just showed the image to my fiancé, who has no interest one way or another anyway. I even tilted it a bit in your favour and asked if she could read the signature. She said she couldn't see a signature. She said she cannot rule out that there might be something written there, but that it is impossible to tell what. I can ask my colleagues at work tomorrow, if you wish. They have no axes to grind in this matter, either. Edit: Make that on Monday. Forgot it's Friday already.

I said earlier that it's not possible to convince someone who refuses to be convinced so I won't argue the point further, the point can't be won one way or the other

I'm not the one who refuses to be convinced, here. If there were intelligible letters there, I would have no reason not to admit it at all. I have no pet theory as to the MJK murder, except that I do not believe MJK3 is authentic. Other than that, I am completely on the fence on everything else. But I'm not going to pretend I see something when I do not. You, on the other hand, are the one who insists that not only is this a signature, but specifically that of Walter Sickert.

[belinda]

Oh Come on Pierre. With all your knowledge you must realise he could not have been arrested without evidence.

[Karl]

Oh Come on Pierre. With all your knowledge you must realise he could not have been arrested without evidence.

It does stand to reason, however, that if there were names scribbled on the wall that the police would take note of this. Of course, the very last thing I would presume, were I an investigator, is that the author of said scribblings would be the murderer. If a building burns down and "H. Simpson was here" was found on the ruins, would one assume we had the arsonist's name?

[MysterySinger]

Did MJK2 exist given the MJK3 is probably fake.

[Pierre]

Oh Come on Pierre. With all your knowledge you must realise he could not have been arrested without evidence.

The Metropolitan police arrested a lot of people without having what we would call evidence.

[Pierre]

A question for packers stem

Compare the highlighted signature to this one at your leisure

Hi packers stem,

I have an important question for you.

If the name "Sickert" was written on a wall of the murder scene of Mary Jane Kelly -

WHY didnīt the police go and arrest Sickert?

Pierre

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Oh Come on Pierre. With all your knowledge you must realise he could not have been arrested without evidence.

reading The Blackest Streets by Sara Wise.
This is in reference of the Prevention of Crimes Act of 1871.

Apparently, you didn't need evidence to arrest someone you find suspicious. And once arrested, if the person had two prior convictions, the mandatory minimum was two years.

[Pierre]

reading The Blackest Streets by Sara Wise.
This is in reference of the Prevention of Crimes Act of 1871.

Apparently, you didn't need evidence to arrest someone you find suspicious. And once arrested, if the person had two prior convictions, the mandatory minimum was two years.

And in practice looking "foreign", having the "right" height and carrying around a bag close to a murder scene could be sufficient.

[belinda]

The Metropolitan police arrested a lot of people without having what we would call evidence.

They still had to have some kind of evidence and a name that may or may not be on a wall is not evidence

[Karl]

They still had to have some kind of evidence and a name that may or may not be on a wall is not evidence

But it would be enough that they would question him.