MJK2 & MJK3 Left/right & fake debate

[Elamarna]

Actually, Pierre, I think that cut looks more like a bite mark to me.

i see your thinking, looks too small to me,but could be
What ever the mark is its not cut as a chevron, its two distinct breaks to the skin.

Steve

[SuspectZero]

i see your thinking, looks too small to me,but could be
What ever the mark is its not cut as a chevron, its two distinct breaks to the skin.

Steve

I agree.

[Purkis]

i see your thinking, looks too small to me,but could be
What ever the mark is its not cut as a chevron, its two distinct breaks to the skin.

Steve

Maybe Jack found it easier to create a chevron with two slashes. I imagine it would be difficult to do with just one break of the skin.
Not that I think it is a chevron, just hypothesising.

[Elamarna]

Maybe Jack found it easier to create a chevron with two slashes. I imagine it would be difficult to do with just one break of the skin.
Not that I think it is a chevron, just hypothesising.

Purkis
point taken, that’s very true, however just for the point of argument why would the killer not complete the chevron, by joining the 2 cuts, he had plenty of time.

Steve

[Pierre]

Purkis
point taken, that’s very true, however just for the point of argument why would the killer not complete the chevron, by joining the 2 cuts, he had plenty of time.

Steve

Hi Steve,

How do you think the killer felt when he was mutilating Kelly?

Do you think he was very cool and calculating?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

How do you think the killer felt when he was mutilating Kelly?

Do you think he was very cool and calculating?

Regards, Pierre

I have no idea, not being a serial killer that is.


Do YOU?

If you feel you know how he felt and his mental state, can I ask how you come to this conclusion?

Generalizations about serial killers will not do.
We are talking about a specific individual and even if you do know who he was, you cannot know his mental state at the precise moment of the killings




You have previously suggested he cut chevrons in Mitre Square.

And while I do not accept the cuts are chevrons, they at least are complete. That in a much more risky location, with a limited window for the killing and mutilations.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

if you want to carry on discussing something which is only vaguely linked to the subject of this thread, "was the photo MJK3 a fake, based on the arm position", why not do it on one of your own threads. You can easy point your posts to the image on this thread.

my point is that you may not intend to but you in effect hijack threads, where others have worked hard, to try and prove your arguments.

In my opinion, and its only mine, its not polite.

[Pierre]

Pierre

if you want to carry on discussing something which is only vaguely linked to the subject of this thread, "was the photo MJK3 a fake, based on the arm position", why not do it on one of your own threads. You can easy point your posts to the image on this thread.

my point is that you may not intend to but you in effect hijack threads, where others have worked hard, to try and prove your arguments.

In my opinion, and its only mine, its not polite.

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

[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

[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

[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

[AlanG]

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

[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]

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]

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.