MJK2 & MJK3 Left/right & fake debate

[Robert St Devil]

Hello RichardH

I am intrigued to see a representation of mjk3 that enunciates her pinky digit appropriately altho i had never assumed that it was bent under, which i believe has more synchronization. It was the illusion of "the thumb" that had to be overcome. Excellent work.

Reviewing mjk1, i had the occurrence that, yes, her poor body was transformed into a gory mess however she is not a bloody mess. IOW its not the extensive bloodbath one might expect once the details of her injuries are explained. I was taking this into consideration when "the chevron" was pointed out. Is it naiive to assume that the cuts would have bled out onto her hand (like Stride's, possibly)? It made me consider the purpose of this action, and whether it could have been part of the killer's MO. My best resolution so far: Jack the Ripper bled out her body, and we could claim this possibly by the report of the pool of blood found near the far side of the bed. Could the cuts be a manner of testing her, to see if he can proceed with his ritual? If the incisions run with blood, then he knows she's not quite ready for the pursuant mutilations. Again, her face was transformed into a gory mess, but part of the eeriness is how unbloody it is. As tho he cut away bloodless slabs of flesh, and allowed her to retain that haunting unmarked smile.

[Elamarna]

Well, that's a shame - that it's never been seen - because it could make all the difference to the arm-chair investigation AND my attempts to 3D things.

maybe one day...

Richard, it was mentioned in passing in a thread talking about the photos, but I can't remember which thread or when, just remember it and thinking the same.

Steve

[richardh]

Well, that's a shame - that it's never been seen - because it could make all the difference to the arm-chair investigation AND my attempts to 3D things.

maybe one day...

Agreed.Y
ou have done very informative work, it is a pity there is no common point of reference in either of the photos; of course Stewart Evans I think it is says he has seen a 3rd photo which as never been made public, if I am wrong about that am sorry, know it was one of the very senior posters.

Steve

[Elamarna]

I doubt this will make him change his mind Although it is hard to justify a fake if the hand position & location in the one photo EXACTLY fits the hand position & location in the other.

Agreed.Y
ou have done very informative work, it is a pity there is no common point of reference in either of the photos; of course Stewart Evans I think it is says he has seen a 3rd photo which as never been made public, if I am wrong about that am sorry, know it was one of the very senior posters.

Steve

[richardh]

I doubt this will make him change his mind Although it is hard to justify a fake if the hand position & location in the one photo EXACTLY fits the hand position & location in the other.

Great work, if it is a fake it is a good one! I know Simon Wood now insists it is.

steve

[Elamarna]

No Steve, and I don't think it would be possible to find out using this method. There's nothing in the surrounding environment on either photo that could be used as a reference point between the two photos.
Although I remember doing something similar to this a while back and finding that the table in MJK2/3 is certainly not in the same location/position in relation to the bed.

IF the table and the bed were the same position/location in relation to each other in both photos then, like the left hand, they would match up when I swung the camera around from mjk2 to mjk3. They don't, so I guess we can say that the table & bed, as well as being moved within the room, were also moved in relation to each other between shots.

I'd love to do further work with this but I'm not sure if we will accomplish much.

Thank you Richard, I just wondered.
It seems obvious that there must have been some movement of table, given it was knocked on entering.
similarly it seems obvious that the bed must have been moved to allow MJK3 to be taken.

Great work, if it is a fake it is a good one! I know Simon Wood now insists it is.

steve

[richardh]

No Steve, and I don't think it would be possible to find out using this method. There's nothing in the surrounding environment on either photo that could be used as a reference point between the two photos.
Although I remember doing something similar to this a while back and finding that the table in MJK2/3 is certainly not in the same location/position in relation to the bed.

IF the table and the bed were the same position/location in relation to each other in both photos then, like the left hand, they would match up when I swung the camera around from mjk2 to mjk3. They don't, so I guess we can say that the table & bed, as well as being moved within the room, were also moved in relation to each other between shots.

I'd love to do further work with this but I'm not sure if we will accomplish much.

Dear Richard

does your work on this give you any indication on how far you think bed and table were moved: a few inches ? a few foot? more? it would be interesting to know if it does suggest any sort of distance.

yours

steve

[Elamarna]

Dear Richard

does your work on this give you any indication on how far you think bed and table were moved: a few inches ? a few foot? more? it would be interesting to know if it does suggest any sort of distance.

yours

steve

[richardh]

Maybe! Also, I think this should demonstrate that the hand we see in BOTH photos is a LEFT HAND.

Bravo...In my opinion, your work has put to bed the 'fake debate'. I also concur that the table was moved in between the photos being taken.

[AlanG]

Bravo...In my opinion, your work has put to bed the 'fake debate'. I also concur that the table was moved in between the photos being taken.

[richardh]

Thanks, Alan.
It didn't take all that long to be honest. I created the arm using my wife as a hand/arm model (for the skin) and a hand/arm model that was free from a 3D model website.

Using a good quality photo of MJK2 as a background image, it took some time to get the correct camera position so that the hand (model) was located/positioned/scaled to the photo. I then fiddled with the hand (model) until it matched the position of the hand in the photo.

Once that was done, I replaced the background image with MJK3 and swung the camera around until it was in the general location as the original MJK photo position and then tweaked the camera until it overlayed the background photo.

The fact that the model hand fitted almost exactly over MJK3 after being positioned using MJK2 demonstrated that MJK3 photo was either a REAL crime scene photo taken as part of the series of photos on that day, or a clever fake that managed to get the 'fake' hand in a position that is 95% the same as the hand in MJK2.

I conclude that MJK3 is a real crime scene photo of MJK on the bed taken from another angle from MJK2, BUT the bed and table were, in all likelihood, moved between shots. The body, however, or, at least, the LEFT hand, remained in the same position/location across her abdomen, between shots.

Really impressive work...How long did it take you to plan and complete?

[AlanG]

Really impressive work...How long did it take you to plan and complete?

[Pierre]

Pierre

I have just been rereading posts and I think there is a genuine misunderstanding recently.
I should have picked up on this misunderstanding sooner.

you qouted from me

"and what it shows, that is the hand is a left hand, not a right hand."

and replied with

"Canīt you read, Steve? I have NOT said that it is a right hand. WHERE did you get this from? Why do you make up lies about me?"


my line was the last paragraph of my post, the full sentence read

" Rather please let Richard's work stand for itself, and what it shows, that is the hand is a left hand, not a right hand."


I was referring to Richard showing it was indeed a left hand , not a right, thus supporting the photo being genuine.

I was not implying you had mentioned either left or right hands as you obviously had not.
I am most sorry that you believed I was saying such.

regards

Steve, thanks for clarifying!

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

a misunderstanding

Pierre

I have just been rereading posts and I think there is a genuine misunderstanding recently.
I should have picked up on this misunderstanding sooner.

you qouted from me

"and what it shows, that is the hand is a left hand, not a right hand."

and replied with

"Canīt you read, Steve? I have NOT said that it is a right hand. WHERE did you get this from? Why do you make up lies about me?"


my line was the last paragraph of my post, the full sentence read

" Rather please let Richard's work stand for itself, and what it shows, that is the hand is a left hand, not a right hand."


I was referring to Richard showing it was indeed a left hand , not a right, thus supporting the photo being genuine.

I was not implying you had mentioned either left or right hands as you obviously had not.
I am most sorry that you believed I was saying such.




regards

[Elamarna]

I have been pushing no ideas on the issue as you well know.
how can I hijack the thread?


my comments were were because you were trying to turn this into another thread on your barricade idea. that is not what Richard is working on.
why should anyone wish you to be wrong, how can you be wrong when we do not know what you are suggesting in the first place.

I was suggesting that you take the debate to a better thread for your purposes, where you could carry on with your views to your hearts content.

if you wish to act in this manner carry on.

Steve,

The subject of this thread is the fake debate. And as Richard writes:

"Also, if MJK3 is a fake as some suggest, then it is a very accurate fake because the hand position agrees almost exactly with the hand's position in MJK2. See what you think."

This is what I have been saying all the time. And since Richard has made an excellent illustration of the photograph, it is now possible to strengthen the hypothesis of this photograph being authentic.

So naturally you do not want me to discuss this and the fake debate, since you like to use the idea of MJK3 being a fake for arguing against my theory, as you have been doing previously. And you canīt stand me being right about anything.

Also, you have been using Richards illustration to point out one of your own ideas: that there was very little movement between the photos. So I could tell you to not hijack this thread as well.

But, the point is that Richard would be capable of constructing an illustration from the two photos to compare the two in their entirety.

Regards, Pierre