MJK photo 4 enhanced

Something is not right about MJK's hand. If that is her little finger, then her hand is horribly swollen. Of course, I'm sure that's entirely possible - but would her hand have had time enough to swell like that before her swift death?
It looks backwards! But how could that be....

Thats the problem Brenda....we know she was said to have what could be defensive wounds on her left hand and arm....could that pinky finger have a cut we dont see? Maybe. It might cause it to swell....which I agree with you, if that is a pinky it is not a normal size.

Someone with Photo editing skills should zoom and capture just the left hand pinky in MJK1, and analyze the angle at each individual joint. That data could be used to assess the "artifact" seen in MJK3.

Best regards

[Brenda]

Something is not right about MJK's hand. If that is her little finger, then her hand is horribly swollen. Of course, I'm sure that's entirely possible - but would her hand have had time enough to swell like that before her swift death?
It looks backwards! But how could that be....

I don't know if somebody has already had this idea (I don't think I have read it), but it looks to me that the hand in the photograph discussed here has a continuity with the "object" on the left side of the photograph, over the table. And the more I look at them together, the more it seems to me that it is a body lying on the table: hand, biceps and leg. Perhaps that of the photographer who was operating the camera situated on the other side of the bed.

If this has already been observed, then be this message a backing to it from my point of view.

Hi Oldsen,

Welcome to the boards. If I read you correctly, I think you may be confusing internal matter and a Bed Bolster for human remains. On that night table were intestines...some can be seen draped off the table corner...and a large striped object which appears to be folded in half.

Theres been much debate on what that Bolster really is....but I think recent image enhancements offered here suggest that it is in fact what can be described as a Bed Accessory, or something akin to a Body Pillow.

Cheers Oldsen.

Hi Suz,

I do recall reading that there was a notation or something on the slides of the known photos that indicates these were 2 of a total of 6 pictures taken into evidence....I just dont recall where.

Your sequencing idea reminded me of a question Ive had thats related, who would have been let into the room first at around 1:30pm?...assuming the forced opening of the room wasnt a staged event, something which Im unsure of myself.

Investigators? Photogs? Physicians?

Once the Police begin the investigation process, they would need one or two men at least in the room at the same time, ...them plus photographers likely wouldnt work in that small space. Do you get the doctors to certify death first? In this case maybe not... as a medical authority had looked into the room via the window and determined the body inside was beyond assistance. So they had already determined she was dead in order to justify leaving the room closed until all was ready to begin.

So its likely just between the Photographers and the Police I would think. Do you document the room first visually, or have the room inspected by Police?

If the photographers went in second, we really have no assurances that anything in that room is just as it was found,..or as seen in the photos.

Cheers Suz

[Suzi]

Hi Michael

An elegant proposition there but ....Imagine if you can that scene- Once that door was opened (by whatever means) there was,allegedly a mess of blood and other remains across the floor-possibly to the door. Now the strongest hearted (and stomached) of the police of the day would have hardly felt easy with entering that room. Think about it- imagine the smell before we start on the visuals!!!

(It can, in passing, only be imagined how Thomas Bowyer and then Mc Carthy felt/looked a few hours earlier!!)

OK -We imagine that Mr Martin,the photographer arrived with his apparel (not inconsiderable at the time) - Sidles his way between the onlookers crowding the streets around- although I understand Dorset Street was blocked off at this time- and then enters the room,slipping on the detritus and no doubt nudging aside policemen,detectives various and probably heaving at the sight of his potential subject.


What happens then?- OK a shot from the front side MJK1- if not outside of the now removed window ,then right up against the inner window frame.

Slip sliding across the floor - more photographs are requested- someone moves the bed away from the partition- another setting up of equipment (bedding roll notwithstanding) and here we go-MJK3- over the abdominal nastiness towards the door- including the left hand(!).

I remain to be convinced that these were the only two photographs taken in that charnel house

-Tantalising and (to date) eternally frustrating...

Of course it took a hell of a long time for the known photographs to bubble to the surface c/o Don -It can only be a matter of time before something else arrives-whether it be in someone's attic or wherever....hopefully not lost c/o the Luftwaffe!!

Suz x

[Oldsen]

I don't know if somebody has already had this idea (I don't think I have read it), but it looks to me that the hand in the photograph discussed here has a continuity with the "object" on the left side of the photograph, over the table. And the more I look at them together, the more it seems to me that it is a body lying on the table: hand, biceps and leg. Perhaps that of the photographer who was operating the camera situated on the other side of the bed.

If this has already been observed, then be this message a backing to it from my point of view.

Despite what is being claimed regarding the two images, there are issues like the angle of Marys left leg that are not consistent in the 2 images. And my right thumb has the exact same slight curvature from the last knuckle...Im what used to be called Double Jointed, I can put that knuckle at a 90% angle without manipulating it with the other hand..

I would agree that its quite possible that furniture or even the position of Marys body might have been altered even accidentally to take shots, and I believe that there has been evidence submitted that suggests perhaps 4 or 6 shots were taken in all....I believe someone discovered numbering on a plate or file related to that.

It seems to me that MJK1 was taken from between the end of the larger table under the windows and the fireplace, so it was shot at a slight angle, as MJK3 was. I think thats simply because a 90% angle shot from either side could not be taken due to the table on the left side of the room, and the beds position as related to the partition wall. I would have expected right angle shots from the sides if they had the room.

This seems to indicate to me that its probable that they used the room as found....that no furniture was moved including the bed. Which would mean that to shoot MJK3, the camera would have to be in the spot that the rolled bedding is on, between the wall and bed. Which would mean the focus was set from a top viewfinder and the shutter was a squeeze bulb remote style,....or possibly that as I suggested, a mirror was placed on that bedding, and the camera is aimed at it, in order for him to be able to frame the shot properly. The only problem would be anything in the space between the bed and door...like the photographer himself, so its possible if that method was used, that the photographer would have had to crouch and perhaps duck to be out of the shot.

Since this likely a man wearing trousers with suspenders, a vest, a tie and a jacket, he may not have freedom of movement easily, and the act of crouching like that might require a hand to steady himself.

That could explain why that hand... which to me appears to have a thumb showing... is in the picture.

Its speculation, but it would be a way that he could properly get the framing and focus.

Best regards all

[Suzi]

Hi all again

Right- the table shot was quite obviously taken from behind the bed with the photographer with his back (and tripods etc against it)- probably from the bottom/middle of the bed.
The 'crocodile' etc is just that- a bolster and some unpleasant inneards- No thumbs involved!- sorry!
MJK1 was taken from a full on direction- it's not inconcievable that the table with the unpleasantness on top could have been moved out of the way.
Come- on are we all agreed it's a little finger and that the 'thumb' was 'er part of the table stuff??

Suz x

[The Good Michael]

Let me try: The camera can only capture what its lens can see. The bolster was off to the right of the lens' view in the first picture, therefore it was not captured on film in that instance.

Mike

[Stephen Thomas]

The bolster is 'out of shot' on the first picture. Simple as that.

[Nothing to see]

I thought I had, NTS. Well, not to you, but the world in general

It's rather complex to put into words, to be honest - all I can say is look at the two original photographs and imagine yourself in the room. The fact that we can't see the "bolster" in MJK1, but we can in MJK3, ought to become crystal clear. (Hint: there's not enough space in the frame of MJK1 to accommodate it.)

Well, please explain it to me in simple terms. I couldn't take a decent photo if my life depended on it. Not all of us are photo warriors, believe me. I'm certainly not.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi. I know you're proving a point to someone. But that's pretty interesting. So can you explain it to me?

I thought I had, NTS. Well, not to you, but the world in general

It's rather complex to put into words, to be honest - all I can say is look at the two original photographs and imagine yourself in the room. The fact that we can't see the "bolster" in MJK1, but we can in MJK3, ought to become crystal clear. (Hint: there's not enough space in the frame of MJK1 to accommodate it.)

[Nothing to see]

Hi. I know you're proving a point to someone. But that's pretty interesting. So can you explain it to me?

[Sam Flynn]

Here is MJK1 with the relevant part of MJK3 flipped round and superimposed, roughly to scale:



I appreciate there is almost a 180° change in angle between the shots, but my software/expertise isn't up to compensating for it. Nevertheless, it's clear from MJK3 that there is "clear brown table" between the trailing edge of the pile of flesh and the bolster - there is a gap of, I'd estimate, 6-8 inches of table visible in that shot.

In contrast, there is hardly ANY gap after the selfsame edge of the pile of flesh in MJK1 - indeed, the gap itself is cut off by the photograph's frame. If the gap itself is curtailed to such an extent, we haven't a hope in Hell of seeing anything to the "right" of it in MJK1.

[chrisjd]

Hi Simon,

"With so many contradictions existing between the two photos, why do you persist in believing that MJK3 is the scene depicted in MJK1 but taken from a different angle?"

What else could it be? Please explain.

Christian