MJK1 and MJK3

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[Debra A]

Hilarious!
Not agreeing with someone and telling them why is giving them 'bad' feedback? (I suppose it is if you are adamant it isn't what you want to read) and the only person dishing out insults as far as I can see is Simon!

I wonder what anatomical features people are expecting to see? It would be interesting to know. Also, Nick Warren, a surgeon whose opinions some hold in high esteem, Phil included it seems going by past comments, believed he was looking at a split femur in an article he wrote for Ripperana. A surgeon who recognised this as being human, even if you don't agree about a split femur.
Also, how many in the medical profession see a femur stripped of its skin and muscle fascia on a regular basis? Wouldn't someone who dissects human bodies be better able to identify something?

[Amanda Sumner]

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

I was merely suggesting why someone would describe a photo of MJK as a mass of flesh in 1905. I'm hardly going to discuss the possibility of MJK3 being seen in the early 1900's when my whole thread has been about it's lack of provenance before the 1970's!. There is no proof of it's existence before then. I believe it is a fairly modern forgery made up to look older.

[miss marple]

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

[Simon Wood]

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

[jmenges]

I don't believe the photograph of MJK3 existed in 1905 or beyond. It was taken much later, in my opinion.

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

[Natasha]

The drape hanging by the table, I think is the rest of the duvet cover. Some of the table and the stuff on it is out of shot on the full length pic. But you can see a bit of the duvet on the table in the full length pic under the bed.

[Amanda Sumner]

I asked this earlier but was convienently ignored. What if a well regarded coroner saw MJK3 (maybe thanks to Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown) and briefly described it as depicting a "mass of human flesh", around 1905?

JM

Well, we only have MJK1 to visualise what it must have been like in that little room. With body parts on the table, bed and pillow, and just about everything covered in blood, it probably looked a " mass of human flesh".
I don't believe the photograph of MJK3 existed in 1905 or beyond. It was taken much later, in my opinion.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Amanda,

You wrote..

"The photo on the right shows what appears to be a drape hanging down from the table. One can just about see a pattern on the cloth, if one zooms in. In MJK1 there are no drapes hanging down covering the underneath of the table, and we can clearly see under it. I hope all can see this. It is all very strange is it not?"

In all the times I have looked at this photograph I have never seen this. I don't believe I can recall it being pointed out before either, however I could well be mis-remembering and in err here on this point. But if so, it rather proves the previous point you made and pointed out... "It's only by looking and questioning do we learn anything new."

best wishes

Phil

[Natasha]

Hi, Natasha,

That would seem a logical conclusion, except that we do have a description of the room and how the body was found, and the photo of MJK1 to compare it with.
If the photo appeared the wrong way round then the table would be on the wrong side too. The table is more or less where it should be.

Amanda

Hi Amanda

The following room description from Phillip Sugden matches my theory I think:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...erdossier.html

What do you think about Bond's report?

[Phil Carter]

I asked this earlier but was convienently ignored. What if a well regarded coroner saw MJK3 (maybe thanks to Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown) and briefly described it as depicting a "mass of human flesh", around 1905?

JM

Hello JM,

I will respond..I missed your previous comments, my apologies. A "mass of human flesh" would also refer to MJK1 would it not? After all, we are talking about the same body in question, are we not? Nothing can be based on a supposition either way, can it?

Phil