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

[sgh]

Using photos, sketches and text descriptions of 13 Miller's Court to obtain physical dimensions of the building, it's possible to produce a fairly accurate scaled plan view reproduction of the crime scene of Mary Jane Kelly as seen within the two well known and published photographs known as
MJK1 and MJK3.

The field of view (FOV) of those two photos, MJK1 and MJK3, are used to place the positions of where the camera was likely to be to capture each photograph.
This is achieved by using landmarks in each photograph then locating those marks on the scaled drawing and developing the FOV parameters as lines back to a point.
After a fairly exhaustive set of trial and error layouts of object dimension and positioning within the confines of each of the FOV's, this layout appears to be about as near as possible to how the scene may have looked.

I've used Autocad to draw this plan so that accuracy is ensured and also added a scale so that readers can make a printout and confirm dimensional configurations themselves.
I decided to use this 'screengrab' in the actual CAD window because it reproduces with clarity, whereas a print and scan would loose the finer details and dimensions become confusing to read.

I apologise for the dimensioning in millimetres. I still use feet and inches but prefer to draw in mm's, so I'm sure some of you will be doing the conversions.

I hope this drawing helps to resolve some of the misunderstandings that have arisen between the interpretation of the two photographs in the past, eg, moving the table or bed or both to suit the photographer.
I think that careful study of the drawing in conjunction with the two photos should quickly dissolve those conclusions as false !

If the layout is agreed to be fairly accurate then let it follow that more information can be extracted for the enquiring mind to explore further in the case of Mary Jane Kelly.
Knowing the exact camera, lens and format would give greater accuracy,
but that is something I have not been able to locate.

I didn't include the full figure of MJK on the bed as hand drawing is not my thing, perhaps artist Jane Coram could intervene and draw MJK to scale.

Best, Steve

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

Interesting stuff, you've obviously put a great deal of work into them. I'll wait until you get some comments on the diagrams and will gladly try and put an outline sketch of Mary on the bed, once your happy with the work, just in case you need to do any twiddling.

The only thing that strikes me as a possible point of discussion is whether or not the position of the camera, by the wall, is a little too high up the bed, but that could well be right and I'm just having a mad half hour! (Of course it would depend how long the bed was, but I'm sure there will be lots of offers as to bed dimensions over the next few posts. Lol.)

Well done for tackling a very daunting task anyway!

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[Jane Coram]

Sorry, afterthought, as usual....

The reason I said I thought the camera might be a fraction to far up the bed, is not just because of the bed length, but it seems to be the general concensus now, that the line of light that can be seen running through the middle of MJK3 is the hinge of the door, rather than the window. Adding together the length of the bed and that probably being the door hinge, then it could be that the pink camera is a fraction too high up the bed.

I'm sure there will be plenty to let me know if they think I'm crackers. Lol.

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

[ChrisGeorge]

Sorry, afterthought, as usual....

The reason I said I thought the camera might be a fraction to far up the bed, is not just because of the bed length, but it seems to be the general concensus now, that the line of light that can be seen running through the middle of MJK3 is the hinge of the door, rather than the window.

Hi Jane and sgh

I agree with your statement, Jane. So sgh, I suggest you redraw your diagram. So far so good. I am looking forward to seeing where you take it.

Chris

[Simon Wood]

Around about here—



Regards,

Simon

[Jane Coram]

Hi sgh,

I echo Chris' comment there - that it's looking good and I am looking forward to seeing it fine tuned. I've never used autocad, but it looks like a bit of a bugger!

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

[sgh]

Sorry, afterthought, as usual....

The reason I said I thought the camera might be a fraction to far up the bed, is not just because of the bed length, but it seems to be the general concensus now, that the line of light that can be seen running through the middle of MJK3 is the hinge of the door, rather than the window. Adding together the length of the bed and that probably being the door hinge, then it could be that the pink camera is a fraction too high up the bed.

I'm sure there will be plenty to let me know if they think I'm crackers. Lol.

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

Many thanks for your input Jane, it's greatly appreciated, same too for Chris.
I'm working on your advice and will upload a revision as soon as it's ready.
The line of light - well, I hope to shed more light on that one! :-)

Best, Steve

[Suzi]

Hi Guys (and Janey!) OK have been having a think here- I reckon that camera position is a tad too far up the partition wall....and that I'd imagine that the bed was around 5'8" to 5' 10" long..Must do some research into that though--lazily I can't remember MJK's height in life....That may help re length of bed.

Suz x

Janey You're NOT crackers!!!!....well not any more crackers than me!! xxxxxxxx

More afterthoughts here too.....OK just checked 5'7" in life- I reckon that bed has to be 5' 10" to 6' in that case bearing in mind the leg positioning...Probably around 5' 10" ...ish...was there a 'foot board' at the bottom of the bed....I imagine there was- that probably matched the head board -only lower.

As to MJK3- the crack or whatever showing the 'line of light' at the side of the door, would also put that angle slightly more to the right in your great image there sgh...otherwise what is it?....nothing to do with things hanging from the ceiling I'm sure Looking forward to seeing the next update! Steve!

[Simon Wood]

Oh Good,

Little thought. Situation the same. That's all right then.

How reassuring.

Regards,

Simon

[Suzi]

Hi sgh,

I echo Chris' comment there - that it's looking good and I am looking forward to seeing it fine tuned. I've never used autocad, but it looks like a bit of a bugger!

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

I echo Chris too and as to the 'program' Janey...........

Aaaagh it does!!! (Although "Autocad" sounds rather amusing!- wonder if I could get one!! (LOL)

[smezenen]

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.

[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

[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]

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

[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