MJK2/MJK3 Hand comparison

[Phil Carter]

God help me...I see a thumbnail. I'm going to lie down for a little while and rest me eyeballs....

Hello Brenda... don't worry.. it will be photoshopped out soon enough. :-)

PS... go into this casebook site... go look at the photos section... go click on MJK... and then the MJK3 photo... then enlarge it....you'll need a laugh when you see that!

Phil

[Brenda]

.

God help me...I see a thumbnail. I'm going to lie down for a little while and rest me eyeballs....

[richardh]

I'm on to it Debra, with a new improved hand model.

This roughly demonstrates what I mean.
I've softened the scratch or bloodstain that I believe is causing the illusion of a thumb web .I also lightened some of the shadow between the two fingers.

On the second picture I drew in a purple line as I think this the top of an object (sheeting?) that is between the hand and camera, obscuring the bottom of the curled under left finger a little.

[Debra A]

This roughly demonstrates what I mean.
I've softened the scratch or bloodstain that I believe is causing the illusion of a thumb web .I also lightened some of the shadow between the two fingers.

On the second picture I drew in a purple line as I think this the top of an object (sheeting?) that is between the hand and camera, obscuring the bottom of the curled under left finger a little.

[Debra A]

Eh, Wot? Bloodstain incorporated where? in my hand model or the original MJK3? I didn't put any bloodstain on my hand model. It's just the way my hand sort of 'creased' when I positioned it. Admittedly I think my hand (the model's not mine!) needs to be remodelled to better fit the size and thickness of MJK's.

Am i getting the wrong end of the stick here? Sorry.

To explain-I think you have gone too far up into the hand with the gap (perhaps thinking the bloodstain was part of the divide between the two fingers?) I think Observer is correct and the divide begins between the two fingers at the black triangle. In order to show it as a thumb the divide has been taken too far up (as it would need to be to be a thumb). If you brought it down it would illustrate more how un-thumblike it really is. I think that's why the little finger looks too long in your model too.

I'm not very good at explaining it, maybe someone else who understands what I'm saying can describe it better. I haven't paintshop on this computer to illustrate what i mean either.

[richardh]

Eh, Wot? Bloodstain incorporated where? in my hand model or the original MJK3? I didn't put any bloodstain on my hand model. It's just the way my hand sort of 'creased' when I positioned it. Admittedly I think my hand (the model's not mine!) needs to be remodelled to better fit the size and thickness of MJK's.

Am i getting the wrong end of the stick here? Sorry.

Definitely.
I'd like to see how it looks without the bloodstain incorporated as part of the structure. Any chance, Richard?

[Debra A]

It is a bloodstain. The gap between the little finger, and third finger begins where the black triangular shape is situated.

Definitely.
I'd like to see how it looks without the bloodstain incorporated as part of the structure. Any chance, Richard?

[Debra A]

My opinion:

I am firmly of the opinion that we are seeing a left hand in MJK3 and when I created this 3D setup (below) I came to the conclusion that, IF MJK3 is a mock-up (or fake) of the MJK crime scene, then whoever was responsible got the left hand pretty much spot on in terms of positioning. The dots match up in both images.

2) The hand showing in MJK3 is the LEFT hand.

Exactly, Richard. It would have had to have been a 'mock-up' based exactly on MJK1 if not real. The photographer accidentally getting his hand in shot or a deliberate 'prank' where a right hand was used because the faker didn't know left from right or deliberately used a right hand as some sort of message don't really add up.

[GUT]

G'day Jon

I appreciate what you say GUT, but the "Anything is possible" file is fit to burst already.....

The Fringe element tend to promote whatever is possible, while the more conventional members prefer to look for what is likely.

Yes I agree that the "Anything is possible file" is full, but evidence is also pretty scarce.

However what I was addressing was

You think the picture was not taken by a professional photographer?

(..get your hand out'a the picture Watkins before the damn flash......Aw-$hit! )

Which seems to imply that no professional photographer could ever include an assistant's arm in the shot, if misunderstood you I'm sorry.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil.

Fact is unattainable, on this particular issue our sights need to be set somewhere below 'fact' but above 'possible'.

Hello Jon,

Agreed- which is why I personally have gone for (withnn specific fields please note) an expert view from 5 unnattached people to do exactly that.

We all get frustrated by running after our own tails here. Circular discussion with little give from entrenched views. Even the hand position. Richardh is doing his level best to be fair I admit though- fair do's.

Phil

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

Likeleyhood isnt fact and its degree of veracity is based on individual opinion.

Hi Phil.

Fact is unattainable, on this particular issue our sights need to be set somewhere below 'fact' but above 'possible'.

[Phil Carter]

I appreciate what you say GUT, but the "Anything is possible" file is fit to burst already.....

The Fringe element tend to promote whatever is possible, while the more conventional members prefer to look for what is likely.

Hello Jon,

Likeleyhood isnt fact and its degree of veracity is based on individual opinion.

at least this percieved fringe element has shown what he is trying to do about His doubts. (see previous post)

Phil

[Wickerman]

G'day Jon

Don't rule it out, I've seen pros do sillier things, ....

I appreciate what you say GUT, but the "Anything is possible" file is fit to burst already.....

The Fringe element tend to promote whatever is possible, while the more conventional members prefer to look for what is likely.

[Phil Carter]

Daisyhall1,

Good point- but thanks to GUT's excellent answers about the height and weight of known camera7 and tripods- we have to consider...
a- was the camera on a 1ft high forshortened tripod (questions height of camera over side of bed plus this is unknown and no evidence to suggest it)
b- was the camera placed on something (ditto above)
c- was the camera hand held (note weight and also angle of person taking it- also ditto above)
d- was photographer standing/bent standing/crouching in pool of blood (he wouldnt have and ditto above
e- was there an assistant present (ditto above)
f- was it the photographer's own right hand at bottom of photo steadying himself if bent/crouching whilst camera rested on something(ditto above)
Too many unknowms.
Plus it all comes down to opinion of the viewer of the picture as to whether the image we see is infact the same person or body we know of as MJK murdered in that room or not. Which goes back to questions of authenticity or not which goes back to provenance.
Nothing is a given here. We can presume and assume and guesstimate and compare to the best of our knowledge and skill in putting a case forward for everything with this photo- but the bottom line is that without certainty of anything-for or against-on any issue connected to this- we can only come down to individual opinion.
Therefore for MY OWN satisfaction only I have sent links to all SHOWN versions of MJK1 and MJK3 from these boards from various threads to three highly respected full time professional photographIc experts (one in England- one in USA and one in Australia) via lengthy emails respectfully asking them their views of said photograph and the problems attached- in NEUTRAL tone. I have also done the same with a computer photograph imagery expert in a world leading company in the USA whom I have known for over 30 years for evaluation of all MJK photos presented on these links-to determine their technical status and contacted a provenance issue expert explaining the problem as well.


Phil

[Daisyhall1]

You think the picture was not taken by a professional photographer?

(..get your hand out'a the picture Watkins before the damn flash......Aw-$hit! )

Well without getting into the question of fake or not,I would consider it possible for more than one person to be involved.the hand(s) seem to be holding things in position.Assuming someone is stood up actually taking the photo,would the hand on screen not belong to someone else?