MJK photo 4 enhanced

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

I have no idea of the size of the table.

But irrespective of size, how do you account for it moving two feet?

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Thomas]

Hi Simon

I've just checked both photos and I see what you mean.

In MJK1 the front of the table appears to be next to Kelly's elbow.

In MJK3 the 'nose' of the bolster appears to be in that position.

Perhaps the table was indeed moved to photograph what was on it.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stephen,

Yes, it's all very odd, but then nothing's straightforward in the Ripper mystery.

Regards,

Simon

[WARSPITE]

Great work sgh, Ive been trying to fatham out the various anatomy since dissection classes at medical school, but must admit its difficult. The pelvis and perineum have been totally destroyed.
Incidentally,whereabouts in Cheshire are you?

[Sam Flynn]

But irrespective of size, how do you account for it moving two feet?

By realising that it wasn't moved by two feet.

Look at MJK2. If you look at the top of the circular mark on Kelly's right calf, and mentally draw a line from it through Kelly's left knee, you'll see that it lands on the leading edge of the pile of flesh on the table:



Drawing a similar line on MJK1, you'll see that it misses the leading edge of the pile of flesh by a mere inch or so:



Allowing for distortion and perspective, a discrepancy of an inch or two over a distance of some 4 or 5 feet is hardly significant.

[sgh]

Sam - you beat me to it!

Projected line photos to prove the bed was not moved for the MJK3 photo.
This might look a little confusing at first viewing but follow it through to get a good understanding.
The red lines drawn in both photos support the fact of no bed movement comparing one photo to the other.
I hadn't seen Sam's post until I was about to upload these, however I'm pleased that mine compares with Sam's pretty darn close.
I'll later try to add labels for those who may find it difficult to follow the geometry, but I feel that a careful study should not be too much of a problem.

[Stephen Thomas]

Sam, Steve

Nope. Elbow next to edge of table in MJK1 and elbow next to tip of bolster in MJK3. The bolster is almost touching the elbow in MJK3 but it's not even visible in MJK1.

[Nemo]

I think the table is further away from the bed than you think.

The table legs are quite long.

The table top is above Mary's head height when she is lying on her bed

PS Actually, on second thoughts, the table height appears different in each photo - strange perspective indeed

Has the left knee position changed vertically?

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, Steve

Nope. Elbow next to edge of table in MJK1 and elbow next to tip of bolster in MJK3. The bolster is almost touching the elbow in MJK3 but it's not even visible in MJK1.

Line of sight, Stephen. Not to mention parallax. The elbow is no more "almost touching" the bolster in MJK3 than the moon "almost touches" the Sun during an eclipse. The eclipse analogy is a useful one, in that it depends on your vantage point (or where your camera is set up) as to whether you'll see a total or a partial eclipse, or none at all. In other words, the juxtaposition of the objects one sees depends on one's frame of reference.

If both Kelly photos (front and back view) had been taken at precisely the same angle, it'd be a rather different story - but it's obvious that, whilst MJK1 was taken from a vantage point roughly perpendicular with the windows, MJK3 was taken at an angle of 45+ degrees to the plane of MJK1.

Diagram showing approximate plane of MJK1 (blue line) vs equivalent for MJK3 (red line):

[sgh]

Sam, Steve

Nope. Elbow next to edge of table in MJK1 and elbow next to tip of bolster in MJK3. The bolster is almost touching the elbow in MJK3 but it's not even visible in MJK1.

Stephen,
I've added a blue line of sight to help clarify the difference in angles causing your confusion regarding the elbow near the bolster claim.
If the bed had been moved then the lines would not tally.
You can see the projected blue line points straight to where the bolster would be positioned on the projected table. If it did not line up then you have a case, but it does line up !!!
Angles are very deceptive to conceive in the mind until you place them as lines onto landmarks on the photo's - then it becomes clearer.
You are seeing a 'compressed line of sight' image in MJK3 that makes you 'think' the elbow is near to the bolster, when in reality it is not.
Sam's 'eclipse' analogy applies and explains this well.

Best, Steve

[Midnyte]

The pinky

In the full length shot of Mary, you can see the pinky curled in at the end, it looks like a light circle, below her pinky. Her hand does look on the large side, perhaps as she was a country girl from Ireland, her hands were not delicate.
Here's a hint for working with the crime scene photos that I found is helpful; Save the pictures from this site to "My pictures" in your computer, then you can work with the pictures by zooming in and out, flipping parts,etc.
For those of us without the sophisticated software, it can be very revealing.
Hope this helps,
Joan

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam and Steve,

Now I've seen and heard everything.

Your diagrams and logic are pure madness.

I'm outta here.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam and Steve,

Now I've seen and heard everything.

Your diagrams and logic are pure madness.

For pity's sake! Just wander around some objects in your home, will you, and watch how items juxtapose one another differently, depending on your line of sight.

[Khanada]

While I can't possibly discount the notion that Mary's left pinky had been cut or injured, I can't entirely agree that that's a pinky that's not a normal size. I'm sorry, but I know a young lady with quite big hands and thick fingers for a female of her height. If Mary Jane had similar hands to this acquaintance of mine, it could be a "normal" size pinky -- at least, to Mary Jane. Equally, it could be injured. But unless we have evidence that Mary Jane was double-jointed... Colour me unwilling to go there.

Again, why would the photographer balance his weight on the body on the bed, and not use the bed itself for balance? The position I'm picturing here is terribly awkward, if he's crouching on the floor and ducking his head, he's then reaching way over his head to steady himself. Why? Far easier to just squat down and lean on the bed.

Still not buyin' the pixie 'til you unpocket yourself and show it to me...

[The Good Michael]

I have an old photo that's a bit fuzzy on one side. The logical explanation is that the camera or the subject moved a bit. Yet, how am I to know it's not the Easter Bunny? Intelligence might be a way to figure it out. The same goes for these photos. Intelligence may tell one that MJK's pinky is curled a bit, and that the angle of the shot shows it in the way it does precisely because of that angle. How are we to know that MJK's hand wasn't hacked off and reassembled by the police in order to make it look like it was on the wrong arm? Or how are we to know that This photo wasn't the first one and the police decided to put her back together for the subsequent shots? Intelligent thought may allow us to put those ideas to rest. We may also put to bed Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, and Santa Claus. If we can't do that, we may as well be looking for Baphomet again.

Cheers,

Mike