Mary kelly photo enhancement...

[Monty]

Two photos were taken at the scene.

Bond refers to one at the inquest. Macnaghten, as we know, the other.

Therefore more than one photo was taken that day at that spot and if two were taken why not more?

You are hinting at fraud Phil, and as Rob says you have nothing to support that theory. Whoever forged, if it is forged, MJK3 they did so prior to 1988, and knew about Bonds report and studied it intensely. The photo reproduces Bonds description.

Now the knowledge of who had the report, and photos, is not assured however the concensus is all agreed upon. All returned from the same postal address.

If you state MJK3 is forged, then you must also be questioning MJK sepia as well as the Brown report. You must also ask why?

The bottom line Phil is this. You are citing, as evidence, one line in reference to one specific photo (of Kelly full on her bed) as support that the MJK3 photo is forged. That's mere conjecture and not evidence.

Its time such stupidity is halted, as we have already lost valuable contributors to the field due to such poor reasoning and cancerous accusations.

We will lose more.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

I must have missed those against arguments. Probably because the people who gave them are of no importance to me. Still it's very easy for people to say they are fake without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Those people are a waste of space they don't contribute anything and just try and stir trouble. I guess they don't care about there reputation.

And I hope you are not accusing me of having a pop at you.

Rob

Hello Rob,

if those who support the non-veracty of the Kelly photo sent in from dear old Croydon are 'a waste of space' and of 'no importance' to you- then, for you, so be it. Others can think what they will of such wording as they are entitled to do.


Kindly

Phil

PS apologies for off topic response. Back to the thread.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

Thank you for your response,
A question,

Just HOW exactly are you going to stop these commentators and their 'cancerous' accusations?


Kindly

Phil

[Monty]

Is that a threat Phil?

I'm....I'm begining to feel intimidated.

Stick to the topic in hand fella, else the Head won't be happy.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Phil,
Lets see, you've brought into question one of Catherine Eddowes photos without knowing a single thing about it's history. You've brought into question one of Fosters drawings of Mitre Square, going so far as to say the date said '50 September 1888' (which is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard) and now your bringing into question the MJK 3 photo.
You have got no evidence whatsoever. You have not seen or examined any of the originals. I have. What right have you got to bring these objects into question without the slightest piece of evidence. People like you dragging this case back into the dark ages.

You really haven't got a clue have you.

Oh, and this is not a pop at you in case you want to run to admin again.

Without respect

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

Indeed, back to the thread.

Kindly

Phil

[DVV]

Who was murdered on September 50 ?
She can't be canonical.

[Rob Clack]

Who was murdered on September 50 ?
She can't be canonical.

No one. Somebody wants to make a name for themselves in Ripperology. Unfortunately they are not doing a very good job at it.

Rob

[DVV]

...The last murder is the only one that took place in a room, and the murderer must have beenat least 2 hours engaged. A PHOTO WAS TAKEN OF THE WOMAN, AS SHE WAS FOUND LYING ON THE BED, without seeing which it is impossible to imagine the awful mutilation.
(my emphasis in Caps)
Phil

Hi Phil,

and you think this is an evidence that ONE photo only was taken ? Macnaghten refers to that pic because it's the most horrible. Actually, his aim is not to inform the reader that one, two or forty pics were taken. He mentions this pic in order to express how dreadful was this crime scene.

That cannot escape you, I'm sure.

[John Casey]

You see, on a thread entitled "Mary kelly photo enhancement..." for some reason I thought we might be discussing the Mary Kelly Photo Enhancement, not having silly arguments about things which are (at best) tenuously connected to Mary Kelly, and the photo enhancement presented to us at the beginning of the thread. My bad, obviously.




For what it's worth, I think it's a pretty good job.

[Monty]

John,

What you deem as a 'silly arguement' is actually about a subject I care about.

It may not mean much to you but as I, and others, have put in a lot of blood, sweat and tears, along with a fair bit of money, into finding new information and verifying work, the blatant dismissing of information based on nothing more than mere whim is insulting and more importantly destructive.

However, as you say, silly arguement, means nothing.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

and you think this is an evidence that ONE photo only was taken ? Macnaghten refers to that pic because it's the most horrible. Actually, his aim is not to inform the reader that one, two or forty pics were taken. He mentions this pic in order to express how dreadful was this crime scene.

That cannot escape you, I'm sure.

Hello David,

You make a reasonable very interpretation indeed. However I read that MLM is referring to the horrible sight through A photo only, when if his knowledge of material was as we reason, detailed, the sentence could easily have read '.photos' as the othe side of the bed photo is equally pertinant to his point of how awful the scene was.

There is also the possibility that MLM only saw ONE photo. We do not know with certainty for he makes no other comment upon the subject.

Hope you are well David!

Kindly

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

For my part I think it's a cracking enhancement, which really helps one distinguish "what's what" on the original, (which latter I find a little difficult to make out).

Many thanks Aberlime!

All the best
Dave

[DanaeChantel]

I also fell silent when I saw this. It really makes you see how horrific this was. It also makes you see the poverty she lived in. The squalid little dingy room. This poor woman suffured a death I cannot even begin to imagine.

[RavenDarkendale]

I find one thing absolutely fascinating about this picture. This is an enhanced photo extrapolating only what is actually there, and I will take Aberlime's word that it has not be edited. People who espouse the "Maybrick Diary Theory" make much of black and white photos of the MJK murder, and point out the letters "FM" on the wall. I have to say that I can indeed see them, and I didn't have to go inch by inch to see them.

Now, here's the rub. Aberlime shows both his enhanced image and the sepia print it was taken from. There is no "FM" in either picture. One would expect the enhanced picture to bring out the initials, however faint. It isn't there. Interesting...