Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

Cannot help asking this thing again;

Since knowing MJK to have been 5'7" (170,28 in centimeters), could that piece of info be useful, while trying to catch the proportions of the objects on the photos?!

All right, me making a stick out of a match...

All the best
Jukka

Hello all,

In the photo it appears that the chemise portion over her left shoulder isnt joined to a garment body anymore, meaning that the chemise front had been cut up, and opened. Which means that little puffed shoulder section is either cut itself, or still intact and completely around her arm.

Im just curious if it was cut, why it might be draped back over to look intact.

Best regards.

[DVV]

....grow some eggs and act like men

Qes bä qes, enkulal bä ïgïr yihedal.

Ethiopian proverb meaning: little by little, the egg walks with his legs.

Hey BK,

I do believe like so many that there are photos missing. I can't see why a photographer wouldn't take a picture from the foot of the bed also.

You were studying or working with ME's...you KNOW that they would have taken all 4 shots, side and side, foot to and from the head. Why we only have #1 and #3 is a mystery, but that is not necessarily the set order.

Oh and I have another question. I happen to think that the first photo taken from the window is MIA - does anyone think that mjk1 was taken from inside the room? I know it's probably been asked before but I don't know where that question would be located.

My take on that concerns the depth seen, and if its at all accurate, I dont believe the windows would have to be removed to shoot it. There is that story, that they were taken out for photographers, and the windows are seen boarded up in later images. I dont personally see that as a requirement though. Her bed is almost flush to the partition wall, if they moved that large sitting table under the windows out of the way, I think they had room. Maybe they placed the camera on that table.

You have to figure that at least -edited-two photographers were present, and that the room could only hold maybe two or 3 people at a time and still keep the others out of frame. My bet is that they shot those 4 primary angles at least though.

Im not sure I want anyone to find the foot to head plate or film, that would be monstrous indeed. Its almost better seeing her from angles, rather than head on.

All the best BK

[Blackkat]

I do believe like so many that there are photos missing. I can't see why a photographer wouldn't take a picture from the foot of the bed also.

Oh and I have another question. I happen to think that the first photo taken from the window is MIA - does anyone think that mjk1 was taken from inside the room? I know it's probably been asked before but I don't know where that question would be located.

If Mjk1 wasn't the first photo do you guys think they moved her leg down to get a better picture?

If so, it enabled the photo to show the pelvic region in more detail, if its as I and you believe, that the leg in MJK3 is bent and at a slightly higher elevation. Ive been using the very primitive "approx" left kneecap to table top to assess variation in height.

Cheers BK

Michael,

There were in fact some of the first Instamatic Cameras available in the London area at that time.

Not a reproof by any means, but just a clarification so you don't get pilloried for it some other time. The Instamatic Camera (I can't find a Trademark symbol, so imagine one) was introduced by Eastman0Kodak in the 1960s. It was a relatively simple point-and-shoot affair and may have used flash cubes.

What I think you meant were the first roll-film cameras that were quite new on the market in 1888. That said, I would agree that the various MJK photos were taken using glass plates, probably by then dry plates.

Don.

Hi Don,

Thanks for that, for some reason I didnt key to the recollection that "Instamatic" was tradename specific to Eastman-Kodak when I was typing, so I appreciate the correction. Maybe it was advertised as Instant, and I slipped on the reference. On the plates though, I know that a poster here did some analysis of the crime scene recording and mentioned "flash powder" in that...by its actual name ...which I cant recall exactly, but something like Potassium Chlorate and Aluminum powder.

I think that portraiture was still using that methodology, and I suppose even "still life/non-living" is still portrait photography.

It would be good to know specifically what camera and technology, because that might address the questions as to moving a bit of leg, or furniture, in order to properly frame a subject. I know the remote shutter was available, thats why I thought the placement of the camera to the appropriate POV might not affect the placement of the bed, for example. The photographer need not be staring through the viewfinder.

All the best Don.

[Supe]

Michael,

There were in fact some of the first Instamatic Cameras available in the London area at that time.

Not a reproof by any means, but just a clarification so you don't get pilloried for it some other time. The Instamatic Camera (I can't find a Trademark symbol, so imagine one) was introduced by Eastman0Kodak in the 1960s. It was a relatively simple point-and-shoot affair and may have used flash cubes.

What I think you meant were the first roll-film cameras that were quite new on the market in 1888. That said, I would agree that the various MJK photos were taken using glass plates, probably by then dry plates.

Don.

[Steve F]

I was hoping someone would say that!Yes,I do think the crime scene has been moved about!

[Blackkat]

If Mjk1 wasn't the first photo do you guys think they moved her leg down to get a better picture?

[Steve F]

Thanks Michael
That makes it a bit clearer but there is still doubt in my mind over whether the room was moved about during the taking of the photo's

I can't help but think that Mary's bed was moved away from the wall and towards the door before MJK3 was taken.How did the photographer get in there and line up the shot? Did he just plonk the camera on the mound of bedding and hope for the best? Even then he would've had to use a cable release to fire the shutter and I'm unsure if they were around in 1888.Can anyone clarify this for me?

Hi Steve,

Its a very real possibility that the photographer used the bedding that is wedged down between the bed and partition wall to place a camera he could operate by a remote shutter. He could focus and frame by looking down into the viewfinder, focus and range set the lens, and stand back and squeeze the bulb.

There were in fact some of the first Instamatic Cameras available in the London area at that time, but theres no reason to suspect that something other than old portrait style, "plates" and flash powder, was used.

Sorry for the personal airing Steve...if youve been paying attention this all has been reaching a climactic point recently.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Are you freaking children or what....grow some eggs and act like men, accept that you are not always right, and acknowledge that others can be....

The point is, Mike, that this didn't apply in this case - or did it? I put forward reasoned arguments, spell out the facts clearly, and get stonewalled every time. Well, fair enough - I'm not the Delphic oracle, and I know I don't have all the answers. Only some of them

The crux of the matter, however, was that when Jane helpfully posted a picture that just happened to back up my argument, I still don't get any letup - indeed, the consensus seemed to be that Jane's drawing didn't support my argument at all, when it clearly did!

At that point I guess that my place on the scale of learned helplessness fell somewhere between "Orwellian" and "Kafkaesque". There's only so much an egg-bearing adult can take, you know

[Steve F]

I can't help but think that Mary's bed was moved away from the wall and towards the door before MJK3 was taken.How did the photographer get in there and line up the shot? Did he just plonk the camera on the mound of bedding and hope for the best? Even then he would've had to use a cable release to fire the shutter and I'm unsure if they were around in 1888.Can anyone clarify this for me?

[Sam Flynn]

Indeed, Stephen. I don't like bad feeling, and neither do I harbour a grudge, but I do like to see fair play. Unwarranted criticism really winds me up.