| Author |
Message |
    
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 4:43 pm: | 
|
In the original MK photo does anybody know what the object located at G9 is? (G9 can be found on the photo posted on the hi res post by Stephen).
It look s like some kind of a bag with a white spot on it. It appears to be under the bed below the headboard, but does not appear to be part of the bed. It looks like something interesting, but I can't tell what.
Tim |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 468
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 12:24 am: |
|
Tim,
I don't know for sure and have wondered myself. I suspect that the white spot is a reflection of the flash on some shiny, perhaps metallic, object. The rather amorphous shape might be flesh.
Andy S. |
Scott Suttar
Police Constable
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 4
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 7:51 am: |
|
It seems to me the first question to answer here is whether a flash was actually used to take this photograph. If it was then the shape of the shiny object could bear no resemblance to the actual object. If it was not it seems very Butterfly shaped. I also think we can see what might be a strap going diagonally up to the left from the Butterfly shaped object.
My first impression of the object overall is that it might be a bag but i am not certain. The continuation of this object or others toward the wall behind the headboard make it hard to determine.
Do we know if a flash was used?
Scotty.
|
Scott Suttar
Police Constable
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 5
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 8:32 am: |
|
I believe that there are in fact in existence two prints of the wide angle MJK photo. I have a copy of the first one here and I believe it is the second one which Stephen has enlarged. In the first one the butterfly shaped spot does not appear at all. As such it must be some foreign object on that print, it was definately not there at the time of the photo. The object is still there of course. Strangely in the first print it looks more like a pile of cloth rather than a bag.
Here is a copy of the area in question on the first print:
(Message edited by Scotty on May 16, 2004)
Scotty.
|
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 99
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Hi Scott,
Yeah, good point. There are two versions of the full-body photo, MJK1 and MJK2. MJK1 has a light spot by the supposed FM on the wall and has more contrast, while MJK2 (the one normally seen with the tear across it) is lighter overall and published in more books these days.
So it look like you got a copy of MJK1 from somewhere? The only copy of it I've seen is cropped. Where did you get this from?
I'm pretty sure no flash was used in the original photo, but there still might be ways to get little blobs of reflected light, especially if it's a photo of a photo (which the copy of MJK1 I've seen definitely looks like).
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Scott Suttar
Police Constable
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 9
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 7:39 am: |
|
Sorry Dan I should have specified. The best place to find a full copy of MJK1 is in Donald Rumbelow's "The Complete Jack The Ripper". Interestingly I have two copies of this book (don't ask!) and the earlier edition has the full photo where as the more recent one has been cropped but only slightly. The earlier version appears to have been a reprint, hardcover edition of July 1988.
I have always found it strange that in a case where we have so little evidence that the only true crime scene photographs we know of are always cropped to remove what are clearly considered unimportant details.
Hope this helps.
I had not considered that some "sattelites" may appear when photos are copied but of course this is a quite logical explanation. Even today when copying photos of which we have no negative it is common to place a glass sheet over the original print to flatten it.
Thanks.
Scotty.
|
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 103
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 1:25 pm: |
|
Hi Scott,
Any chance you can send me a high resolution scan of the full MJK1 image? I know it's from a book so would have halftone dots instead of continuous tones, but I could clean that up some on my end.
You can email me if you like (link on my name below).
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Lara
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 1:51 pm: |
|
I think Jack the Ripper killed Mary Kelly |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 875
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Lara,
Please be more specific, that is a obvious claim, but to take part in this sites discussions, I would respectably ask you to contribute more opinions.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 779
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Thanks Rich!!!
And for what it's worth Lara.....I dont!!!
Best!
Suzi |
John Casey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 3:32 am: |
|
Richard, with respect "I think Jack the Ripper killed Mary Kelly" sounds very specific to me.
It may be that Lara has accidently posted on this thread rather than the "was MJK a victim of JtR" thread? As a newbie here myself, I can tell you from personal experience, its not that easy till you get the hang of it to remember which thread you're on....and if Lara's opinion is that JtR killed MJK, I'm not entirely sure how she could post more opinions....although I concede she could possibly expand on her opinion to tell us WHY she thinks as she does.
Just my thr'pence worth. (Do I get a loaf of bread for that?)
John
(putting on my  and waiting for the  to fall!)
Cheers! |
