|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
David Keating
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 1:01 pm: | 
|
I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this , so I will say it anyway.My ex girlfriend Cathy used to sign off on notes ect with a capital C and a delicate little scroll , for decoration, underneath the C. It was a nice touch.One rainy afternoon when I was browsing over the high resolution Kelly photo, something abrubtly caught my eye.I was looking at the bath tub like thing under her bed which was being disscused, when just above it , on the timber frame, I saw what I thought were just a few scratch marks on the beds frame. I looked closer on the high resolution , and was in no doubt whatsoever what I was looking at.It is a 'M' with a decorative scroll underneath it, almost exactly like one of Cathy's.
Someone has clearly signatured this bed.As Mary Kelly was only renting there, I would assume she would not be aloud to deface the property.i.e. It was not her bed. With the 'M' marked on the wall as another signature, I am thinking the ripper has signed off here aswell.Can someone who has the capability help me out.Could you print out two enlarged sections of the signature and superimpose some lines on one image to proove my claim.I dont have the technical knowhow to do it. You wont be dissapointed.
thanks, David |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1882
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
Hi David
I am assuming that the part you mean as being an "M with a decorative scroll" is this:
If you look at this in the sepia version of the photo and not a greyscale version, the mark you refer to is stark white, whilst all parts of the image itelf are shades of the brown-orange tones of the photo. The only other part of the sepia image which is this white is the tear which runs down across the top left. The similarity of tone of the tear and this mark strongly suggest to me that what we are looking at are surface tears on the print rather than part of the image. Of course, this could only be verified by examining the original version.
All the best
Chris |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 766
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 2:52 pm: |
|
I had also noticed this figure, which I considered a horned-devil or a cat-like figure. I agree that it is merely some sort of blemish on the photo.
Andy S. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 595
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 4:47 am: |
|
Of the four known versions of that particular MJK photo (the standard two found in many references and the two printed in 19th century French books) the only one that mark appears on is the sepia tone version with the tear. As Chris mentioned, that tear is the only part of the photo with the same coloring. This means what we are seeing is something unique to that version of the photo and that it was not present on the actual bed frame in 1888.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Hi Chris and David,
I have done the superficial outlining on my computer and was very surprised.Has anyone mentioned this before? The scroll is very interesting, as I have seen people do it before on signatures as a bit of showboating, to be fancy.I am very sure it is a capital M with the scroll beneath it.The trouble I am having is whether it is chiseled onto the crosssection of the bed, or someone has used a needle to scratch on the actual photo surface. Either way it is some sort of signature. It would be interesting to get to the bottom of the matter.
Thankyou, Stuart |
DK
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Thanks Chris,
I did look at a version where I could plainly see the tear running down top left.From the angle I saw the marks, it genuinely looks to me as if someone has hastely cut it into the frame with a screw driver , or something similar.It does not look like a tear to me. The only other thing I am thinking is it was delicately scratched on to the photo.But it still looks suspiciously like it was put plump in the middle of the bed frame? I am wondering if tests could proove whether the marks are superficial or indeed on the beds framework? |
MX
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 7:17 am: |
|
Hello Dan, Andrew or Chris,
On the second high resolution Kelly photo, the one released in 1988 anominously, I am seeing ghostly images. Before you call me a nutter, has anyone ever claimed to see these images which I am seeing. If not , then I will try to pinpoint them out for scrutinisation.
Thank - MX |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 598
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Hi Stuart,
I realize you wrote that before my reply and that it only shows up later because you are unregistered, but, yes, people have talked about the mark on that photo before. One of two threads I remember discussing it on is this one:
../4921/5588.html"mailto:dannorder@aol.com">Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1887
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 2:28 pm: |
|
Hi all
I followed Stuart's example and as near as I could outlined the white areas. I'm afraid i cannot see an M or a fancy scroll or anything but a series of random images.
Chris
 |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 769
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
...and it was written there by the Rev. Eustace Blackerby, right? 
Andy S.
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 496
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Naturally no way to be sure lacking the original, but it sure looks to me like a scuffing and tearing of the emulsion level on the print. Happens a lot.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 11:51 pm: |
|
Hi Chris Scott,
I am assuming that the instrument used to make this mark was a non precision tool like a chisel, or as DK said, a screwdriver. The mark would thus certainly no be fluid as a pen on a paper, so a little latitude might be given
Thanks, Stuart |
DK
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
HI,
I have seen the post in General Discussion on Rev Blackerby. This persons intention was to deliberately mislead. I have not done this. If it can be certified that the mark is a tear , than I concede.But I do not withdraw the fact that it looks like a signature, with or without the overlines. Thanks - DK |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 607
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 11:26 pm: |
|
Stuart, DK...
Both of you missed that we've already proven the mark was not on the bed frame. Let me try this again.
That mark is something on the photo itself and not something that was in the room in 1888. How do we know this? Because there are three other versions of the photo of that pose and none of the rest of them have that mark. In fact if you click on the link I provided above and scroll down you will find that same section of one of the other versions of the photo (the common grayscale one) and be able to see that the mark is not on it.
Unless you assume that the photographer took more than one photo from the exact same spot and that someone put that mark on the bed frame between shots (which makes no sense) then we know that mark was not actually there at the time the photo was taken.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 10:12 pm: |
|
Hello everyone!
I have a question. If in fact someone purposely marked the photo, why would they do it? Not only that, but when? If the marks were actually made on purpose, it would be interesting to have these questions answered!
Sandy |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 628
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 12:47 am: |
|
Hi Sandy,
It doesn't look to me like a purposeful mark but some sort of blemish or tear, as Andy and Don mention above.
In fact, I have a book with a photo of that photo that shows it looking slightly different. So I would say either it's:
A) Some minor damage to the photo that sticks out three dimensionally and shows up differently under different lighting conditions are camera angles.
or
B) The image the closeup above comes from was taken after slightly more damage had been done to the original photo.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
