Sam,
If her kneecap is where you are saying it is, then she has to have at least 3ft long calves. If an average person of 5'7" height (170.2 cm) then an "average" leg length is going to be around 32-36in (81 to 91cm). For her knee and below to be 36 inches, she would have no upper thigh. (Or seriously deformed.)
The angle and lens:
To get a complete upper thigh covered by knee, then the camera would have had to have been positioned at the precise angle her leg was away from her body. And, taking into account the height of her bed, and her lying on it, and the height of a camera tripod for that time, it would have been almost impossible to not see her upper thigh. Her leg was not resting on anything by the time that photo was taken (mjk1), her leg was flat against the mattress.
Autopsy reports:
When a Dr. says left, they are talking about the persons right. It's from their perspective, not the victims. So her right leg was at a 90 degree angle to her trunk.
From what I see with mjk1 is that it was taken at about a 25-30 degree angle in relation to the body, not dead across the room from her stomach area. Think of the cameraman standing closer to her ankles and shooting towards her head area. That picture is not 90 degrees perpendicular to her body. When mjk1 was taken her left leg is lying on the mattress, it is not at any right angle away from her body, you can see her upper thigh, where it really looks like her leg is bent (closest to the camera) is actually skin that has settled onto the mattress, making the angle more defined, but is definately her knee. Not invisible, completely visible. the camera is above her body enough, and her leg not propped on anything, or bent wildly, the photo isn't hiding any part of her leg besides the inner part that is away from our pov.
JMHO
If her kneecap is where you are saying it is, then she has to have at least 3ft long calves. If an average person of 5'7" height (170.2 cm) then an "average" leg length is going to be around 32-36in (81 to 91cm). For her knee and below to be 36 inches, she would have no upper thigh. (Or seriously deformed.)
The angle and lens:
To get a complete upper thigh covered by knee, then the camera would have had to have been positioned at the precise angle her leg was away from her body. And, taking into account the height of her bed, and her lying on it, and the height of a camera tripod for that time, it would have been almost impossible to not see her upper thigh. Her leg was not resting on anything by the time that photo was taken (mjk1), her leg was flat against the mattress.
Autopsy reports:
When a Dr. says left, they are talking about the persons right. It's from their perspective, not the victims. So her right leg was at a 90 degree angle to her trunk.
From what I see with mjk1 is that it was taken at about a 25-30 degree angle in relation to the body, not dead across the room from her stomach area. Think of the cameraman standing closer to her ankles and shooting towards her head area. That picture is not 90 degrees perpendicular to her body. When mjk1 was taken her left leg is lying on the mattress, it is not at any right angle away from her body, you can see her upper thigh, where it really looks like her leg is bent (closest to the camera) is actually skin that has settled onto the mattress, making the angle more defined, but is definately her knee. Not invisible, completely visible. the camera is above her body enough, and her leg not propped on anything, or bent wildly, the photo isn't hiding any part of her leg besides the inner part that is away from our pov.
JMHO
Comment