MJK photo 4 enhanced

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

I know this is a stupid question, but do you have any red and green lines to back this up?

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

I know this is a stupid question, but do you have any red and green lines to back this up?

No need for lines, Simon - all you have to do is look at MJK1 and MJK3 to see why. Specifically, we only see the front edge of the bedside table in MJK1, and the pile of flesh on the table ends just before the edge of the photograph. In MJK3 we see see that pile of flesh from behind, as well as being able to see more of the bedside table. Because of this, it's evident that a clear gap of several inches exists between the edge of the pile of flesh and the bolster.

Ergo, there was plenty of room towards the rear of the bedside table to accommodate the bolster, but as we cannot see that part of the table in MJK1, we don't see the bolster either.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

If Mister Bolster/Crocodile was on the table [but out of frame] in MJK1, then the tip of his snout would have been close to the bed-head [and thus out of frame in MJK3]; not nestling by the victim's left elbow [fully visible in MJK3].

I await your learned discourse on camera angles and lens distortion.

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Thomas]

it's simply a matter of measuring the distance from intended position to subject - set and focus the lens to that distance - reposition camera to desired position without tripod - confirm measurements - use a small aperture to gain greatest depth of field (as insurance for front to back sharpness within limits of lens)

I don't think Victorian cameras were over-endowed with f-stops, Steve, or much in the way of focussing ability either.

[Sam Flynn]

If Mister Bolster/Crocodile was on the table [but out of frame] in MJK1, then the tip of his snout would have been close to the bed-head [and thus out of frame in MJK3]; not nestling by the victim's left elbow [fully visible in MJK3].

A metaphor: the "Big Dipper" (or Plough) isn't really plough-shaped, Simon - it just looks that the stars are arranged that way because of our point of view. From a different standpoint, you might see a straight line, a cube, or a celestial crocodile with a zig-zag back.

I await your learned discourse on camera angles and lens distortion.

Nothing as complicated required, I'm afraid. It's simply about lines of sight.

[sgh]

I don't think Victorian cameras were over-endowed with f-stops, Steve, or much in the way of focussing ability either.

Some cameras avaiable in the 1880's had a lens with wheel-set stops.
Focusing by way of rack and pinion, others had scale focusing facilities.
If you can tell me the exact camera used that would be most interesting!

Best, Steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

The "Big Dipper" (or Plough) isn't really plough-shaped, Simon - it just looks that the stars are arranged that way because of our point of view.

No sh*t, Sherlock.

What's all this got to do with MJK1 and 3?

Regards,

Simon

[sgh]

Hi Steve,

The "Big Dipper" (or Plough) isn't really plough-shaped, Simon - it just looks that the stars are arranged that way because of our point of view.

No sh*t, Sherlock.

What's all this got to do with MJK1 and 3?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,
I think you have Sam's post in mind but addressed your reply to me !!!
Anyway, what Sam is saying using his metaphore "Big Dipper" is correct in describing what you see and depending on the angle you see it in both MJK crime scene photos.
Photo interpretation is not easy.

Best, Steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

My apologies. I confused Sam's muddy thinking for yours; but as you both seem to agree all I will say is that in MJK1 and MJK3 we are dealing with a camera to subject distance of six feet [maximum] and not interstellar light years.

So come on, where is Mister Bolster/Crocodile in MJK1?

Regards,

Simon

[perrymason]

Just popped back in to say to Sam that I didnt intend to come off disrespecting your research earlier...but in retrospect I think it did sound like that...so sorry for that.

I believe to my eye that it is a picture of a right thumb, but I do see the arguments and photo illustrations as having merit.

I personally believe that accounting for oddly represented features by the photographs due to the technology, lack of clarity and color, ...and even the angle it was taken at, a right hand still does fit the image to my eye anyway.

I think the major difference is that I am fully expecting to find deception in some form revealed at some point regarding this crime scene and investigation...and Im pretty sure you arent.

Best regards as always.

[Khanada]

I'm going to kick myself for this later...

Who unilaterally decided that the police and/or photographer did not move the bed, making Elvis leave (or enter) the frame? Or that they did not drop old Elvis there on the table (or remove him) between photos?

If I hold my right hand in the same position as the alleged right hand in MJK3, my thumb drops down below the plane of the back of my hand, unless I force it into position and very stiffly hold it in place -- something I doubt even rigour mortis would do. Now, if I hold my left hand in the same position as the left hand in MJK3, it looks very similar, other than that I think Mary Jane had thicker fingers than I've got. Certainly my little finger stays in the same plane as the back of my hand, which is much more consistent with what we see in MJK3.

So if it's supposed to be someone else's hand, and a right one, who just couldn't wait to dip their hand in that, and then duck down out of shot?

[Midnyte]

A clear spot?

Hi all; Notice the space on the table, between the fleshy bolster and the flesh that looks like a bellybutton and belly skin. There is a clear spot that would have been about the size of a Doctor's bag, or for some reason there is nothing at all in that space, even the skin flaps are neatly folded over to a straight edge.
Where is the fleshy bolster in the other shot? It has slipped to the floor, and is seen under the table at the head of the bed!
There would be no way to get the full body in the shot, and with adequate light from the larger window, without moving the table back and/or the bed forward to get that shot.
Thanks
Joan

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Steve, My apologies. I confused Sam's muddy thinking for yours

Charmed, I'm sure. It's your thinking which might be a bit muddy, if you struggle with a simple metaphor, Simon.

Metaphor apart, I even spelled it out for you. Line of sight.

[Sam Flynn]

Just popped back in to say to Sam that I didnt intend to come off disrespecting your research earlier...but in retrospect I think it did sound like that...so sorry for that.

I took no offence, Mike, but thanks anyway.

[perrymason]

[SIZE="1"]
So if it's supposed to be someone else's hand, and a right one, who just couldn't wait to dip their hand in that, and then duck down out of shot?

I suggest if you examine the photo carefully its not clear whether the "right hand" is even in the cavity itself...as it is over the cavity in MJK1. The hand might be placed there to steady a camera operator crouching...he couldnt very well kneel there...there is blood all over.

Cheers Khanada