Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[Blackkat]

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

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Blackkat!

I think most of us agree, that based on the photo MJK had relatively long arms.

In that case, I find it possible, that she had relatively long legs too!

All the best
Jukka

[Sam Flynn]

When a Dr. says left, they are talking about the persons right.

No - they're talking about the person's left, Kat. That's the convention.

It's from their perspective, not the victims.

No - it's from the person's perspective, not the doctor's.

So her right leg was at a 90 degree angle to her trunk.

No - her left leg was at a 90 degree angle to her trunk, like Dr Bond said. Her left leg is the one we see in the foreground of the picture - or more precisely, her lower left leg from kneecap to foot.

[Victor]

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.)

Hi Blackkat,

I think you've got her foot in the wrong place. I think the knee is where Sam says it is with his green line.

There is a second foot like shape, which distorts perspective and suggests that the knee is where the ankle\foot actually is. Try drawing a second line parallel and to the left of Sam's and you'll be able to line the ankles or feet up too.

KR,
Vic.

[Suzi]

Hi all-
Have been following this with some interest- I must agree with Sam as to the position of the kneecaps and feet (Actually I've only just registered that foot closest to the camera ,having looked at this photograph more times than is good for a girl!-and it's strangely disturbing in it's natural,unsullied look)- and as to the length of leg from knee to foot- I've just measured mine (Hubby said 'What the hell are you doing!) and it's 50 cm !!!..........and I'm not THAT deformed!!! (am I ??)

Carry on chaps

Suzi xx

[Paddy Goose]

The fascination with whats underneath flesh... ...leaves only the raw meat... ... he uses a breast, a surface charm, as a pedestal for her head.

Thoughts?

Yes I think I'm gonna urp again.

You can't aim vommit. I tried. Was naseous in public so I aimed at a trash can. The can had one of those swinging lids on top, so I started it swinging and let er' fly. Some urp made it into the receptacle as planned, some only stuck to the lid. And some ended up on me.

Pads

[Sam Flynn]

Actually I've only just registered that foot closest to the camera

...I've circled her left foot in red, for those who haven't clocked it yet:



In better resolution, you can see the big toe and the one next to it (perhaps even a third toe). Even at this resolution, however, you can see that there are rucks and whorls formed from the bedding that distort the outline of her lower leg. In other words, it ain't all flesh that one can see there, and owing to the age and quality of the image it's sometimes hard to see where bedding ends and leg begins, and vice versa.

[Blackkat]

No I can see where there are linens, covers etc.



The picture above shows her foot, with her toenails (whether you think they are painted toenails or not it does show them) Suzi did you say your measurement was from knee cap to ankle? Or knee cap to toe?

You can see where I marked knee - the reason I believe that is her knee is because you can see what would be behind the knee, where it has a natural bend. The calve comes up and out, and then curves inward toward the back of the knee. You can clearly see her shin that comes up to the knee. I've also added the area where I think her ankle is located.

The point of the post was to show why there looked as if there was more skin on MJK1 then on MJK3 - and I still think that MJK3 was taken before MJK1 - there might be another photo missing of another picture from the window that was taken first before they moved the leg.

What's being said is that due to how the angle of the picture was taken, you can't see her thigh at all. Judging that the camera is higher than the body, and her leg is not significantly elevated, there is no way the camera would miss all of her thigh. You can even see where the inner crook of her groin is located in this picture. Alas I don't want to argue about it, each of us have their own opinions and perceptions.

When did doctors and medical examiners start changing how they entered data about the body? It's always been that way, which is the reason people get so confused on Left and right when reading reports. I'm not saying your wrong about Bond, perhaps he did things differently than other doctors - but I'd like to know when that changed when documenting a report on a body.

SAM: "No - it's from the person's perspective, not the doctor's."

Was bond a doctor? He said Right angle and left leg?

SAM: "No - her left leg was at a 90 degree angle to her trunk, like Dr Bond said. Her left leg is the one we see in the foreground of the picture - or more precisely, her lower left leg from kneecap to foot."

In the picture her right leg, victims right is at a 90 degree angle from her body. You can see that her left leg (victims left) was not at a 90 degree angle - however it was closer to a 90 degree angle in MJK3 photo before it seems to have been moved.

All in all, I still think her knee is lower than where you have it. If you are saying her upper thigh is hidden, then there needs to be more space between her knee(where you think her knee is) and her pelvic area, and there isn't enough room when looking at that photo. I'm 5'7" and 3/4" tall My legs from hip to toe are 44 inches. My inseem is 32 inches. From Knee to ankle is 15.5 inches long. From inseem -to knee - my thigh is 16.5 inches long.

For that picture to be only showing her knee to her ankle ( foot with toenails showing) Mary's leg from knee to ankle would had to have been at very long. Longer than 50cm which is 19 inches.

Suzi's is 19 inches from knee to foot. Suzi how long is your thigh? Mary Kelly was 5'7" - was she more leggy or did she have a longer torso? Even if she was leggy, if that's her knee cap where I marked upper thigh - she didn't have much of a thigh area at all - (again if the leg would have been further from her pelvic area maaaybe - but there isn't that much area between the leg and where her pelvic area is. So she must have had a very short thigh, something around 7 -8 inches.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree - but I can't wrap my mind around a 30+ inch leg from knee to ankle. (yes that would be a bit odd- err deformed looking) :shrugs:

[Suzi]

Hi Gareth-
Right -I agree with the knees and feet etc- but with the foreshortening of the knee closest to the camera I cant help but think that it looks as if there's a similar thigh bone there-maybe the other leg was stripped of its flesh and muscle to the knee too. (Check on Chris's first pic)
Suzi

OK this may not have been mentioned in the reports but- don't get me going on chemises etc!!!

[Blackkat]

Hmm perhaps this might help. My uncle and roommate do crime scene analysis - we are going to recreate the scene. One of my rooms in my home is the same measurements as Kelly's room. Anyone that can give some advice on things that they want to see can feel free to chime in. Basically we're going to do body placement and camera angle.

After we get the pictures I'll post them.

[Sam Flynn]

Hmm perhaps this might help. My uncle and roommate do crime scene analysis - we are going to recreate the scene. One of my rooms in my home is the same measurements as Kelly's room. Anyone that can give some advice on things that they want to see can feel free to chime in. Basically we're going to do body placement and camera angle.

It'll take more than that, I'm afraid, Kat. You'll need to use a late 19th Century lens, or at least one with similar refractive properties to that used to take MJK1. You would also have to dislocate your left hip and cut a very deep vertical gash through your left calf muscle from the knee to around 5" above the ankle. You will have to twist your torso into a rather grotesque configuration, and lie on a bed with a skin-toned, rucked-up sheet that will wash out and become indistinguishable from flesh once you've aged the photograph appropriately. As those conditions apply to the MJK1 scenario and photograph, any reconstruction strictly ought to take those factors into account.

Was bond a doctor? He said Right angle and left leg?

Bond was a doctor and, as I've said, the convention is for doctors to describe coordinates from the victim's (or patient's) point of view, not the observer's. And, of course, Bond's reference to a "right angle" was geometric rather than anatomical, a "right angle" being an angle of 90 degrees.

PS: Jane Coram, I think it was, did some excellent reconstructions of Kelly's body position (including the configuration of the thighs etc) using some sophisticated 3D modeling software a few years ago. Jane - if I'm right, and you've still got those pictures, please feel free to re-post them. It's for a good cause

[Blackkat]

So you're saying it's pointless to do a reconstruction - recreation?

You mentioned Jane's 3d models - can someone else not do a recreation? I mean we aren't just going off of what I say, there would be professionals involved - and I don't think you'd need a camera from that time period to get what we're searching for which is an answer or at least somewhat closer to one.

After taking a look at the photo and talking with some other people I can actually say that you and I both are more than likely wrong about the placement of the knee Sam. It does come down to porportion. Lower leg is usually the same length or very very close to the same length as the top of the leg, same for the arms. The lower half of the arm is the same length as the top half of the arm. Your placement puts the knee too high, and mine a bit too low.

As for the reconstruction - recreation I think it depends on what we have available to use for the scene. Let's not assume we are just going in with a camera and an actual human body, but if it's not worth it and 3d models are the only thing that works by all means I won't waste my time, or especially the professionals time. God knows with all the theories flying around casebook we don't need anything of good weight.

P.S. as for cutting myself - no need I had keyhole surgery in Jan 07 - I decided that was taking the research a bit too far.

[Stephen Thomas]

Hi Blackkat

I have to agree with Sam here. As the legs were spread-eagled the knees would be in a line (in the photograph) with the edge of the table as per Sam's graphic. If what you are saying were true then Mary's left thigh would be coming out of her waist area and she would have had to have had an extremely deformed skinny leg below the knee. The illusion is caused by the foot being outstretched giving the impression of a longer leg and the grey undersheet riding up and obscuring part of the calf. The thigh cannot be seen on the photo as it's obscured by the knee. IMHO of course and once upon a time I had exactly the same views as you on this one so I know, as they say or used to say, where you're coming from.

[Sam Flynn]

So you're saying it's pointless to do a reconstruction - recreation?

Not at all, Kat - I'm saying that it's not something one could lash up on a whim without doing oneself a serious injury. Besides, it is eminently possible to model the scene in your mind, and not be too far away from the truth - provided a number of factors are borne in mind. These include the state of the image and its age; the angle(s) within the photograph; the facts of human anatomy; and, perhaps most importantly, the surviving medical evidence.

[Stephen Thomas]

Hmm perhaps this might help. My uncle and roommate do crime scene analysis - we are going to recreate the scene. One of my rooms in my home is the same measurements as Kelly's room. Anyone that can give some advice on things that they want to see can feel free to chime in. Basically we're going to do body placement and camera angle.

A brilliant idea. Go for it please. If you can duplicate MJK3 by putting the camera in the position of the folded up blanket on self timer we might find exactly where that vertical line of light was coming from.