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

[Simon Wood]

You've all been cheated and deceived. MJK2 and MJK3 were faked. They were not taken sequentially, and there is nothing to be found in one photograph which confirms detail from the other. Even the "left" hand seen in MJK3 is wrong, being the "right" hand of the person hiding just out of plain sight.

[richardh]

I have to second what RD said about your content Richard. If you still have the content from the old website then you should upload it again. Thanks.

I've found the old animations of Mary's left hand.
Uploaded here:

https://jtr3d.com/mary-kelly-hand-position-animations/

[The Rookie Detective]

Welcome to the Bolster debate. The bed is not flush to the wall, there is bedding stuffed down between them. The camera could have been placed there for the shot back over her towards the nighttable. Some say its a Bolster stuffed down there, some say bedding, for me, bedding is acceptable. And no, there would not be enough room for the killer/cutter to work from that side.

As for Marys position when first attacked, she is facing the partition wall, on her right side, towards the upper part of the bed and oriented to the right hand side. The blood splashes on that wall indicate arterial spray. The gap that the bedding made may not even have been there when he attacked, he might have stuffed it there before taking Mary apart.

She was on her right side facing the wall towards the right side of the bed, a position anyone might have found themselves in when their partner arrives after they had retired and intends to slip into bed with them. You know, you just scootch over a bit.

Thank you for clarifying that for me Michael


So in terms of the height and angle of arterial spray; was Mary laying down flat on her right side, or perhaps kneeling away from her killer?

If her neck was stabbed then the killer could be either left or right handed, but if her neck was cut and sliced across; then how did the killer get the leverage if Mary was laying down?


It's also interesting how Mary's throat was attacked while she was still alive and had blood pressure.

With the previous murders it seems more likely that the killer used strangulation to subdue his victims and then only cut their throat after he had lowered them down and they were incapacitated.

So why the different approach with Mary?

Am i correct in saying that he didn't strangle Mary first like he did with the other victims?



Fascinating indeed



RD

[Michael W Richards]

I was always under the impression that there was no space and the bed was plush up against the partition?

If MJK 3 is authentic and there WAS a space between the bed and wall, then was there room for the killer to fit in that gap as he cut Mary?

Having a gap between the bed could mean that the generally accepted idea that the killer was behind Mary as she faced the partition wall, could now alter that perspective somewhat.

Curious.



RD

Welcome to the Bolster debate. The bed is not flush to the wall, there is bedding stuffed down between them. The camera could have been placed there for the shot back over her towards the nighttable. Some say its a Bolster stuffed down there, some say bedding, for me, bedding is acceptable. And no, there would not be enough room for the killer/cutter to work from that side.

As for Marys position when first attacked, she is facing the partition wall, on her right side, towards the upper part of the bed and oriented to the right hand side. The blood splashes on that wall indicate arterial spray. The gap that the bedding made may not even have been there when he attacked, he might have stuffed it there before taking Mary apart.

She was on her right side facing the wall towards the right side of the bed, a position anyone might have found themselves in when their partner arrives after they had retired and intends to slip into bed with them. You know, you just scootch over a bit.

[Enigma]

I have to second what RD said about your content Richard. If you still have the content from the old website then you should upload it again. Thanks.

[The Rookie Detective]

Most of the old website content has gone. I might have it somewhere and I can re-upload it.

Do you (people of this thread) think it might be a good idea for me to redo the room using 2024 tech to get a really accurate 3D/VR version to use in further discussion?
My original version of room 13 is still online and I've just uploaded a vid which features room 13. If you check out the link you can see that it would be useful to have a walk around the room to view the scene from all the various angles discussed in this thread so far.
The room is pretty accurate and the positions of Mary/bed etc are IMO very accurate.
Here is the link:

https://youtu.be/jc_s8quOKtg?si=ThWLCFQ6UZeEsRBL&t=543

You'll see that you can view the legs/hands positions from any angle. And if it's not considered accurate then maybe we can develop a version that is closer to what we all generally like.

I think anything you upload is pure quality and can only be a good thing for all of us.

Richard, can I please clear one thing up; was there a gap between her bed and the partition wall?

I was always under the impression that there was no space and the bed was plush up against the partition?

If MJK 3 is authentic and there WAS a space between the bed and wall, then was there room for the killer to fit in that gap as he cut Mary?

Having a gap between the bed could mean that the generally accepted idea that the killer was behind Mary as she faced the partition wall, could now alter that perspective somewhat.

Curious.



RD

[richardh]

Hi RD

You might want to look at RichardH’s work on the various photos. His website is at jtr3d.com

He did an animation some years ago, centered on MJK’s left pinky, which showed precisely how the two photos lined up. Unfortunately, it seems to have rotted away, many of his posts are now without attachments.

Perhaps someone else knows where to access it.

Most of the old website content has gone. I might have it somewhere and I can re-upload it.

Do you (people of this thread) think it might be a good idea for me to redo the room using 2024 tech to get a really accurate 3D/VR version to use in further discussion?
My original version of room 13 is still online and I've just uploaded a vid which features room 13. If you check out the link you can see that it would be useful to have a walk around the room to view the scene from all the various angles discussed in this thread so far.
The room is pretty accurate and the positions of Mary/bed etc are IMO very accurate.
Here is the link:

https://youtu.be/jc_s8quOKtg?si=ThWLCFQ6UZeEsRBL&t=543

You'll see that you can view the legs/hands positions from any angle. And if it's not considered accurate then maybe we can develop a version that is closer to what we all generally like.

[Michael W Richards]

But why is her left leg in a different position?

It's not about how the shot could be taken without moving anything; it's about why the images don't match up regardless of angles, elevation and depth perception.

In MJK 1 we can clearly see the contours of both legs and IMO this photo is at a higher elevation than MJK 3.

I think the issue with the left leg renders MJK 3 as a fake.


Not in terms of technicality of how they took the photo, but what's actually being seen in the shot itself.



RD

We know for a fact that the killer moved Marys body, .... he put her left arm back across where he had been cutting after completing what he wanted. I think you are not recognizing something with the shot from the right side of the bed which also shows the night table. Look at that photo. Look at where her left hand is. That protrusion that seems semi transparent? I believe its her inner left thigh. Mary had both thighs denuded, but the left thigh was only denuded on the inside of the leg.

[Kattrup]

Hi RD

You might want to look at RichardH’s work on the various photos. His website is at jtr3d.com

He did an animation some years ago, centered on MJK’s left pinky, which showed precisely how the two photos lined up. Unfortunately it seems to have rotted away, many of his posts are now without attachments.

Perhaps someone else knows where to access it.

[The Rookie Detective]

We discussed this years ago and by placing the camera on the bedding stuffed down between the bed and the partition wall and activating the shutter by a squeeze bulb, that perspective shot could be taken easily.

But why is her left leg in a different position?

It's not about how the shot could be taken without moving anything; it's about why the images don't match up regardless of angles, elevation and depth perception.

In MJK 1 we can clearly see the contours of both legs and IMO this photo is at a higher elevation than MJK 3.

I think the issue with the left leg renders MJK 3 as a fake.


Not in terms of technicality of how they took the photo, but what's actually being seen in the shot itself.



RD

[Michael W Richards]

Hi P,
There's no need to move the bed away from the wall.
If you check back amongst my posts in this thread you will see my explanation of how the camera could be set without moving anything.

Best
Steve

We discussed this years ago and by placing the camera on the bedding stuffed down between the bed and the partition wall and activating the shutter by a squeeze bulb, that perspective shot could be taken easily.

[The Rookie Detective]

Bump up for this fascinating thread.


How much of this is still accurate after 15 years?


I always thought there's was no room between the bed and partition wall?


Looking at the photos of MJK 1 and 3, I STILL can't work out why her LEFT leg is not visible in the shot.


Either that or it IS visible, BUT her leg has been lifted.


In MJK 1 her left leg is clearly laying close to the bed at a much lower angle than can be seen in MJK3.

Now regardless of using different angles and elevation to achieve various shots, it still doesn't explain why her left leg APPEARS to have been raised in MJK 3.


In MJK 1 the contour of both her legs are clear...


... yet noticeably there appears to be a bulk of white material that appears to extend from the left sleeve of her chemise and runs UNDER her body and then raises up just above her left leg and then BACK OVER her abdomen and then appears to end in another bloodied bulk of material comprising her abdominal cavity.

It almost looks like someone has shoved some bedding into her abdominal cavity.

The effect looks as though she has 2 left legs, but look closely and her leg is UNDERNEATH the white bulk of material that extends into her abdomen.

Its important to note that the material I am referring to is WHITE in colour and does not match the UNDERSHEET which looks off-white.



In other words, it looks like the killer has interwoven the white material around her body.

Why is that?

But what if it WASN'T the killer who did this?
Could this be some bedding and/ OR HER CHEMISE, that was used as LEVERAGE to MOVE her body; ergo, reposition her BETWEEN shots?

If we assume that MJK 3 was taken AFTER MJK 1, then could the reason why we can't CLEARLY see her left leg, be because they PULLED the white material seen in MJK1 from under her body and used it to PROP UP her left leg which appears to be much higher in MJK 3?

Either that, or as I suspect, MJK 3 is fake; the mistake made by the creator NOT recognising that her left leg is UNDER the bulk of white material that I refer to.


As an aside

We can also see her left hand placed

"Inside her stomach"

It was a description that was printed in the press that I haven't seen mentioned fairly often; but judging by MJK1 this would appear to be accurate; the killer shoving her left hand inside her stomach.



Just fascinating



RD

[WARSPITE]

Hi P,
There's no need to move the bed away from the wall.
If you check back amongst my posts in this thread you will see my explanation of how the camera could be set without moving anything.

Best
Steve

Thanks Steve,sorry wasnt looking properly.
I agree and tend to think the mutilation was methodical,but with also great strength. Ive cut many breasts off assisting in mastectomies in theatre,its hard work even with modern instruments.And theyre heavy...sorry,too much detail.

[sgh]

To take MK3,wouldnt have the photographer have had to move the bed away from the wall?

Hi P,
There's no need to move the bed away from the wall.
If you check back amongst my posts in this thread you will see my explanation of how the camera could be set without moving anything.

Best
Steve

[WARSPITE]

Thanks guys. Wow,I never thought there could be 6 photos in total,but of course,it makes sense.Theres bound to be more taken than the 2 we have. Im no ophthalmologist,but mydriatics like atropine(belladonna) is one of the oldest drugs we have,and would have been widely available, to dilate her pupils, but I guess we're talking definitely pre-retinal photography days.
To take MK3,wouldnt have the photographer have had to move the bed away from the wall?