My attempt to decipher the MJK in situ photograph

[EmaEm]

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

[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.

[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

[packers stem]

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

Hi EmaEm
I must be missing something.
I think everyone does know that there's a bath under the bed,yes...

[Rosella]

^ Well, it was a tin bath. Whether Mary used it for washing herself, bathing or washing her clothing or all three, who knows!

[DJA]

Hi EmaEm
I must be missing something.
I think everyone does know that there's a bath under the bed,yes...

Let me guess your favourite Snow Cone flavour...... Yellow!

[jerryd]

^ Well, it was a tin bath. Whether Mary used it for washing herself, bathing or washing her clothing or all three, who knows!

I tend to think the tin wash tub had a different purpose. It supported the frame of the rickety bed.

[Shaggyrand]

I tend to think the tin wash tub had a different purpose. It supported the frame of the rickety bed.

It does look like it's resting on the tub but that doesn't count it out for other uses. I mean that mattress and pallet wouldn't be difficult to move. MULTI-USE TIN TUBS!
Really, they are still lifesavers in today's wacky society.

[packers stem]

Let me guess your favourite Snow Cone flavour...... Yellow!

Well,I really am lost now

[Karl]

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.

No, how so? They would still be able to see if it was a signature or not.

Besides, who are these "Joe Public" persons you refer to? The only one in this thread who identifies a signature here is you. If these are people you have personally shown the images to, then I am afraid I do not trust the testimonies. First of all, I have only heard it from you, not from them. Second, you have already displayed a willingness to lead the witness, so I cannot trust them. And thirdly, there are enough Joe Publics in here who cannot see the signature, which leaves a very strong case for pareidolia indeed.

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

The only copies I have access to are the ones I find online. Even the ones with the best resolution, however, I cannot see signatures. And they should not be cleaned up: If there really is writing on the wall, parts of the writing itself might be cleaned away, leaving a misleading image. Perhaps even writing which is not there, but which the photoshop artist feels ought to be there, and will be there with sufficient cleaning.

Do you accept that the abilty of a person to interpret either a signature or a sketch is dependent upon the person asked??

Of course. But do you also accept that all people are subjective, and have the ability to be led?

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

I completely disagree. Like I said, if that is a signature, then it is a signature containing low letters. Sickert's signature contains no low letters.

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

My point is that you are the only one who seems to think they are very, very similar. I do not think there is any similarity whatsoever.

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

Now, that's not true. Pretending I can see the signature, I can see it clear as day. Doesn't mean the signature is actually there, but having identified a pattern, the brain does see it.

whereas ,what i see has been visible to many friends of mine including 2 people for whom art is their living.

Why would being an artist make them more convincing? If anything, artists are better able to tap into their imagination than most. And if I were to ask these friends of yours exactly what their answers were, how convinced would they be? Was it, "Yes! My god, you're right!", or did they only see it after you imprinted Sickert's signature on their mind? "I suppose now that I see them side by side, it's possible I guess."

And again, you haven't had much luck convincing anybody here, have you? So it's still hear-say, and it's still pareidolia - even if all your friends are as convinced as you are.

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.

That is not relevant. If it's there, it's there. If it isn't there, it isn't there. When you start out with the premise that Sickert is a viable suspect, your mind is automatically going to identify all sorts of patterns reinforcing your theory, whether those patterns are real or imagined. That's confirmation bias.

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.

I do not suspect anyone named Scully, where did you get that idea? I merely said I could "identify" letters that might be read as "Scully". Anyway, whether someone is on the suspect list or not shouldn't influence your mind at all. If you see someone's signature because you're looking for that person, well that just proves that you're biased. It would not prove that you were right, however.

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

Or - most likely answer - it's just pareidolia. There is no writing on the wall; one has simply looked at them for so long that one starts to see things that aren't there.

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

You did not address what I said. But what you say here begs the question: why sign his name on just one murder scene?

The question still stands, though: why did no one who investigated the crime scene take note of someone's signature on the wall? It would have been much plainer to them than any photo could render it.

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

That is a reflection of the grainy quality of the photographs, nothing more.

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.

Why should I accept your word that something is as clear as day when I do not see it at all, and neither does anyone else on this thread? If a group of scientists conduct a measurment and four of them make the measurments 38, 42, 41, 39... and the fifth measures the same thing at 172... whose eyes should we trust more? Scientist #5 is adamant that his eyes did not deceive him, but so are the others. It is therefore reasonable to assume that scientist #5 is in error, despite his best intentions. Perhaps there's something wrong with his ruler.

In this case, where we don't even have a ruler by which to judge, pareidolia is the most reasonable explanation. Hey, you could be right, but not because of your arguments. If you're right about this, it would be a pretty major coincidence. If Sickert really did sign his name on the wall, it is just as likely to be any of the other unintelligible blots in the photo.

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

Even with the original print, you would not be able to prove anything. They would have needed better equipment in order to capture such fine details at that range.

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.

I think the explanation given was perfectly reasonable. Such considerations are still given today, when they eg. write "Asian" instead of "Pakistani" because they do not need to fuel racist sentiments even more. Anti-semitism was as rife back then as anti-Islamism is today. Besides, what other reason would they have?

At any rate, there's nothing really to tie the graffiti to JtR. I don't think it's related to the murderer at all.

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

The thing is, different people see different things. I still see the face I described (the cartoon professor), clear as day - I saw that immediately and I still see it as if it were an actual cartoon drawing (but I never entertained the notion that it was drawn there deliberately). But you didn't; you saw something else. And I strongly suspect that if your friends see what you see, it is because you made them see it. Not by force, but perhaps by force of conviction. I still don't see it, however, and neither do any of the people I have shown it to, at home or at work. And I never tried to sway them against seeing anything. If anything, I swayed them slightly in your favour: "Do you see a signature in this picture?" This immediately gave them something to look for, but no luck.

[GUT]

Let me guess your favourite Snow Cone flavour...... Yellow!

Well,I really am lost now

Well rules him out as an Aussie anyway.

[c.d.]

Well,I really am lost now

That would appear to be a reference to yellow snow which gets it color from people...uh...you know.

c.d.

[Henry Flower]

Hello folks,

The movie Blow Up has some relevance here.

To me it boils down to this:

You're not looking at the wall, you're looking at an enlargement, of a reproduction of a reproduction of a reproduction (etc), of a tatty, faded, small, low quality monochrome photograph of a room, a room in which there was probably dirt, probably cast-off blood spatter, possibly some mold, but you're convinced you see in those indistinct, reproduced, enlarged, monochrome marks some sketches by the most important British artist of his generation, and his signature.

And you're not deterred by the fact that none of this was ever reported, ever recorded by a single copper or detective or official, you claim that the explanation is that he wasn't so well known so they just let it go. Or else you claim that because the GSG was erased they would've kept this hidden too (despite photographing it). You're not deterred by the fact that this would likely have been suicide were it really there, or by the fact that no such artifacts exist in connection to any other murder. He could have signed or initialled the GSG but he didn't. There he was with his chalk and his shitty bloody strip of cloth, but not a single caricature on the wall....

Ask yourself what are the odds: it was never mentioned by those on the scene, police or civilian, you're the first to notice it after all this time on a low quality monochrome reproduction, Sickert was never investigated, arrested, or questioned about it, it's a proven fact that the human mind looks for known shapes or patterns in visual noise, no-one else here sees it, and yet no alarm bells are telling you you're likely fooling yourself?

[Henry Flower]

Can anyone help? People always reference MJK's intact eyes, and here we've had a discussion of her lips.

Does anyone have a blow-up of the alleged facial region on which they could mark where they think these features are located?

Because frankly, I'm bleeped if I can see anything recognisable there. The rest of the body is decipherable with a bit of work, but the face... it just looks like someone emptied a tin of dogfood onto a pillow and put a wig on it.

Is there anything that could be done to lobby for a state of the art new pristine scan to be made of the original?

[Rosella]

I don't have the technical skill to help with your request I'm afraid, but I certainly agree with you. I've looked at Mary's poor face many times over the decades I've been interested in the Whitechapel killings and it doesn't resemble anything human at all.