My attempt to decipher the MJK in situ photograph

[packers stem]

Did MJK2 exist given the MJK3 is probably fake.

Hi Mystery singer
Yep,MJK3 has to be fake really so if someone goes to the trouble of faking it....why??
Because of this MJK2 can't be trusted and may well be photoshopped
MJK1 is the only one that can be trusted

[EmaEm]

I always assumed, and thought that there was a consensus, that the leg was skinned to the bone.

It is the consensus, and has been for a considerable time.

[EmaEm]

It is her bath! I thought everyone knew that, frankly.

[packers stem]

Packers, I am willing to go along with you on this. If for no other reason than to put it to bed. I've tried to pull something out of the area you point the signature to be at a couple of times with several different methods in photoshop. Now maybe its the images I've used (one you posted, a couple scans from my own books and the best resolution versions I have found online... Which are of course scans from likely the same books). In none of them can I tease out a signature ultimately and they usually end up looking less and less like one as cleaned and corrected, ect. They all come to nothing in the end.

What's interesting is there simply is not a good high quality scan of the image from a first or second generation unmodified copy online. Not that I found anyway. There are a bunch of nice resolution versions out there but they are all from already tinkered and cropped and corrected many times copy for publication.

Hi Shaggyrand
Yep,the online versions are hopeless.Mostly of MJK2 anyway
Amongst the 30 - 40 books I've got there are only 3 versions of MJK1 good enough to show it.And of those 3 only 1 shows it full page as opposed to half page in the book therefore enlarging sufficiently.
The original MJK1 has a crease coming up from the bottom of the photo, that's the one needed.
If there's a crease from the left it's MJK2 and the crease goes right through the image above, it's useless as the flash is right where the signature is.

[Shaggyrand]

Packers, I am willing to go along with you on this. If for no other reason than to put it to bed. I've tried to pull something out of the area you point the signature to be at a couple of times with several different methods in photoshop. Now maybe its the images I've used (one you posted, a couple scans from my own books and the best resolution versions I have found online... Which are of course scans from likely the same books). In none of them can I tease out a signature ultimately and they usually end up looking less and less like one as cleaned and corrected, ect. They all come to nothing in the end.

What's interesting is there simply is not a good high quality scan of the image from a first or second generation unmodified copy online. Not that I found anyway. There are a bunch of nice resolution versions out there but they are all from already tinkered and cropped and corrected many times copy for publication.

[packers stem]

Sorry, here's the final one and the signatures again

[packers stem]

Reminder of the sketch and a similar later work by Sickert
I've also separated the woman's face from the demon and I'll post a similar image from one of the last judgement paintings

[packers stem]

That is still leading. If you can't objectively read the signature before you are given suggestions, then it stands to reason that if the suggestions make a difference, then you have been led. The mind loves to fill in the gaps, and whatever it fills it with is subjective guesswork based on whatever context in which it perceives the subject matter.

Trouble is Karl,if it was clear enough to be seen and read by Joe Public,many of whom, when presented with a genuine Sickert signature ,would still not be able to read it due in part to never having heard of him,then it would be game over would it not.This is a normal sized signature on a wall ,its extremely small and cleaned and zoomed to the best of the capabilities of a mobile phone .Other options may be open with the original photo

So you admit that without Sickert's signature to compare it to, people aren't going to be able to read the supposed signature? Interesting.

Do you accept that the abilty of a person to interpret either a signature or a sketch is dependent upon the person asked??
As stated earlier the signature is small and yes,a little obscure due to technical restrictions but it carries all the same caracteristics as sickerts signature

Very, very similar - from the guy who sees Sickert's signature in a random patch of dark blots. Ink flows; charcoal does not. And painted signatures have very clear differences to a written one. All of this is very relevant to how it is going to look in a low resolution close-up of a photo over a century old.

Very ,very similar as opposed to identical.No two signatures are identical ,try signing your own signature over itself
Again when it becomes clear enough to determine if its charcoal,paint or even blood is the day its done and dusted
Totally irrelevant anyway,there's no possible chance of determining what was used .Just can't see your point there in any way

I think you are missing the point on purpose so I am not going to bother insulting your intelligence. It isn't my version, it's yours. I saw some random dark patches which I could bend into non-existent signatures and drawings, in the exact same manner as you have done for Sickert's "signature".

Oh, and as for Scully, how about I use your favourite argument right back at you: "just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there".

Not true .Like you say ,you bend dark patches into non existent signatures and drawings...in other words ,admitting you've made it up,which of course ,makes it not there and not visible to anyone whereas ,what i see has been visible to many friends of mine including 2 people for whom art is their living.
The difference between a signature Sickert and one saying Scully is that someone by the name 'Sickert' has been previously mentioned in connection with JTR.
To the best of my knowledge you are the first person to suspect someone named 'scully' so even if there was a 'scully' on the wall ,it wouldn't mean anything to us now.Of course that doesn't mean that a scully was not JTR but it could equally mean he/she lived there previously
Sickert ,on the other hand, IS known to us

It stands to reason that if Sickert signed his "work" at the MJK scene, he would have done so earlier as well. I think the police would have noticed if Sickert's signature kept popping up. They had a much better view of the crime scenes, after all, than a very grainy and unclear photo.

This i've explained earlier and you've added nothing apart from 'kept popping up'
I've never said it 'kept popping up',it's there once and once only as far as i can see unless someone spots more



And none of them look anything remotely like anything we see in that close-up.

It's pareidolia, is what it is. It isn't there, except that your mind fills in the gaps. I, for one, can only see the face I myself imagined to be there. But it wasn't drawn. Just like the face on Cydonia, it is just a piece of wall with random dark spots which the brain may perceive as renditions of faces or whatever. It is unbelievable that you can be so stubborn that you refuse to acknowledge this even as a possibility.

You are stating it's pareidolia as a statement of fact,i don't think it's me being stubborn here.I'm willing to accept that i may be proven wrong.You,however,are not willing to accept that it just might be real.This can not be proven one way or the other without enhancement of the original Rumbelow print,seeing as how we don't have the wall.The second one can not be trusted as it arrived with the ,almost certainly fake, MJK3

Straw man. No one has ever suggested that the word "Juwes" would cause rioting of any sort. But "Juwes" was not the only word written. It was part of a message about the "Juwes", and anti-semitic tensions were already high - they didn't need yet another potential spark to set things off.

I'll never believe that nonsense,just my opinion and that of many others.Pointless arguing over a man who refused to even wait for a photographer....absolutely rediculous notion that it was to prevent riots .Only had to seal the doorway long enough to get a photograph taken.Thankfully the city police did things the right way otherwise i've no doubt that none of us would have any idea of a message,or apron being found in Goulston Street.

Indeed they have no bearing on Jack the Ripper, Sickert, Mary Jean Kelly or anything at all. But neither do the supposed scribblings you imagine you have found on MJK's wall.

Consider this: if you are the only one who can clearly see the signature there, but others not, then maybe you are the one seeing things which aren't there. And I know why: because you have obsessed on it. The more you try to see patterns, the clearer you are going to see them. You see a face in the patterns on a wallpaper, and focus on it, of course you are going to see a face there. Every time. It is going to be just as clear as the face on a person. The fact that it is not a face is not going to prevent you in the slightest from seeing one.

I am not the only one who can see the signature,friends can see it ...even the American man viewing a couple of Sickert paintings next to me in the Courtauld gallery could see it on my phone and on the paintings.
More than one member of casebook has confided to me privately that they can also but knowing the treatment that comes with rocking the boat on here i can hardly blame them for not saying so in a thread.
I'm not seeing patterns on wallpaper ,there was none in Millers Court .I'm not intentionally or unintentionally making things up.This is an accumulation of things.One face ,yes ,pareidolia possibly...2 sketches and a signature though,probably not and requires looking into under laboratory conditions

[Karl]

Not at all leading.Show a number of signatures if you wish then ask which one it most resembles

That is still leading. If you can't objectively read the signature before you are given suggestions, then it stands to reason that if the suggestions make a difference, then you have been led. The mind loves to fill in the gaps, and whatever it fills it with is subjective guesswork based on whatever context in which it perceives the subject matter.

So you admit that without Sickert's signature to compare it to, people aren't going to be able to read the supposed signature? Interesting.

All irrelevant. Many versions of Sickert's signature available...they all are very, very similar.
Paint, pen,pencil, charcoal probably...

Very, very similar - from the guy who sees Sickert's signature in a random patch of dark blots. Ink flows; charcoal does not. And painted signatures have very clear differences to a written one. All of this is very relevant to how it is going to look in a low resolution close-up of a photo over a century old.

If Kosminsky has signed it, I'll accept your version.I do however,suspect you have no evidence that it was kosminsky
Nope, can't see Scully. But I do know that some people get so entrenched in the lives of tv characters they can eventually truly believe that they did/do exist.
I'm pleased for you that you believe in the paranormal,it's odd but not unusual.

I think you are missing the point on purpose so I am not going to bother insulting your intelligence. It isn't my version, it's yours. I saw some random dark patches which I could bend into non-existent signatures and drawings, in the exact same manner as you have done for Sickert's "signature".

Oh, and as for Scully, how about I use your favourite argument right back at you: "just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there".

Could have been an instinct.Would hardly have been in a good state of mind at the time
Also could have been something more deliberate. Anyhow at the time, it could never have been used as evidence anyway could it, even if it was spotted.It wouldn't have been possible to prove it was written at the time by the murderer....
But with the hindsight of knowing of his name being linked in recent years it takes on an altogether larger significance

It stands to reason that if Sickert signed his "work" at the MJK scene, he would have done so earlier as well. I think the police would have noticed if Sickert's signature kept popping up. They had a much better view of the crime scenes, after all, than a very grainy and unclear photo.

There are hundreds of Sickert caricatures out there, some are very intricate and some are little more than outlines.

And none of them look anything remotely like anything we see in that close-up.

What you have circled is a part of it...it is 3 faced, you've highlighted the one that's looking down at the body's knee.There is a face looking to the right which is also viewed as one looking straight out, transposing the ears and nose etc
It's a clever piece of artwork

It's pareidolia, is what it is. It isn't there, except that your mind fills in the gaps. I, for one, can only see the face I myself imagined to be there. But it wasn't drawn. Just like the face on Cydonia, it is just a piece of wall with random dark spots which the brain may perceive as renditions of faces or whatever. It is unbelievable that you can be so stubborn that you refuse to acknowledge this even as a possibility.

Yes....see above
Ignore,not spot it remembering how small it is.
Spot it but decide not to let it be known
Take your pick

Explain how any of the above is supposed to make sense.

Nope,nor would the word juwes..
Still can't believe anyone's gullible enough to believe the riot nonsense...Warren loved a good riot. Were they incapable of sealing off a doorway?? They could have sealed off Goulston Street if they'd wanted to....
Riots lol

Straw man. No one has ever suggested that the word "Juwes" would cause rioting of any sort. But "Juwes" was not the only word written. It was part of a message about the "Juwes", and anti-semitic tensions were already high - they didn't need yet another potential spark to set things off.

They are pretty.I'll leave you to your butterfly wings and X files but they have no bearing on jtr and do not interest me in the slightest

Indeed they have no bearing on Jack the Ripper, Sickert, Mary Jean Kelly or anything at all. But neither do the supposed scribblings you imagine you have found on MJK's wall.

Consider this: if you are the only one who can clearly see the signature there, but others not, then maybe you are the one seeing things which aren't there. And I know why: because you have obsessed on it. The more you try to see patterns, the clearer you are going to see them. You see a face in the patterns on a wallpaper, and focus on it, of course you are going to see a face there. Every time. It is going to be just as clear as the face on a person. The fact that it is not a face is not going to prevent you in the slightest from seeing one.

[packers stem]

That would be extremely leading, wouldn't you say? Tell you what, try not to think about pink elephants.

Not at all leading.Show a number of signatures if you wish then ask which one it most resembles

Except the signature you are comparing it to is written with pen - and a pencil signature would definitely not show on that picture. You'd barely be able to make out ink, if that.

All irrelevant. Many versions of Sickert's signature available...they all are very, very similar.
Paint, pen,pencil, charcoal probably...

Sure, I'll bite. See the attached image. I actually found evidence of the paranormal straight away, as I found Scully's signature (underlined in yellow). I don't know who Ryan is, but he was there as well (underlined in green). Kosminsky drew his self portrait there, or maybe Mary did it for him (outlined in pink).

If Kosminsky has signed it, I'll accept your version.I do however,suspect you have no evidence that it was kosminsky
Nope, can't see Scully. But I do know that some people get so entrenched in the lives of tv characters they can eventually truly believe that they did/do exist.
I'm pleased for you that you believe in the paranormal,it's odd but not unusual.

At a murder scene???

Could have been an instinct.Would hardly have been in a good state of mind at the time
Also could have been something more deliberate. Anyhow at the time, it could never have been used as evidence anyway could it, even if it was spotted.It wouldn't have been possible to prove it was written at the time by the murderer....
But with the hindsight of knowing of his name being linked in recent years it takes on an altogether larger significance

Would it be the one that I outlined in pink? Because it really, really, really doesn't look like any of the actual caricatures that he actually signed.

There are hundreds of Sickert caricatures out there, some are very intricate and some are little more than outlines.
What you have circled is a part of it...it is 3 faced, you've highlighted the one that's looking down at the body's knee.There is a face looking to the right which is also viewed as one looking straight out, transposing the ears and nose etc
It's a clever piece of artwork

So they'd ignore a name because they didn't know it...?

Yes....see above
Ignore,not spot it remembering how small it is.
Spot it but decide not to let it be known
Take your pick

Because Sickert's signature would have led to riots in the street...?

Nope,nor would the word juwes..
Still can't believe anyone's gullible enough to believe the riot nonsense...Warren loved a good riot. Were they incapable of sealing off a doorway?? They could have sealed off Goulston Street if they'd wanted to....
Riots lol

You see it... that does not mean it's there. Look, I even found Sickert's signature in nature, on butterfly wings (attachment #2). His work, you think?

They are pretty.I'll leave you to your butterfly wings and X files but they have no bearing on jtr and do not interest me in the slightest

[MysterySinger]

I still believe there is writing in the picture. Some is on the wall and door, whereas some is the result of carry through from other documents (as if the photo was behind when someone wrote a note). The latter is due to the size of the writing, the fact that it appears white as an impression and its positioning on the wall, for example. The writing top left as you view looks particularly interesting.

If there is writing on the wall, still hard to decipher of course, then it proves nothing because any occupant or visitor to the room could have done it over a long period of time. What can you see in this view in which I've tried to pick out certain words?

[Karl]

Oh Dear Karl
If you want to show people the signature, you have to put it next to a signature of Sickert and ask them can they see a similarity not just show the wall signature...

That would be extremely leading, wouldn't you say? Tell you what, try not to think about pink elephants.

Instead of Pen how does pencil sound?

Except the signature you are comparing it to is written with pen - and a pencil signature would definitely not show on that picture. You'd barely be able to make out ink, if that.

Find me anything that looks like Druitt on the wall and post it if you think it's nonsense.
Feel free
Kosminsky if you like

Sure, I'll bite. See the attached image. I actually found evidence of the paranormal straight away, as I found Scully's signature (underlined in yellow). I don't know who Ryan is, but he was there as well (underlined in green). Kosminsky drew his self portrait there, or maybe Mary did it for him (outlined in pink).

Sickert was an artist
Artists sign their work

At a murder scene???

and it's above a characature drawing.

Would it be the one that I outlined in pink? Because it really, really, really doesn't look like any of the actual caricatures that he actually signed.

As for the police spotting it,well if they were to be trusted anyway,Sickert was a little known artist at the time.almost certainly not known to the Bobby on the beat.

So they'd ignore a name because they didn't know it...?

May have been known to some but it was a tease...
If Warren had spotted it chances are he'd have scrubbed the wall personally.... He was renowned for it

Because Sickert's signature would have led to riots in the street...?

You don't see it....does not mean it isn't there and I'm sure one day it'll be processed in a lab to find out.....if it still exists and exists long enough for this to happen and doesn't go the same way as other files

You see it... that does not mean it's there. Look, I even found Sickert's signature in nature, on butterfly wings (attachment #2). His work, you think?

[packers stem]

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.



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.



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.


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.



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'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.

Oh Dear Karl
If you want to show people the signature, you have to put it next to a signature of Sickert and ask them can they see a similarity not just show the wall signature...
Instead of Pen how does pencil sound?
Find me anything that looks like Druitt on the wall and post it if you think it's nonsense.
Feel free
Kosminsky if you like
Sickert was an artist
Artists sign their work and it's above a characature drawing.
As for the police spotting it,well if they were to be trusted anyway,Sickert was a little known artist at the time.almost certainly not known to the Bobby on the beat.
May have been known to some but it was a tease...
If Warren had spotted it chances are he'd have scrubbed the wall personally.... He was renowned for it

You don't see it....does not mean it isn't there and I'm sure one day it'll be processed in a lab to find out.....if it still exists and exists long enough for this to happen and doesn't go the same way as other files

[DJA]

The term for that is, and been used on several threads lately, pareidolia. Only worrying when the images start talking to you.

Apophenia is similar,but that's more pertinent in Pierre's threads

[Shaggyrand]

This thread reminds me of a marble bathroom at a house i lived in. Overtime I shat or showered I could see hundreds of faces and creatures in the marble walls. They were clear as day. Did I think somehow the marble walls had creatures living in them frozen in time? No...well maybe a little but not really. It's pretty easy to see something that's not really there.

The term for that is, and been used on several threads lately, pareidolia. Only worrying when the images start talking to you. Some of the earlier treads Packers started had some interesting discussion on it, not by name though, since we all experience it at times but the face you see might not be the face I see. Folks were both talking crap and seeing different things. I foud it all very interesting...
The problem with it in the Kelly photo is there are no alternate angle shots of the areas where people see things, so you can't completely say its pareidolia. Heck- maybe there is something there but not what folks are seeing... A rough spot in the wall or a crack or something of interest could be there but brains are reading it wrong and the crack becomes a signature.