MJK1 and MJK3

[Debra A]

G'day Debra

As I said earlier I don't claim to be an expert either, but while the detective camera and similar were around they were still pretty darn rare and because of the need to develop your own plates remained largely in the hands of professionals [which doesn't impact on the possibility of a fake].

I also have to say I don't really understand how hand held or "traditional" [if I can use that word] camera makes any difference to the genuineness or otherwise of MJK3, whilst most photographerd has an assistant a photographer could easily [comparatively speaking] get by without one if necessary even the the field. If it was a fake we also don't know that it wasn't shot in a studio.

I don't know the dimensions of the original MJK 3 or 1 for that matter so it's really hard to say, as I said earlier enlargements were all so very rare usually contact prints were made.

Thanks GUT. The police used a professional photographer to take the pictures according the the excellent research of Robert Mclaughlin, although the photographer's touch up techniques probably leave a lot to be desired in the case of MJK3.
One of the arguments about authenticity, raised earlier I believe, was the size of MJK3? I was just wondering if you'd heard of the quarter plate pictures produced on detective cameras and whether you knew any more about them.

[Debra A]

Why do you keep going on about the injuries these are not in dispute are they. In my post I highlighted certain possible flaws with the photo which you seem to want to ignore. I hope you are not cherry picking again

You mean your observation that the table isn't a table with flesh piled up on the end furthest from the door and visible in MJK1 too, but a bed?

It's a table.

I am not going on about the injuries. I am asking your thoughts on Nick Warren identifying MJK3 as depicting a human left thigh when other posters with anatomical knowledge in the 'fake' camp can't see anything human.

[Debra A]

Thanks, Neil.

[Rob Clack]

I am sure that isn't the case

As there is no provenance you pays you money and you takes you choice, and the arguments will go on and on

There is satisfactory provenance to those who have looked and asked the right questions to the right people


Rob

[Monty]

No worries Debs and GUT,

Incidently, this camera was used at the Houndsditch Murders crime scene.

Monty

[GUT]

Thanks GUT. The police used a professional photographer to take the pictures according the the excellent research of Robert Mclaughlin, although the photographer's touch up techniques probably leave a lot to be desired in the case of MJK3.
One of the arguments about authenticity, raised earlier I believe, was the size of MJK3? I was just wondering if you'd heard of the quarter plate pictures produced on detective cameras and whether you knew any more about them.

G'day Debra

I am almost certain that the police in London didn't have their own photographers for some years after '88 and therefore invariably called in a pro' who I would expect to use something like what Monty posted, and remember that camera, it seems, dates from about 1901. Though I would guess that the one n Monty's photo was probably a 12x10 [or maybe 10x8].

I am aware of cameras such as you discuss but I don't know a lot about them and have never even held one let alone used one.

If the dimensions can be shown to not exceed about 4x3 [I think a quarter plate was 4.25x3.25, a half 6.5x4.25 and a full 8.5x6.5 but again working from memory so might be slightly out but those are close] I'd have no problems with a suggestion it was shot on 1/4 plate. And certainly into the 1960's a 4x3 print was common even with newer technology.

However if I was setting out to produce a fake I'd use a full plate, being confident that that is what would have been used on behalf of the police in '88.

A full plate and a quarter plate would produce the same proportions approx 1:1.3.

[GUT]

Someone suggested that MJK 3 may have been produced to be used as part of a lecture series.

The one thing I would say about this is that if so I would expect it to have been in the form of a slide.

[GUT]

No worries Debs and GUT,

Incidently, this camera was used at the Houndsditch Murders crime scene.

Monty

What a piece of history.

[GUT]

This link gives you some idea of the various plate sizes and might help understand why definite answers can be hard without originals [and even with].

And as I said before there are probably some here who know a lot more about it than me, I simply used to try and slip one lesson in on history of photography in each 13 week course.

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Plate_Sizes

[GUT]

n this photo you can see, I hope, how each leg looks not unlike a wooden crutch and it adjusts in the same way.

Unfortunately you cannot see the lowest [adjustable] part of the leg.

[Debra A]

Thanks GUT.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, but you have just highlighted the same issues we have been trying to discuss all along. This was all established at the beginning of the thread.

Well then my unbiased post should be read and digested by both sides as I said I am not on either side and the comments and observation are valid as I see them. I hoped my input would help folks to see much deeper int this photo. But it hasnt

There seems to be two bones of contention

1. Finger or thumb

2. Fake or real

The photo MJK 3 looking at it has raised issues with me which I have highlighted. As yet no one has answered those so I wait with baited breath

My input is just as valid as yours or anyone else for that matter. But what have we again another impasse like we had with the apron piece, and the organs. The hardliners who want to believe what they have been told and read and wont consider anything else.on one side and those who questions the facts being branded deluded etc etc it really is painful.

[Debra A]

Well then my unbiased post should be read and digested by both sides as I said I am not on either side and the comments and observation are valid as I see them. I hoped my input would help folks to see much deeper int this photo. But it hasnt

There seems to be two bones of contention

1. Finger or thumb

2. Fake or real

The photo MJK 3 looking at it has raised issues with me which I have highlighted. As yet no one has answered those so I wait with baited breath

My input is just as valid as yours or anyone else for that matter. But what have we again another impasse like we had with the apron piece, and the organs. The hardliners who want to believe what they have been told and read and wont consider anything else.on one side and those who questions the facts being branded deluded etc etc it really is painful.

As astute as ever, Trevor.

[Monty]

To confirm,

The Met police did not have their own camera's until the Photographic Dept was set up in 1901.

The City Police were a little later, 1939 or there abouts, and predominantly used the Mets cameras until then.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

As astute as ever, Trevor.

Thank you I try to be when people will allow me to be so

As to Nick Warren, and what he sees. He clearly had good eyes sight must have gone to specsavers, because I cant see anything resembling a specific human body part. Certainly not a split femur. Had there been such an injury Dr Bond would have noted it in his report.

I should also mention that in determining the finger or thumb in MJK 3 the deciding factor comes from Dr Bonds PM report

"The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition"

Are any of these injuries shown in MJK 3 ?