MJK1 and MJK3

[Amanda Sumner]

Reading this thread it is quite appalling to see the level of hostility shown to Amanda because she is simply questioning the photograph. It smacks of the McCarthy business all over again. Amanda is showing grace under pressure.

What ever the rights or wrongs of MK3 just looking at it in the enhanced version. It does appear distinctly odd. I am fascinated by the weird fabric folds[ referred to as 'feathers' that does seem to resemble fabric rather than intestines or any internal organs.
But what do I know, being just a lay female with no medical knowledge, although I have seen pictures and film of internal organs.

I cannot think of any reason why anyone would wish to fake it [ surely a fake would have been smarter] but that does not stop the photo from looking odd.

Miss Marple

Thank you, Miss Marple.
I cannot think of a reason either, unless it was something on the lines that Simon Wood suggests, an in-joke among a group of people who then sold it on as the real deal.
Indeed, as a proper forgery one would have expected something much smarter. The right hand seems to be the most stupid mistake.
It is indeed a mystery.

Kind Regards,

Amanda

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra,

Is it possible for you to point out Nick Warren's split femur [thigh bone] in MJK3?

Many thanks.

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

Is it possible for you to point out Nick Warren's split femur [thigh bone] in MJK3?

Many thanks.

Regards,

Simon

No. I don't have anatomical training. My point was he saw something human and he is a surgeon. Certain posters are saying they have medical knowledge but can't see anything human. If Nick is wrong, and he certainly faced opposition, then can we trust anyone with medical knowledge to be able to spot anatomical landmarks? Someone who dissects human bodies would be best placed to say I think.

[Debra A]

Hi All,

Here's a thought. And it's merely a thought.

The person[s] who produced MJK3 must have had sight of MJK1.

MJK1 first became public in 1894, when André Lamoureux published "De l'Éventration au point-de-vue medico-legal." It appeared again in public in 1899, when Alexandre Lacassagne published "Vacher l'Eventreur et les Crimes Sadiques".

MJK1 next appeared in public seventy years later, in 1969, in the Police Journal.

Most importantly—

MJK3 would mean nothing to anyone who had not seen MJK1.

So, aside from the unlikely idea that MJK3 was the brainchild of some jocular French medical students, it strikes me that it may have been something of an in-joke amongst those who knew the full strength of Millers Court and were on the official MJK1 circulation list.

Regards,

Simon

Yes. I agree. If MJK3 is not real then it was a replica of MJK1 from another angle because it looks just the same. I have been saying this all along. It's Phil and Amanda who see no similarity isn't it?

[Debra A]

All right then there's no point of discussing the possibility that it was seen in 1905 since, of MJK1 and MJK3, it's the later that would be better described as a mass of flesh. Who cares, since to you it was so obviously made in the 1970s.

Have fun.

JM

Hi JM
The focus in MJK3 certainly seems to be the mass of flesh on the table. I wasn't aware of the reference you gave , so thanks for that.

[Amanda Sumner]

Hi All,

Here's a thought. And it's merely a thought.

The person[s] who produced MJK3 must have had sight of MJK1.

MJK1 first became public in 1894, when André Lamoureux published "De l'Éventration au point-de-vue medico-legal." It appeared again in public in 1899, when Alexandre Lacassagne published "Vacher l'Eventreur et les Crimes Sadiques".

MJK1 next appeared in public seventy years later, in 1969, in the Police Journal.

Most importantly—

MJK3 would mean nothing to anyone who had not seen MJK1.

So, aside from the unlikely idea that MJK3 was the brainchild of some jocular French medical students, it strikes me that it may have been something of an in-joke amongst those who knew the full strength of Millers Court and were on the official MJK1 circulation list.

Regards,

Simon

I think that is an interesting theory, and yes, one would have had to have known MJK1 to produce MJK3.

The in-joke among a certain group makes sense, or some re -enactment of some kind.
It fooled many, but as a serious forgery it seems very amateurish.
Have you any idea what the square box is...it looks a bit like an electric switch....

Amanda

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra,

MJK3 is hardly a replica of MJK1.

MJK3 simply took its physical coordinates from MJK1.

No, it's not just Phil and Amanda. There is absolutely no similarity between the two photographs.

Ask Monty to forward the PM I sent him. And please respect its privacy.

Regards,

Simon

[richardh]

Okay then,
Here's what all of us on the 'left hand' side of the fence are seeing. It's not the most accurate render and my shadowing could be better but it demonstrates the 'left hand' argument well.





And in the interest of fairness, I am now going to do the same using the right hand.
(it'll be on later - further on down the thread!)

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

MJK3 is hardly a replica of MJK1.

MJK3 simply took its physical coordinates from MJK1.

No, it's not just Phil and Amanda. There is absolutely no similarity between the two photographs.

Ask Monty to forward the PM I sent him. And please respect its privacy.

Regards,

Simon

You can't send it me? You never had any trouble contacting me when you wanted paswords for Gale!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra,

That is low and spiteful.

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

There's this one that Stephen Ryder did too.

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

That is low and spiteful.

Regards,

Simon

Yes, that's me. Utterly spiteful.

[Debra A]

#356
A camera placed at the left would only capture the part down to the first joint and that arc of ? is also obscuring part of the little finger.

[richardh]

And here's the right hand in position:





Both the left and right hand can be manipulated to fit. But I'm still on the left hand side of the fence.

[Amanda Sumner]

And here's the right hand in position:





Both the left and right hand can be manipulated to fit. But I'm still on the left hand side of the fence.

Thanks for that Richard. It was really clever.
So it could be either a right or a left hand.
We don't know.
I'm on the right hand side of the fence.

I find your work fascinating.

Amanda