MJK1 and MJK3

[Amanda Sumner]

I have suggested to you and the others that doubt its authenticity, if you or the others can't be bothered then fine. But you lot shouldn't go around saying it's not right, it's fake without some evidence for it.

Rob

Hello Rob,
Well, I do not doubt my eyes, something is not right with it.
It's not a question of not bothering. I bothered very much, hence I started this thread.
You have very kindly provided more information but it still has a lack of provenance beyond the 1970's.

We can't escape from that fact.

When I started my thread I was pretty convinced that we were not looking at MJK, I was also doubtful that it was a body but I was quite happy to be persuaded otherwise. If someone had shown me conclusive proof that MJK3 was genuine and discussed why I was not seeing any human anatomy in that shape of a human figure, then I would gladly have backed down.

I am, now, intrigued by Simon's statement, which I was not expecting, but if he has a convincing tale to tell, then it all becomes a rather moot point whether we see a thumb or finger. Don't you agree?

Amanda

[Observer]

Hey Simon. Why the large gaff involving the left hand? After all the trouble they went to setting up this alleged hoax, do you not think it very negligent of them to mess up the appearance of the left hand?

[Amanda Sumner]

Hey Simon. Why the large gaff involving the left hand? After all the trouble they went to setting up this alleged hoax, do you not think it very negligent of them to mess up the appearance of the left hand?

Hello Observer,
You were asking Simon but I am perplexed by this too. It seems to be a rather foolish thing to do when one considers the elaborate lengths gone into to mock up the scene.
I do wonder if Millen genuinely believed the photo was genuine. I rather think he did, and it was sent by the family with other photos to Scotland Yard, and the rest is history.
I wonder where he got it from?

[Rob Clack]

Hello Rob,
Well, I do not doubt my eyes, something is not right with it.
It's not a question of not bothering. I bothered very much, hence I started this thread.
You have very kindly provided more information but it still has a lack of provenance beyond the 1970's.

We can't escape from that fact.

When I started my thread I was pretty convinced that we were not looking at MJK, I was also doubtful that it was a body but I was quite happy to be persuaded otherwise. If someone had shown me conclusive proof that MJK3 was genuine and discussed why I was not seeing any human anatomy in that shape of a human figure, then I would gladly have backed down.

I am, now, intrigued by Simon's statement, which I was not expecting, but if he has a convincing tale to tell, then it all becomes a rather moot point whether we see a thumb or finger. Don't you agree?

Amanda

Ask the owners that is what I am suggesting and what you and others who believe it fake to dp.

Sounds to me you are only interested in opinions that agree with your and that the photo is fake.

If someone had an issue with one of my photos. Guess what. I would expect them to ask me about it and not a lot of strangers on a message board where you won't get a definitive answer.

Rob

[Simon Wood]

Hi Observer,

MJK3 was a prank.

An intended fake, forgery, fabrication - call it what you like - would surely have paid closer attention to detail.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hello Amanda,

Someone somewhere had a hand in it....the photographer needed a helping hand!. :-)

More seriously though is the horrible thought that this photo could be in any way connected to the Maybrick Diary...in which this photograph made its first worldwide public appearance. I dont like that thought at all. Because somebody had enough clout to convnce the owners at the time that it should be lent out pictured in situ in the album to make its public debut in that book. The owners being... Scotland Yard, no? Or was the album at that time still owned (as the empty album is today) by the Black Museum?

Phil

[richardh]

Is this provable Simon? I mean, if we can be suspicious of the authenticity of this photo then we can also be suspicious of its fakery! Were there other fakes created at the same time? will it be possible to substantiate they are spoofs or do we have to take it on trust?

I assume that your dissertation will be removed from the site now or at least updated with a caveat?

To me, that hand is still a left.

Will we ever know for sure?

Hi Observer,

MJK3 was a prank.

An intended fake, forgery, fabrication - call it what you like - would surely have paid closer attention to detail.

Regards,

Simon

[Amanda Sumner]

Ask the owners that is what I am suggesting and what you and others who believe it fake to dp.

Sounds to me you are only interested in opinions that agree with your and that the photo is fake.

If someone had an issue with one of my photos. Guess what. I would expect them to ask me about it and not a lot of strangers on a message board where you won't get a definitive answer.

Rob

I think that is rather unfair, considering that no one agreed with me for the greater part of the debate and I was interested in whatever everyone had to say, including your good self. I just was not easily convinced, sorry.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Richardh,

MJK3 is a prank, a spoof; not a fake.

I'll tell you what I will do, just for you and all the other blinkered left-handers.

Later this morning I will send an email to Stephen Ryder asking him to remove my 2005 dissertation on Millers Court.

Happy now?

Regards,

Simon

[MrBarnett]

Rob,

Are the owners unequivocally stating that it is a genuine image of the MJK murder scene? I don't just mean that that is how they have it labelled but do they claim they have researched it and believe it to be genuine?

MrB

[Debra A]

I think not. They stuck a right thumb(with the thumbnail removed) where there should have been a left pinky.

But I don't see a right thumb minus a nail. I see a left pinkie.

[richardh]

"blinkered left-handers." I assume you are including yourself in that, seeing as you must have also fell for the fake originally? Or did you?

And no, not happy really, and why the affront? We ask perfectly valid questions in a friendly tone. No need for the attitude mate. And you can call it what you like but if it proves to be a 'spoof' then we are free to also call it a fake.

Hi Richardh,

MJK3 is a prank, a spoof; not a fake.

I'll tell you what I will do, just for you and all the other blinkered left-handers.

Later this morning I will send an email to Stephen Ryder asking him to remove my 2005 dissertation on Millers Court.

Happy now?

Regards,

Simon

[jmenges]

Obviously the photo existed before the album with the other photos was put together, unless its spot in the album once had a different photo and the fake photo replaced it later. Chicken/Egg and all of that. And, either this album is unique as the only one of a few albums said to have existed to contain this "prank", or all of the albums had a print of this photo in it and no one ever said "Hey, this one photo is new to me, and I've seen all of the others. Whats going on here?"

JM

[Amanda Sumner]

"blinkered left-handers." I assume you are including yourself in that, seeing as you must have also fell for the fake originally? Or did you?

And no, not happy really, and why the affront? We ask perfectly valid questions in a friendly tone. No need for the attitude mate. And you can call it what you like but if it proves to be a 'spoof' then we are free to also call it a fake.

Yes, I have to say I don't know the difference is between " spoof, prank, forgery or fake"
They are all done to deceive, hoodwink aren't they?

[richardh]

Tell you what, if it does get confirmed as a fake it will save me a shed load of work trying to line up the room and MJK's position from MJK2 to MJK3.

I've gotta start all over a-bleedin'-gen now!

OH! and what does all this mean for the notorious 'bolster'?