Kelly photo 1 enhanced - graphic

[Blackkat]

Jane,
Thank you for this post! Showing the knee in-between where Sam and I had placed it. This is what I had come to see as I stated to Sam in a couple of posts back. This was what I was going to try and show in the reconstruction.

[Sam Flynn]

I have, however, done a quick sketch of where I think the knee falls.

Excellent, Jane. It's interesting to see how restoring the outline of the (deeply gashed) calf muscle pulls everything back into proportion.

[Sam Flynn]

oh NOOO - let's ask Ms. Corum since she did the 3d models and since it's assumed that professionals would have no idea of what to do. There can be only ONE who does reconstructions I suppose.

Sarcasm will get you everywhere, Kat Not any professional has a good understanding of the details of the case, though. We must be aware that we're not just looking at "a woman on a bed", here. We're looking at an image of an etiolated, century-old photograph, depicting a grotesquely twisted and savagely mutilated corpse.

Lord forbid someone do something that could be a bit better and get us further along.

I often find that there's no need to do something a bit better when the pragmatic answer is staring me in the face. Still, what's pragmatic to one person may be seen as idleness by another...

I don't mind being wrong, but I don't like being demeaned and the assumption that I wouldn't do things in the correct manner.

It's not a question of your not doing the reconstruction fairly. However, unless you DO inflict a long gash deep into your subject's calf muscle, and unless you DO practically dislocate her hip and strip the flesh from her thighs, then any reconstruction is on a hiding to nothing.

[Jane Coram]

Hi All,

Well I do still have them, but it caused such a ruckus last time I posted them, I'm wary of doing it again. I have, however, done a quick sketch of where I think the knee falls.

I certainly think that any attempt at a reconstruction is worthwhile, and I'd be very interested to see the results. Although there will problems, it could produce something new we haven't seen before, it's certainly worth a go.

I will say that I had the worst nightmare trying to decide where the knee was. I originally thought that the knee was lower down, but what swayed me was the size of the foot in comparison. It must be an optical illusion due to perspective and the damage to the calf muscle. Obviously the sketch is very rough, but it gives the idea of how I see it.

I do agree though, that the left leg changed angles somewhat between shots, but I think that this might have been simply that when they moved the bed to get the camera around, the leg just flopped down, as there were no muscles to hold it up. It is possible though they did lower it so that they could get a better shot across the groin area, as otherwise the leg would have completely obstructed it. Either way, there does seem to be a change of angle between the shots.

I've tried doing a sketch of it with the knee further down and it just doesn't work. If anyone else out there fancies a go, they might have more luck than I did.

Much love

Janie

xxxxx

[Blackkat]

oh NOOO - let's ask Ms. Corum since she did the 3d models and since it's assumed that professionals would have no idea of what to do. There can be only ONE who does reconstructions I suppose. (and even that leaves things to be discovered) It's flippin highlander around here. Lord forbid someone do something that could be a bit better and get us further along.

Sam you're knee is still too high and your angle is wrong. I think you're being a bit pompous, and a bit demeaning of what I could possibly contribute to casebook. You have no idea who I know or what connections I might have to help each of us here. I'm already working towards a forensic reconstruction for Spring of 09 - or should I not do that since we already have an artists "rendition" of what Mary may have looked like?

I don't mind being wrong, but I don't like being demeaned and the assumption that I wouldn't do things in the correct manner. By the way Stephen we would have been working with mjk1 - so whatever you could've gleaned from mjk1 for mjk3 would be up to you. I'll digress in the presence of such "experts".

[Stephen Thomas]

If done properly, Sam, this could yield interesting results. It wouldn't be too hard to duplicate the focal length of Victorian cameras with today's digital optical zoom cameras. Go for it, Blackkat.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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:

[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.