MJK1 & MJK3 camera positions - plan view. (Warning - graphic images)

[sgh]

Hi SGE,

IN MKJ 3 The victim's left knee is here [downward arrow]—

[ATTACH]5161[/ATTACH]

Where else would it be?

Please illustrate.

Regards,

Simon

Thanks for that Simon.
You placed the knee where I thought you would.

I assume your theory that the bed, table or both were moved on the basis of your indicated position of the 'knee', or is there anything else.
Is my assumption correct?

Steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

Since I wrote my original Rip article I've learned a lot about these two photographs, so I should have said that my arrow indicates the position of what is supposed to be the victim's left knee.

Other things?

You mean apart from the table in MJK3 being a different height and in a different position to that in MJK1?

There's lots more, but it will have to wait for another day.

Regards,

Simon

[sgh]

Hi Steve,

Since I wrote my original Rip article I've learned a lot about these two photographs, so I should have said that my arrow indicates the position of what is supposed to be the victim's left knee.

Other things?

You mean apart from the table in MJK3 being a different height and in a different position to that in MJK1?

There's lots more, but it will have to wait for another day.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,
I'm glad you said 'supposed' to be a knee because that isn't a knee at all, is it!
I look forward to hearing whatever more you have that can confirm without a shadow of a doubt that objects have been moved between the capture of the two photos.

Best
Steve

[smezenen]

Parallax is an apparent displacement or difference of orientation of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines. The term is derived from the Greek (parallaxis), meaning "alteration". Nearby objects have a larger parallax than more distant objects when observed from different positions. this would explain the apparent moving and the differet size for objects photographed from different angles and distances.

[sgh]

Parallax is an apparent displacement or difference of orientation of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines. The term is derived from the Greek (parallaxis), meaning "alteration". Nearby objects have a larger parallax than more distant objects when observed from different positions. this would explain the apparent moving and the differet size for objects photographed from different angles and distances.

Hi Smez,
That's a good explanation of parallax and is the system used for distance measurements in astronomy using the triangulation method.

Also, may I add the definition for Parallax error in photographic terms as this is quite important considering the type of camera used on the day:
The difference in point of view that occurs when the lens (or other device) through which the eye views a scene is separate from the lens that exposes the film. With a lens-shutter camera, parallax is the difference between what the viewfinder sees and what the camera records, especially at close distances. This is caused by the separation between the viewfinder and the picture-taking lens. There is no parallax with single-lens-reflex cameras or view/field/box cameras because when you look through the viewfinder, you are viewing the subject through the picture-taking lens.

Best
Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Parallax is an apparent displacement or difference of orientation of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines. The term is derived from the Greek (parallaxis), meaning "alteration". Nearby objects have a larger parallax than more distant objects when observed from different positions. this would explain the apparent moving and the differet size for objects photographed from different angles and distances.

Excellent point, Smez - and quite true.

[Stephen Thomas]

As Father Ted said......

Big sheep near, small sheep further away, Dougal.

[sgh]

For Stephen Thomas & All

Here's a further diagram of how the interior layout of 13 Miller's Court appears to be according to the available information from the two CS photos - MJK1 &3.

This diagram is again reverse engineered from those two photos and my previous diagrams showing the plan view of the room and associated landmarks.

This time I've attempted an end view and included the field of view (FOV)
of the camera position used for the MJK3 photo.

For quicker reference I've included one of my previous diagrams now updated to revision 4.

I hope this helps to give the reader a better understanding of how the room
may well have been set out.
It is drawn to scale and as accurately as can be determined by available information as previously mentioned in my other threads on this subject.

Have fun
Best
Steve

[Stephen Thomas]

Yet again absolutely brilliant work from you, Steve. Many many thanks!!!!!

But why the pull handle on the door? Surely the knob would suffice.

Best wishes

[Sam Flynn]

But why the pull handle on the door? Surely the knob would suffice.

... Joe Barnett had moved out by this time, remember.

Oh - you mean that knob!

[sgh]

Yet again absolutely brilliant work from you, Steve. Many many thanks!!!!!

But why the pull handle on the door? Surely the knob would suffice.

Best wishes

You're most welcome Stephen, and thank you for the compliment.

The pull handle in my opinion seems to be the most logical solution considering it's proximity to the door - could have been a tight fitting door
when damp or hot in summer!
The idea of doing these drawings is to help folks (and me) to try and understand and learn more about this particular case.
A lot of things I had read earlier about the MJK crime scene just didn't seem to add up or be possible. Mainly, the moving of articles in the room such as the bed and table to enable the photographer to make the captures.

I believe that my placement of the camera position *within* the room to produce the MJK1 photo has to be the most probable spot because the development of the the field of view lines lead back exactly to that specific point - in the room where I've shown it, not outside the building as many seem to think!
This alone I would have thought may have opened further discussions amongst enthusiasts on this forum as to the time of day when the photog gained access to the room, especially when one also considers the apparent sunlight highlighting part of the bedside table and contents as seen in MJK3 photo.

Further, regarding my suggested camera location close to the bed for MJK3,
I placed it at 42 inches down from the top of the victims head and this appears to be about right.
I noted a couple of comments awhile back that suggested my camera position appeared too near to the center edge of the bed and should be a little further down.
I'm sure it's right though because the measurement of 42 inches and considering the close proximity of the camera's location to the victims groin and the camera viewing towards the groin area maybe no more than 6 inches further down would give the victim a measurement from head to groin of 36 inches, then add another 32 inches or so for the the legs = 68 inches - 5ft 8ins, about right for the 5ft 7ins reckoning.
Moving the camera 6 inches further down towards the bottom of the bed
as suggested by others, and which I did add on one of my diagrams, would mean that the victim would need to be almost 7ft tall for everything to match in the photo!!!
Let us all not forget this, much of the victims body was stripped down to the bone in places and the groin/buttock area lost most of the thick dense flesh.
If we replaced the flesh to the groin area we would realise how much closer the camera actually was.
All these things have to be considered very carefully and that's what I have tried to account for as best as I can.

Where practically possible I've restricted all drawing tolerances to +/- 10mm, that's a freedom of 20mm in all.
For all FOV angles I allowed a tolerance of +/- 1.5 degrees, 3 degs in total
One can never be 100% though because some items have to be estimated, but nevertheless, still have to fit with a certain logical framework.

So, I'm sticking with the camera locations of where I've calculated them to be. The only thing I dread is that some smartarse springs out of nowhere and tells me that the black and white photo we are talking about known as MJK3
is a waxwork mockup model made in the 1980's not the 1880's !!!

Best
Steve

[perrymason]

If Ive sussed out the details correctly in those excellent illustrations, the position of the camera for MJK3 is about where I always assumed it was, on the bedding between the bed and the wall with the enclosed entrance to the stairs and the exit under the archway. Which would mean it was taken with a remote shutter, or with a crown mounted focus/frame viewfinder, like in some portrait cameras of the period.

If thats the case, was the bedding being there merely advantageous, or arranged with intent? A small issue....but one of those answers would indicate that at least something in that room was moved after they entered it, but not the bed itself.

Cheers all.

[babybird67]

great work sgh

thank you. Very interesting.

[Sam Flynn]

If thats the case, was the bedding being there merely advantageous, or arranged with intent?

Why would they have bothered laying a stocking over the top of the bedding, though? I can't quite see that an uplift of a few extra microns under the camera would have made much difference to the shot.

[sgh]

If Ive sussed out the details correctly in those excellent illustrations, the position of the camera for MJK3 is about where I always assumed it was, on the bedding between the bed and the wall with the enclosed entrance to the stairs and the exit under the archway. Which would mean it was taken with a remote shutter, or with a crown mounted focus/frame viewfinder, like in some portrait cameras of the period.

If thats the case, was the bedding being there merely advantageous, or arranged with intent? A small issue....but one of those answers would indicate that at least something in that room was moved after they entered it, but not the bed itself.

Cheers all.

Hi Perrymason,
I've always assumed the rolled up bedding was there at the time of the murder, the camera placed ontop for the close-up shot came in handy, however, that is disturbing the evidence and would nowadays be classed as contaminating that evidence.

In my opinion/experience, it would be simple to preset the camera to the required settings then position it by guesstimating the view required then,
by leaning from the corner of the bed, fire the shutter/ remove and replace the lens cap, whichever the case may be. I don't have positive id of the camera used but what I do know is that the image would be seen upside down and back to front on the groundglass back of the camera.

I might post an example of what you see through the back end of a large format camera to help folks understand how a scene is viewed and composed
because many will not have considered this added difficulty to taking a photo.

Many Thanks BTW

Best,
Steve