MJK1 & MJK3 don't tally!

[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.

[richardh]

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

[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]

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?

[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

[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.

[richardh]

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.

I think we've just reopened the debate

[RivkahChaya]

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.

I'm not sure what you consider brushstrokes, but FWIW, photographers did touch up plates, and no one considered that there was anything wrong with it. First, people didn't really "get" the idea of focus, and didn't always understand why only one portion of a picture was in focus, so a photographer would sometimes touch up the very close portions of a picture to make them look more in focus, second, since he couldn't take lots of shots, if something dripped on the negative, and he had a spot, he'd touch it up. It was the way things were done.

Now, a forensic photographer takes so many shots, that there will be something usable as evidence, and other photographers take lots of shots, and anyway, if there is a problem, photographers other than journalists can generally just retake it. Back then, a retake of even a portrait was laborious, and someone would rather have the background, or even their feet, touched up, rather than the ordeal of dressing up, going to the studio, and sitting still for five minutes.

[MajorParts]

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.

Are you male or female though?

[RivkahChaya]

Are you male or female though?

I'm female. Where are you from? Rivkah Chaya doesn't read as a woman's name? I know it's really unusual outside of Jewish circles (I've never met a gentile Rivkah), but I haven't met too many people in the US who didn't have some vague awareness that "Rivkah" = "Rebekah/Rebecca" in the bible.

FWIW, I've had a baby, so I'm aware just what contortions can happen, and her legs are pretty darned far apart.

Also, RE: how limber I was in my salad days: I could put my feet behind my head. Only one at a time, but most people were pretty impressed. Hmm. I can touch my big toe to my forehead, but only if I lean over. Ooh. I hope that sound came from the chair.

[Cogidubnus]

Frankly the name Rivkah Chaya would probably be a total mystery to most of us right pond (and I suspect this is where Parts originates)...however, some of us have heard of this miraculous "google" thingy...

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

however, some of us have heard of this miraculous "google" thingy...

Yeah, but if he didn't even know it was a name in the first place, it's just as well to ask. I'm not offended, just slightly surprised.

I assumed for a long time that Errata was a man, just because I know another Errata on another MB who I know for a fact is a man. She set me straight, though.

There are probably common UK names that aren't familiar to me. There are other names that are more commonly girls' names in the US, as I understand it, and more commonly boys' names in the UK. I understand you have a lot of laughs any time we mention Fanny Brice, and that there was some debate over whether or not to voice-over the name of the middle son when Tim Allen's TV show Home Improvement was broadcast in the UK. What do you call men whose full name is Randolph?

[MajorParts]

I would never have thought of googling the name! Googling "Major Parts" won't tell you if I'm male or female, and will probably return pages about car spares or something

Hade you been male, it would have made sense that you couldn't acheive that pose due to narrower hips and the shorter length of the bone that joins the thighbone to hip bone, but if it's still difficult for a female, then I would have to agree that you're probably not as flexible as you once were, or MJKs legs were forced into that position with joints popping out of place or something.

I'm glad you weren't offended, as no offence was intended

Yes, I am from the UK. The East End of London in fact! I'm pretty sure I have at least 1 ancestor who was a butcher in the Whitechapel area around 1888 too! Who knows, I might be the Great Great Great Grandson of Jack!

We had a female tv chef/cook here years ago called Fanny Craddock!

[Wickerman]

Does anyone think this portion circled in red is her right hand?
I have always thought so, it hangs over or, on the far right side of the bed.
It doesn't appear to be laying down her right side, but almost perpendicular from her torso.



Regards, Jon S.

[MajorParts]

I thought similar once (I thought her upper arm was visible), but according to Dr.Bond..."The right arm was slightly abducted from the body and rested on the mattress. The elbow was bent, the forearm supine with the fingers clenched."

So the right arm was slightly pulled away from the body, the elbow bent and the forearm/clenched hand facing upwards.

I don't think the right arm or hand is visible anymore.