MJK1 & MJK3 don't tally!

[RivkahChaya]

I think the femur is off, and I think the reason is that you can't get the wooden model into the right position.

I'm not as limber as I was when I was 25, but I was pretty flexible once, and I tried to get into the "from the door" pose (just now, and for totally academic reasons), I couldn't, because the thighs are spread too wide. The muscles and probably ligaments and tendons on the inside of the thigh near the pubis have been cut, so the leg is hyper-extended. The joint might even be dislocated, I don't know, but the leg is definitely pulled unnaturally away from the thigh. The foreshortening in the upper leg hides it a little, but the pubic region is just too big. I know you can see what is what, but the space is still too big.

I'm not entirely sure what is holding up the piece of fabric on the leg closest to the camera in the "from the door" picture. It looks like the end of her femur is sticking up, but her leg is lying fully on the bed.



Sorry if that is really hard to see: the labels are "femur stump" and "patella." It looks like the leg has at least been partly disarticulated, at the bowed thing in the "from the wall" picture is either a tendon or ligament that is taut somehow, or maybe even a muscle that is in rigor, or maybe it is the fibula, somehow. If the tibia were disarticulated from the knee joint, and the tibia were not, you could have what seems like an optical illusion of the leg both bent, and lying fully on the bed. I can't find anything on point in the commonly available documents on Kelly-- that is, the official postmortem & autopsy reports, and the inquest.

[MajorParts]

wow, you've been busy really quickly

I take it you don't need me to point out the kneecap now?

It occurred to me that I didn't have anything to represent the table in my effort, and when I added it, it didn't line up with MJK3. Looking closely at MJK3 though, it seems that a lot of it is painted as there are what looks like brush strokes on both legs. The mess of skin on the table appears to extend past the edge of the table too! With MJK1, the edge of the table looks to be inline with her elbow, but MJK3 shows it going way past there.

You are correct about faffing about though. On the presumption that MJK3 is a real photo of the scene, things most definately got moved and if anything, your efforts may go some way to figuring out what was moved where...the table was dragged away from the bed so the bed could be moved to allow the photographer (painter ) to get to the other side. So save another version that has the table moved to aline with MJK3 and see where it ends up on the top viewpoint.

As for the name, Major Parts goes back many years to the dawn of the internet and online games. I was part of a group of people playing a WW2 game and I started out as Private Parts

[richardh]

Me again!
To sumerise, I think what we've learned from this little project is that MJK was probably moved after MJK1 was taken in order to get the MJK3 shot. She was photographed while in situ during the afternoon of discovery.

MJK1 was taken from the lower right of the big window (looking in). The window most likely being slid (up) open to get the shot. Equally the photographer might have place his camera on the inside of the closed big window sill (again on the right looking in).

Fair summary?

[richardh]

MajorParts,
I've repositioned my model and find that you are quite correct. Here she is repositioned as per your suggestion:



Is this a more accurate interpretation do you think?

EDIT: However, upon putting the repositioned MJK1 model onto MJK3 image I cannot get both knees to match as well as I had with the original MJK1 position. The new reposition model's left knee is now to high up her leg. I can reposition the camera angle to get a knee match but then everything else is out of kilter!

I suppose it will be impossible to get right if we consider all agree that MJK was moved between MJK1 & MJK3 being taken. On top of this, if the bed & table were moved to get better access for MJK3 then no amount of moving, repositioning, faffing with the body, bed, table or camera will reconcile this problem.

[richardh]

Actually, Where are you thinking the knee (patella) is here? can you draw it in?

[richardh]

Hi Richard

Can I show you some pictures that may help with that leg?

The 1st one is a leg in roughly the position of Marys
The 2nd shows where the thigh bones would be and the outline of the lower leg (again, roughly)
The 3rd is a quick knock up that I did (I forget how to use 3dmax properly )
The 4th is how the 3d model lines up with MJK3 (the right leg is allegedly painted on and the whole scene needs more time spent on it, but it should be possible to line up to both photos)

Again, good work! You have more patience than I do

MajorPart (hehe.. soz!)

My image thus and your image seem to be in agreement which is good:




I can certainly see this image as being correct:

BUT the problem is I used a pose-able 3D 'dummy' and just positioned the dummy as an overlay. If I flexed (bent) her left leg to agree with your image then her ankle and foot would be misaligned with MJK1 (I think).

I'll have a play with her legs (!) and see if I can get them to agree with your interpretation.

[RivkahChaya]

Nice name-post match there, MajorParts. Don't forget to leave an offering for the god of non-irony.

[MajorParts]

All I can say to that is that all the joints of my model, when superimposed onto the actual photo, line up quite nicely. The elbow, both ankles, neck, head and shoulder (all joints visible in the original photo) all line up as they should. Therefore the left knee on my model can only be in that place when the leg is correctly positioned. So I would say that the left knee is where my model depicts.

Hi Richard

Can I show you some pictures that may help with that leg?

The 1st one is a leg in roughly the position of Marys
The 2nd shows where the thigh bones would be and the outline of the lower leg (again, roughly)
The 3rd is a quick knock up that I did (I forget how to use 3dmax properly )
The 4th is how the 3d model lines up with MJK3 (the right leg is allegedly painted on and the whole scene needs more time spent on it, but it should be possible to line up to both photos)

Again, good work! You have more patience than I do

[RivkahChaya]

On the issue of how many photos were taken, I do recall reading that one of the plates had a marking indicating it was 1 of 6. Since we have 2, it would be interesting to know what angles were also taken.

Since the photographer couldn't be sure how the plates would come out, nor that the plates wouldn't crack, he may have taken more than one from each angle. I would think the "main" one, of the full length of the corpse on the bed, would be the one he would be most interested in making sure he got a good print of. He may have taken one in the normal light of the room, and then one with extra lanterns, or even electric lights, if he had them (probably not, as I don't think there was a practical, portable type), and maybe as tight a shot as he could get, and one further away.

You know, it's possible that the photos don't tally simply because of perspective. I'm pretty sure that camera was higher up in the "door" photo than it is in the "wall" photo. I know you (the OP, that is, not MWR) said you tried to correct for that, and your math could be wrong, but it seems to me that no matter how good your math is, if you don't know anything about the original camera, the dimensions of the room, or the measurements of the bed & MJK herself, you'll get it right only by accident. Which is to say, your best guess will probably be close enough. The bed is wooden, so it may not be a standard size; MJK, while of unknown height, on the other hand, probably is normally proportioned, which is to say, her armspan is the same as her height, her forearm is the same length as her foot, her eyes are halfway down her face, and soforth.

You want to share your calculations?

[Tecs]

Dear all,

I've been looking through my stuff and it is just stated that the door was broken down with the inference being that the photos were taken pretty soon after. A report in the Express that I got out of the sourcebook lists it chronologically as door broken, photos taken, doctors examine.

Paul Begg's book also follows this sort of chronology but doesn't have a reference to why it is assumed the photos were taken then. (It is Begg's book where I got the idea of gloomy as he describes it as overcast and says it is remarkable that they got as good photos as they did in the conditions.

I've seen some references to them taking the photos before anything was moved in the room so it does strongly hint that they were taken before much was done.

But that does lead me to ask how soon the photographer could get there. Wickerman above says that he was 15 minutes away. So that means if called at 1.30, he could only get there for 2 if he instantly set off with all of his equipment, taking into account a 30 minute round trip. Is this possible? What if he wasn't found straight away? What if he wasn't ready to leave straight away?

And as said above, if the photographer was sent for by Phillips, then maybe the delay in opening the door was waiting for the arrival of the photographer? But would Phillips have the authority or reason to do that?

There's no definitive answer I think. On balance I reckon the photos were taken pretty soon after the door was broken. But I do leave room for the possibility that it was the timeline I described in a previous post.

regards,

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

As someone mentioned Simon Wood has a dissertation available here on the issue of the photos of Mary Kelly, a very good overview.

On the issue of how many photos were taken, I do recall reading that one of the plates had a marking indicating it was 1 of 6. Since we have 2, it would be interesting to know what angles were also taken.

We have from the left, and from the right side of the bed, we do not have from the head of the bed, from the foot of the bed, or from the fireplace...I cant imagine what the 6th shot may have been of.

Best regards

[claire]

In terms of the light--wasn't there some discussion a couple of years ago that analysed the angle of light in the *outside* shot (with what appears to be the photographer's processing tray just beneath one of the windows)? I may be mistaken, but I believe that discussion hinted at an early afternoon time on the basis of the angle of the sun for the month, the availability of light in the court (given the buildings around) and the weather report. Someone correct me--I may well be wrong on this. It's been a while!!

[Wickerman]

It's almost as if the bed is actually a double bed (I am assuming the bed has been ascertained to be a single bed?).

Some years ago I had reason to show the missus the original photo, Stewart had kindly sent me a package of photo's. She felt quite certain the bed was a three-quarter, a little larger than a single but smaller than a double.

Regards, Jon S.

[richardh]

Hi

Getting back to the 3D Blender scene matching up to the photos....

There was a discussion here somewhere about the position of her left leg, and where her knee actually is. I was under the impression that it was the general feeling that what you actually see in the MJK1 photo is her lower leg, with the upper leg hidden by perspective. Your models leg contradicts this. That might not solve the way things don't line up for MJK3 though!

Also, looking at the youtube vid, either your bed is huge, or MJK is tiny! I am also 5' 7" and not as big as some blokes of the same age and height, but I take up a whole double bed by myself nearly

As for the math of perspective, is there some sort of lens simulator in Blender? I'm sure perspective can appear different depending on what camera/lens is used.

Anyway, fascinating approach to a fascinating case!

John

John,
I agree entirley with what you say about the bed. Admittedly I could have shortened the length of the bed with out upsetting the orientation or perspective but the width gave me problems. It's almost as if the bed is actually a double bed (I am assuming the bed has been ascertained to be a single bed?). I did have to faff with the focal length of the camera which was trial and error because we don't know the focal length of the original camera.

As for the left knee. I have indeed seen the thread discussing the position of the knee and the perspective/camera trick that the knee is in a place to where we all though it was. All I can say to that is that all the joints of my model, when superimposed onto the actual photo, line up quite nicely. The elbow, both ankles, neck, head and shoulder (all joints visible in the original photo) all line up as they should. Therefore the left knee on my model can only be in that place when the leg is correctly positioned. So I would say that the left knee is where my model depicts.

I can keep adjusting and see if things change.

[RivkahChaya]

My point simply was, that there weren't going to be 48, or 72, or however much a SIMM card holds, plus 12 Polaroids, so no one can make accusations of digital manipulation. There were going to be how ever many plates someone could carry in one trip, along with the other equipment, minus the ones that were exposed improperly, minus the ones that broke. The police had to be very judicious about what they chose to have photographed.