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

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

So would I.

So how come the left leg/knee is akimbo in MJK1 but propped vertically in MJK 3?

Merely a thought.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

By the way, which photo do you think was taken first? MJK1 or MJK3?

I'd have thought that the priority would almost certainly have been on taking the full(ish) length body shot first, Simon.

[sgh]

Hi Steve,

Are you sure it was curtains . . ?


By the way, which photo do you think was taken first? MJK1 or MJK3?

Regards,

Simon

Hiya Simon,

Regarding your question -curtains or blinds, well I don't know if the Victorian lingo of the time may refer to curtains or blinds as meaning the same thing!
Many contradictive descriptive aspects appear through the whole case of JTR,
hence many different points of view of 'who dunnit' etc ensue.
I even considered at one point that perhaps a fold up screen may have been used to block out unwanted light, peeping toms etc, etc.
However, i'm sure it's simply a pair of grubby plain curtains that were'nt fully pulled together, thus leaving a strip of light between them.

Considering the possibilities that JTR lit / used the fire in that room to illuminate his victim so he could carry out his work, and the reports from witnessess saying they didn't see a light at the parameters of the time of the murder, then it goes without saying that 'something' blocked out the light from the blazing fire. But that only supports the case that curtains, blinds or whatever covered the window to block out the light from the outside, otherwise JTR would have been most likely seen by the few people about in the Courtyard at the time - what a big mistake!.

My thoughts say they are curtains because of their 'almost' flat and even appearance.
Also, a careful close-up study of that strip of light between them indicates a slightly uneven gap along the edges from top to bottom regardless of the three 'bulbous' points of stronger light from the outside creating the illusion of the gaps being wider at those points. I would expect that curtains that are almost drawn together would not hang dead straight along their edges.

That 'bulbous' illusion incidently is caused by blown highlights, also known as 'flared highlights' in the image, (importantly not to be confused with the photographic term 'Clipping' which does not apply to analog photography - that's the digital stuff - not availbe in 1888).
Whilst on the finer photographic points, without going to deep, the issue of blown highlights gives a tiny clue as the the photographic medium likely used on that day, but I'm saying no more on that point at the moment because I haven't gone too far in that area of my study as yet.

So, at the moment, I'm sticking with 'pull together curtains' because of what I see and find most logical.
Also,supported by my scaled drawing showing the camera positions of MJK1 and MJK3 together, as far as I'm concerned clearly illustrates the direction of where the cameras had to be and their field's of view corresponding quite accurately with the known landmarks on *BOTH* photographs.
Had I made two individual drawings, one for MJK1 and one drawing for MJK3
then I could easily have drawn them to suit my beliefs and placed objects and used landmarks to suit my view as required!
But I drew *BOTH* camera views on the *SAME* drawing so that the landmarks had to fit *BOTH* ways. That's the crucial element required to make an accurate drawing, don't you agree !!!
You can see clearly that the MJK3 camera view drawing includes the area of window where the strip of light is noted as 'gap between curtains ' on the window. By association to all other elements, as far as I am concerned that strip of light has to be created by the light coming through the window and curtains that are not fully drawn together.

Print out my drawing and the two photos then turn them every which way to see how accurately they all correspond.
They are not pinpoint, but very close indeed.

As far as - "which photo was taken first - MJK1 or MJK3". I've not looked into that area yet. Accuracy of the above is my main concern.

Which do you say was taken first and how do you arrive at your decision?

Btw are you the same 'Simon D Wood' who wrote the two dissertations on the same subject located here on Casebook in 2005. I assume you are ?

Best,
Steve

[Midnyte]

Yes, thank you Simon for that great collection of differing testimonies with regard to the curtain, blind. We did have this discussion a few years back also, as it was important for the angles involved.
When one states "The blinds were down" it seems to infer that they could be "up", suggesting a pull down blind.
But were they made from muslin? The narrowness of the small window would not likely need 2 curtains (opening in the centre). More likely is that the shaft of light is coming in on the room side of the blind.
Where the drain pipe is on the outside of the building is another clue as to where the corner is in the picture, to the left of the blind is a very damp looking spot. This was likely where the door would end, out of shot.

I also agree with sgh that there is a definite downward angle in that shot, too. This leads me to believe that the bedroll on the side of the bed, had nothing to do with the camera, but that a tripod had to have been used.
Thanks
Joan

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

Are you sure it was curtains . . ?

Thomas Bowyer—

" . . . threw the blinds back and looked through the window which was broken and saw the body of deceased woman whom he knew as Mary Jane . . ." 9th November witness statement.

" . . . looked in the window there was a curtain over the window I pulled the curtain aside and looked in . . ." 12th November inquest statement.

" . . . went to the window, which had been broken and patched by rags for some time past, and on pushing the rags aside was startled by the sight of blood." Daily News, 10th November.

" . . . pulled the blind of the window, one of the panes being broken." Daily Telegraph, 10th November.

" . . . pulled the blind of the window aside - one of the panes being broken . . ." St. James Gazette, 10th November.

" . . . pulled aside the muslin curtain which covered it [the broken window] . . . The Star, 10th November.

" . . . put his hand through the aperture [in the broken window] and pulled aside the muslin curtain which covered it . . . The Times, 10th November.

Mary Ann Cox [asked by the jury if she could see light in the room when Kelly was singing]—

"I saw nothing as the blinds were down . . ." 12th November inquest statement.

By the way, which photo do you think was taken first? MJK1 or MJK3?

Regards,

Simon

[smezenen]

SGH,
I believe you have it about right with the drawings and also your conclusion. It has to be the window and not the door. Another thougth occures to me as i write this post. The reason we are heving so much problem aligning everything in both pictures is becouse the bed and table would probably have been moved closer to the window in order to make room on the left side of the bed for the photographer. If MJK3 where taken from the rigth side with the photographer leaning over to snap the shutter he would be in the picture. If you move the bed and table closer to the window the table would end up in front of the door and even farther out of frame than what you put forth above.

[sgh]

The only point I would make is about curtains. As I understand it, there were no curtains, but there was a greatcoat or some such article of clothing hanging at the window. I suppose the light could be shining between the arm of the coat and the body, or the edge of the window and the coat?

Top work that man!

Thanks John!
I'm sure it's curtains

Quote ;
10:45 AM: John McCarthy, owner of "McCarthy's Rents," as Miller's Court was known, sends Thomas Bowyer to collect past due rent money from Mary Kelly. After Bowyer receives no response from knocking (and because the door was locked) he pushes aside the curtain and peers inside, seeing the body. He informs McCarthy, who, after seeing the mutilated remains of Kelly for himself, ran to Commercial Street Police Station, where he spoke with Inspector Walter Beck, who returned to the Court with McCarthy


Best, Steve

[John Casey]

The only point I would make is about curtains. As I understand it, there were no curtains, but there was a greatcoat or some such article of clothing hanging at the window. I suppose the light could be shining between the arm of the coat and the body, or the edge of the window and the coat?

Top work that man!

[sgh]

Great work, Steve - I don't think the bed was pulled out that obliquely either.

On a point of detail, the door hinged the other way, and I'm almost certain that the bed-head was further inside the room owing to the wash-stand that I believe was behind it. On that basis, it's possible that the shaft of light seen in MJK3 was a narrow gap in the far side of the door.

On another point, would the cropping of MJK3 make any difference to the perceived FOV?

(I should point out that I think you're broadly correct, by the way, so I'm not being contentious for the sake of it!)

Many Thanks Sam !
Yes, the door does open the other way, and, as you see, I had to draw it wrongly to make the point clear.
I assume you mean a gap between the hinges of the door and not the gap of the door opening itself. If that's the case and the door is hung how it should be - ie, hinged on the right when viewed from the outside and opening by pushing on the left into the building and towards the table, then the hinge and any gap created has to be out of view of the photo (as per my 1st drawing). Also bringing the camera closer due to the wash stand would decrease the FOV meaning there's even less chance of seeing the gap.
In addition, I would also assume that the door would be fixed central to the brickwork and not on an outer edge, thus even lesser chance of seeing that gap!

Regarding the cropped FOV
I was aware that the photo may have been cropped, however, because I've
drawn 'only' what can be seen on the photo then the cropped FOV makes no difference. I've tried hard to make a like for like between photo and drawing.
It's difficult to show exactly how the camera shows the scene then draw it in plan because the tilt of the camera, which for a matter of interest appears to be tilted down by about 15 degrees, so slight differences will occur in perception.
To clarify that one would have to supply a slightly 'warped' drawing similar to how the lens distorts on any plane other than level.

I hope that makes sense, and once again, Thank you for your valued input Sam.

Best, Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Great work, Steve - I don't think the bed was pulled out that obliquely either.

On a point of detail, the door hinged the other way, and I'm almost certain that the bed-head was further inside the room owing to the wash-stand that I believe was behind it. On that basis, it's possible that the shaft of light seen in MJK3 was a narrow gap in the far side of the door.

On another point, would the cropping of MJK3 make any difference to the perceived FOV?

(I should point out that I think you're broadly correct, by the way, so I'm not being contentious for the sake of it!)

[sgh]

The strip of light problem - MJK3

Just a quick exercise regarding the 'strip of 'light' as seen at the top of MJK3 photo to try and find it's true positioning.

To start, I've drawn the door to open the opposite way that its supposed to be according to records and reports to allow a crack of light to show when the door is slightly ajar.

As the scaled drawing demonstrates, a major demolition of the brick wall is required to enable the bed and table to be moved accordingly to fit the photo.
Of course, you can pull the bed nearer to the front wall windows and adjust the door so that the strip of light looks about right, or you could try to pull and rotate everything across the room and leave the wall intact!

Don't forget, the door is hinged incorrectly on my drawing.
If it is drawn to be hinged on the opposite side then you won't see any strip of light unless you stood outside and looked at it through the window.

Let's assume that the door is hinged as per my drawing but this time it opens *outwards* into the courtyard.
Now we need to demolish the front wall where the windows are because the beds too long to make the scene fit the photo - what a nuisance!
Not even to mention the differing direction of light on all the above situations!

Is that what really happened to take a photograph ?

In my opinion based on information available and my drawing, the strip of light seen at the top of MJK3 has to be caused by a gap between two curtains, thus creating the strip of light.
That also means that nothing was moved in the room.

With best intentions
Steve

[sgh]

MJK1 & 3 photo - revised drawing (rev 1)

Here's the revised drawing of the camera positions for mjk1 & 3 photos
according to their field of views.

For the mjk3 photo which causes concern regarding the camera position being too far towards the head end of the bed, I've added two more camera positions set along the same axis at 150mm (6 inches ) apart marked
as A. (my original location) and B. & C. = the new positions.
To help clarify their placement along the bed I've added the dimensions taken
from the top of the victims proposed head position to the centre line of each
camera location.
A = 1071mm = 42 inches
B = 1221mm = 48 inches
C = 1371mm = 54 inches (all inch dims aprox)

Here it can be seen by the camera positions and following their fov lines,
B & C
show the edge of the table at the side of the bed whereas the mjk3 photo
does not.
In addition, the associated dimensions of each increases, thus requiring rather long physical body dimensions of the victim in the 'legs drawn up' position.

Regarding the crack of light or strip of light running down from the top of
the mjk3 photo, I consider this to be simply a gap in the drawn curtains from the smaller of the two windows opposite the bed and table thus showing the light from the outside.
If it was the door to the building then it would have to be hinged on the left as you view it from the outside and you would push it open to the left towards the smaller of the two windows to allow a partly open door to let a strip of daylight through on the right. The official reports concerning the entry to 13 Miller's Court indicates that the door was opened almost onto the table (which is on the right upon entry) in any case!
In the mjk3 photo one would expect to see the door in very narrow profile - almost edge on for this scenario to fit, but I don't see any door edge or narrow profile.
What I do see are two almost flat looking objects evenly lit either side -
as you would expect when two curtains almost pulled together but not quite fully closed.
There are several reasons to support this conclusion.
You can see the strip of light stops just short of reaching the table in the photo, this is most likely the bottom of the window sill of the smaller and lower of the only two windows in that room.

Further and more indicative, light can be seen highlighting the flesh pile on the bedside table and patches of light on the table top, also to a limited amount on the victims groin area.
This light is coming from the direction of the second larger window to the right and out of shot of the photo, or from a photographers magnesium flash from a similar high direction.
I don't go for the flash for several reasons - one - from the angle and distance
away from the camera, the photographer would need very long arms indeed, two - the powder flash methods of those days was not a synchronized to the camera affair so the photographer would be taking pot luck that an assistant
would ignite the powder at the same time as the camera shutter was released.
Also, if a powder flash was used then the 'blitz' nature of the light would have provided sufficient light to the groin area of the victim instead of just the minor directional light we see there.
It was the poor light in the groin area that made me start the photo enhancement work in the first place to see if any clues or whatever could be found!

Anyway, a good hard study of the drawing and photos is needed to appreciate what's going on here.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Best, Steve

[sgh]

Steve,
I would have to agree with that after looking at the photo again. As a sugestion the limits for your FOV should have the left edge running thru the top of her right knee and the first knuckle on the pinky finger of her left hand. it may be of great importance to have the body drawn in to scale before you finialize the position. The right limit will be trickier as there really is no clear identifiable points. One clue to the camera position being closer to the foot of the bed that stands out to me is the black line on Marys right leg just below the knee, it is clearly visible in both photographs (I have circled it in the picture below) This would seem to me to indicate that the camera was placed on or near whatever that is on the other side of her right leg in picture 1.

Hi Smezenen,
Yes, I do need the scaled figure included to be certain of the FOV and camera position.
I think forum member Jane may have had a trial at it but I have not seen anything yet. (Jane, you could PM me if you wish to discuss)
I'll try to add the figure at the risk of it looking like a cartoon :-)

I appreciate your input Smez, you are using good logic - please keep it up!

Best
Steve

[smezenen]

Hi Smezenen,

In addition I'm working on the suggestion of the MJK3 (pink) camera being too far up the bed.

Steve,
I would have to agree with that after looking at the photo again. As a sugestion the limits for your FOV should have the left edge running thru the top of her right knee and the first knuckle on the pinky finger of her left hand. it may be of great importance to have the body drawn in to scale before you finialize the position. The right limit will be trickier as there really is no clear identifiable points. One clue to the camera position being closer to the foot of the bed that stands out to me is the black line on Marys right leg just below the knee, it is clearly visible in both photographs (I have circled it in the picture below) This would seem to me to indicate that the camera was placed on or near whatever that is on the other side of her right leg in picture 1.

[sgh]

Not that it matters much but the right limit you have drawn for the "blue camera is off a bit. in your drawing the line clearly is on the left side of the righthand table leg. If that where the true limit then you would not see the table leg in the picture. As the leg is visible in the picture then the line is wrong and should be on the right side of the leg. other than that it is a beautiful job worthy of much praise and very usefull in studying the crime scene.

Hi Smezenen,
You are right, the blue camera does miss the right table leg a bit and that is important because I'm trying to get this layout as accurate as possible.
I'm still working on the revised drawing and will correct this slight error and repost.

In addition I'm working on the suggestion of the MJK3 (pink) camera being too far up the bed.
My revised drawing doesn't quite agree though, I can tell you that much now and you'll be able to figure why when I upload that next drawing shortly.

Also, I have an additional two more drawings concentrating on that MJK pink camera position with regards to the disputed 'strip of light' you can see at the top of the photo. I hope to clarify the 'what' where' and 'why's' on that simple looking strip.

It's very heavy going though and takes time to set out correctly so bear with me and I should be able to get something here pretty soon.

Best, Steve