MJK inside room

[thehood]

Hello, for reconstruction purposes I'm looking for the interior of the room of MJK. I found some sketches, and photos and of course the description here on the site

"The room was approximately 12 feet square. Opposite the door was a fireplace. On the left of the door and at right angles to it were two windows, one of which was close enough to the door as to be able to reach through it and unbolt the door. To the right of the door was a bedside table so close that the door would hit it when opened. Next to the table was a bed with the head against the door wall, its side against the right wall. The room contained two tables and a chair and a cheap print entitled "The Fisherman's widow" hanging over the fireplace. Opposite the fireplace was a small cupboard which contained cheap crockery, empty ginger beer bottles and a little stale bread."

12 feet square sound like 1 square meter, and it's impossible or I make a mistake in translating feet to meter. if the wall with the door is clear and understood, I don't understand where is the fireplace (on the wall where is the side of the bed? As the small cupboard is opposite to the fireplace?). Also the windows were barred with something? I remember I read the small window was barred with a coat and could be used to open the door but what about the large window?

Any help would be appreciated

[Chris Scott]

the best illustration for your purposes would probably be the one at

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?album=6&pos=5

As to the size of the room, 12 feet is equal to 3.65 metres.
Hope this helps

[Dan Norder]

The room has been described as 10 feet by 10 feet, or 10 feet by 12 feet. That's small, but a lot bigger than 1 square meter. The problem comes in with the difference between 12 feet square (12 feet on each side to make a square) and square feet (12 feet square would be 144 square feet)

The illustration above makes the room look like it was 15 feet by 20 feet or more, and the position of the bed doesn't seem to match how the room was described or what we see in the photos.

[Sam Flynn]

the position of the bed doesn't seem to match how the room was described or what we see in the photos.

Whilst you're 100% right about the scale, Dan, it's fair to point out that the photos weren't taken from a perspective almost parallel to the long side of the bed - so we wouldn't expect this drawing to match the photos exactly.

[Dan Norder]

it's fair to point out that the photos weren't taken from a perspective almost parallel to the long side of the bed

And neither was this illustration.

And if it were it wouldn't matter anyway, as the there's a major difference between appearance due to perspective and things just being in the wrong places.

[Sam Flynn]

And neither was this illustration [taken from a perspective almost parallel to the long side of the bed - SamF].

Which bit of "almost parallel to the long side of the bed" didn't I make clear? Or should I have specified the angle in radians?

[Dan Norder]

The part where you use the word "parallel" to mean "perpendicular"... unless you are looking at a different illustration completely.

[Sam Flynn]

The part where you use the word "parallel" to mean "perpendicular"...

I think I'm looking at the same image. The perpendicular to the long edge of the bed is at right angles to the long edge of the bed (a continuation of the short edge of the bed, unless it was trapezoid). The perspective of the drawing is nowhere near perpendicular to the long edge of the bed.

Crude drawing follows, which doesn't pretend to be exact, but gives an indicator of what I mean:



Line continuous with long edge of bed = RED

Perpendicular to the long edge of bed = GREEN (hint - it's at right-angles to the long edge of the bed, unless it was a trapezoid bed)

Line of perspective = BLUE, which is "almost parallel" to the long edge of the bed, and hence not the same perspective as that from which the photographs were taken.

The photos cut across the long axis of the bed - practically perpendicular to it in the "full-body" photograph. It's hardly surprising, therefore, that the objects in the photos don't correlate with those in the Reynolds News illustration, which looks primarily along the long axis of the bed.

[thehood]

thanks for the square feet explanation

the illustration seem wrong in any case, as the bed + the little table + the door seem to fill completely the door wall.

does anybody know if the fireplace is at the same place as in the illustration?

and how the second window was closed, there was something inside the room like a curtain or wood planks?

[Dan Norder]

Good God. It's just like Sam to pull out his crayons and start talking about some side issue using terms he doesn't really understand as if it had any meaning to the actual topic of conversation.

Neither the photos nor the illustration is parallel or perpendicular to the bed in any case, they are all at various angles off from that. The long photo is certainly taken from the wall that is parallel to the bed, where the illustration would have been done from the door in the wall perpendicular to it, with the camera or line of sight angling off from those in all cases.

But -- and this was the point I was getting at -- the illustration clearly shows a room that does not fit the measurements of the room and in which the furniture is in completely bizarre, inaccurate positions. Sam can gibber about angles and perspective and try to claim that makes a difference, but any idiot can see that a table some three feet away from the bed isn't what is in the photo, and a bed separated by all walls by several feet is not only not depicted in the photo but completely impossible for the known dimensions of the room. No difference in perspective in the world changes that, and it's over the top for Sam to suggest so and insinuate that it's just something other people overlooked. It's not that it's been overlooked, it's been fully examined countless times (as Sam should well know from participating on old threads in which it was already discussed) and doesn't explain the obvious major discrepancies.

[Debra A]

|Forgetting the Maths and perspective angle, this seems to me like the most accurate drawing of the arrangement of the furniture in MJK's room as described in various press reports. ...to me.
It's a blown out artistic version, without walls or doors. and it matches one of the IPN illustration to a tee, i.e. washstand behind the headboard...why?

[Dan Norder]

Illustrators often copied from other published illustrations or used artistic license based upon stock concepts and sometimes scattered witness reports (some of which were phony) instead of doing their own illustrations on the scene.

I wouldn't put too much stock into any illustration that contradicts both crime scene photos and prepared diagrams of the room. The positioning of objects is just way too spread out to be realistic, which doesn't give me much confidence in other miscellaneous details. The washstand is a bit of a puzzler, sure, but it could have just been from someone mentioning the washtub under the bed (as seen in the photo_ and the artist not understanding. Heck, a later illustration that was supposed to represent the same room included a full sink with faucet, so who knows where this stuff comes from?

[Blackkat]

A full sink with a faucet and next a large carousel in the middle of the room.

[Debra A]

Illustrators often copied from other published illustrations or used artistic license based upon stock concepts and sometimes scattered witness reports (some of which were phony) instead of doing their own illustrations on the scene.

I wouldn't put too much stock into any illustration that contradicts both crime scene photos and prepared diagrams of the room. The positioning of objects is just way too spread out to be realistic, which doesn't give me much confidence in other miscellaneous details. The washstand is a bit of a puzzler, sure, but it could have just been from someone mentioning the washtub under the bed (as seen in the photo_ and the artist not understanding. Heck, a later illustration that was supposed to represent the same room included a full sink with faucet, so who knows where this stuff comes from?

Hi Dan,
I can't see (personally) how this illustration contradicts the crime scene photos. Of course, I agree that the spacing of the furniture and proportions of the room is out, but everything seems to be in place as per descriptions we have; bed and small table on the right hand side as you enter the door, fireplace opposite the end of the bed and another table on the left, under the windows. Much more accurate than the other depictions like you mentioned. I'm a bit puzzled about the 'prepared diagrams of the room' can ask which ones you mean?
Debs

[Sam Flynn]

Good God. It's just like Sam to pull out his crayons and start talking about some side issue using terms he doesn't really understand as if it had any meaning to the actual topic of conversation.

I'm responding your implication that I do not know the difference between "parallel" and "perpendicular". What am I supposed to do, meekly keel over and let you act like o'Brien to my Winston Smith?

Sam can gibber about angles and perspective and try to claim that makes a difference, but any idiot can see that a table some three feet away from the bed isn't what is in the photo.

How can there be "discrepancies" if the the drawing and the two "MJK" photos are clearly taken from utterly different perpsectives? You're just covering your tracks with sand because you made the observation that we should somehow expect the objects Reynolds drawing to match those in MJK1/2. The accuracy of the drawing apart, to expect that the objects should marry up in all three images is patently absurd, because there is an irrefutable difference in perspective and depth of field in all three images.

And the line of sight of the drawing is, indeed, "almost parallel" to the long edge of the bed. It's not "perpendicular" by any means, which is what you clearly said, simultaneously insulting my intelligence in your usual manner.

I'm heartily sick and tired of your constant, malignant superciliousness.