MJK1 and MJK3

[Debra A]

But.... it is a little finger *













* [putting the cat firmly back amongst the pigions]

Of course it is.

[GUT]

But a little finger ......








That looks like a thumb!







* Kicking said cat across the room.

[MrBarnett]

If what we thumb seers take to be the end of the thumb is in fact a joint in a little finger, then it is a disproportionately long little finger with a swelling at the base which gives it the appearance of a thumb.

Mrb

[Amanda Sumner]

It's a thumb, in my opinion, although blown up, it looks more like a little finger, bent at the tip, BUT that does not explain the swelling at the base, as MrB has pointed out. The lack of fingernail could be explained by it having been erased out. It is most unfortunate that we cannot see all the fingers or nails to compare it with...
I think it's one of those debates that will be a case of 'Tis and 'Tisn't. Without seeing the whole hand we can never be sure.

[Debra A]

I see the little finger bent at the knuckle, the last two sections including tip would then be curled under and in deep shadow, just as they appear in MJK1 but also a tiny bit obscured by the tip of an arc of fabric that would be in the site line of the camera
There is the illusion of a thumb probably caused by not being able to see the curled under section of the finger and the blood stains on the back of the hand IMO. I think it is far too short to be whole thumb, plus it has no nail.

[Observer]

Why, oh why on earth would someone go to such huge lengths to fake this photograph, and then make the ridiculous mistake of putting a thumb, (and erase the fingernail for goodness sake) where a pinky finger should be? The suggestion is ludicrous.

[Observer]

Also, swelling at the base? There is no swelling at the base.

[Observer]

If what we thumb seers take to be the end of the thumb is in fact a joint in a little finger, then it is a disproportionately long little finger with a swelling at the base which gives it the appearance of a thumb.

Mrb

You need glasses. Drinking out of the bottle is impairing your judgement.

[MrBarnett]

I see the little finger bent at the knuckle, the last two sections including tip would then be curled under and in deep shadow, just as they appear in MJK1 but also a tiny bit obscured by the tip of an arc of fabric that would be in the site line of the camera
There is the illusion of a thumb probably caused by not being able to see the curled under section of the finger and the blood stains on the back of the hand IMO. I think it is far too short to be whole thumb, plus it has no nail.

Hi Debra,

The last two sections of my little finger are almost twice as long as the first section. So if this is a pinkie, it's full length would be almost three times what we can see. Would that not make it too long?

MrB

[Daisyhall1]

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/room-13-millers-court.html

Is a good source on this discussion.Bearing in mind the room was around 12' x 10' - I am 6 foot and 2 of me long by 10 foot is not large for a room.I originally thought the light strips on the table were a shaft of light but looking close they look like something different as the strips slightly overhang the edge of the table? The weather was poor that day and I question if shafts of light ever reached 13 Millers Court.If it is said they are shafts of light then conditions don't match.
The whole scene looks like an artistic reproduction to me.The mysterious hand at that angle- some are saying it's a little finger ( left hand)- to achieve the angle of the fingers,try out stretching your left hand- you can get the angle when your arm is more or less outstretched - which again brings me back to the size of Millers Court- lots to achieve for this picture,so little space to do it.
Amanda makes a fair point on authenticity - if this photo is analysed,dated and matches the others then fair enough- until then there is reasonable doubt without it's provenance and in court I think reasonable doubt is enough to say not proven

[MrBarnett]

Also, swelling at the base? There is no swelling at the base.

Hi Observer,

The digit, whatever it is, broadens at the base. Where the two circular marks are. My fingers do not broaden significantly from middle joint to knuckle, but my thumb does.

When I've finished the bottle, I'll take a couple of picks and post them.

MrB

[Observer]

Hi Debra,

The last two sections of my little finger are almost twice as long as the first section. So if this is a pinkie, it's full length would be almost three times what we can see. Would that not make it too long?

MrB

Really? Mine are the same length. However I am a Troll, we havn't the same body structure as you mere mortals.

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

The last two sections of my little finger are almost twice as long as the first section. So if this is a pinkie, it's full length would be almost three times what we can see. Would that not make it too long?

MrB

Hi MrBarnett

I'm assuming you can see that the little finger is definitely curled right under in MJK1? I'm not on my laptop so have no access to paintshop at the moment but perhaps if someone were to blow up both views of the hand in MJK1 and MJK3 and put them side by side for size comparison the proportions of the jointed sections on show could be compared directly.

[Amanda Sumner]

Why, oh why on earth would someone go to such huge lengths to fake this photograph, and then make the ridiculous mistake of putting a thumb, (and erase the fingernail for goodness sake) where a pinky finger should be? The suggestion is ludicrous.

I totally agree with you. The whole thing is mystifying, but then I find the whole photograph ludicrous.
Does it not strike it odd to anybody else that the main debate about this picture is about the hand? Maybe the reason for that is because it is the only thing that we recognise as human?

Just my opinion, of course....

[Amanda Sumner]

http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...ers-court.html
Is a good source on this discussion.Bearing in mind the room was around 12' x 10' - I am 6 foot and 2 of me long by 10 foot is not large for a room.I originally thought the light strips on the table were a shaft of light but looking close they look like something different as the strips slightly overhang the edge of the table? The weather was poor that day and I question if shafts of light ever reached 13 Millers Court.If it is said they are shafts of light then conditions don't match.
The whole scene looks like an artistic reproduction to me.The mysterious hand at that angle- some are saying it's a little finger ( left hand)- to achieve the angle of the fingers,try out stretching your left hand- you can get the angle when your arm is more or less outstretched - which again brings me back to the size of Millers Court- lots to achieve for this picture,so little space to do it.
Amanda makes a fair point on authenticity - if this photo is analysed,dated and matches the others then fair enough- until then there is reasonable doubt without it's provenance and in court I think reasonable doubt is enough to say not proven

Thank you Daisyhall, the whole thing is very odd, if you ask me.
I think Simon Wood is right , that the only way the photo could have been taken is with the bed right across the room. I find this rather an extreme effort for the police to just get a photo of the other side of her. Why not wait until she was moved to the mortuary?
If they had done that, I would still expect the body to look the same but on the other side. It doesn't. None of it makes sense to me.

Amanda