MJK1 & MJK3 don't tally!

[richardnunweek]

Hi Lynn,
Possibly, but where was it originally, and why not sling it on the floor.
I don't know what the procedure was for 1888 police, but today, objects found at the crime scene remain stationary, until the investigation, and inventory is completed.
Also why put the item onto a blood stained table amongst heaps of flesh?
I would suggest that the item was there before the flesh was.
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

moved

Hello Richard. IF it is a bolster, could not the police have moved it to the table to get a clearer shot of the cadaver?

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
All joking aside , that item on the table is actually there , and should be discussed in a rational manner, it has all the hallmarks of a bolster, or some kind of bedding .
To ignore that distinct possibility, and what it may suggest, is not helpful to the vast number of people who visit this site, in an attempt to understand these murders.
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

purpose

Hello Richard. Nice work. Looks almost as if MJK3 was done to show the exact extent of injury to the thighs.

Cheers.
LC

[Magpie]

Forgive my ignorance. What's the item on the left side of the table?

Oh dear.

As per the traditions of the casebook, you must now shove a radish up your bottom and sing "I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts" in a Belgian accent.

[richardh]

Here's the link to the short YouTube video to show a bit more.
YouTube Link

[Cogidubnus]

Sorry Rivkah

There are historically two separate "horror stories" re MJK photos on Casebook...both I hasten to add, well before you and I joined...So as you can deduce I was trying to be either funny or a smartarse...

One is an argument by someone called Trenouth regarding all manner of idiotic things that might appear in the MJK photos (a Baphomet was one of the items claimed)...T'other was a (more reasonable, allegedly) debate about the identity of the very object identified)...

I'll try to be more serious and sober

(not really because it's far more fun hysterical and pissed!)

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

Ducking rapidly for cover, it's got to be either a bolster or a baphomet

Either I'm not getting the joke, or baphomet means something really different in the UK from what it means in the US.

Bolster sounds about right-- some kind of body pillow. Wouldn't that be a fairly high-ticket item?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Bridewell.
Oh dear that question has reared again.
I would say it is a bolster one hundred percent, others have said its the flesh from Kelly's thigh, [people actually believe that].
If a bolster is what that item was , what on earth was it doing on the table?
Did Kelly place it there , or the police? or even the killer...
While we are at it, what was the bedding doing in that position rolled, again did the police place them there, or the photographer, or even Mary herself.
The police I doubt, the photographer maybe, but would he rest his camera on blood soiled blankets?
If they were not bloodied, and as they are rolled, on can assume that they were not in use for sleeping that night, or if they were, they were placed there by Mary herself on rising that morning, which puts the time of death much later.
As for the bolster I have a theory, that it was not used on the bed, but possibly a draught excluder against her door, and flung on the table by Kelly herself upon venturing out around 8am.
Regards Richard.

[Cogidubnus]

Forgive my ignorance. What's the item on the left side of the table?

Ducking rapidly for cover, it's got to be either a bolster or a baphomet

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

The body wouldn't be moved in the modern era, but the reason for taking the photographs, at that time, was perhaps simply to catalogue the full, horrific extent of the injuries. In that event, I think your suggested explanation quite plausible.

I have to agree with this. It was a small room, and cameras were big, and required tripods, and lighting equipment. In order to get more than one perspective, it probably was necessary to move the bed. In fact, I'm almost sure of it, if you consider the way the bed is pushed up against the wall in the first photo: there's no room for a camera stand between the wall and the bed.

Nowadays, when the assumption is that nothing is moved, if you did need to move something to take a photo, or retrieve an object (at least in the US), you measure, mark, photograph, retrieve, measure, mark and photograph again, then write up the process, and sign your name, and if you are a police officer, or other official person, like a crime scene analyst, your badge number (I interpreted a class for a criminal justice student once). You have to name everyone involved, too "Officer So-&-so, badge #n." This is so these people can testify in court, and no defense attorney can try to say that something was moved in order to doctor a crime scene, or to plant evidence.

I'm not sure that the police ever intended to submit the crime scene photos as evidence in a trial, and probably weren't thinking in terms of them being called into question on the basis of objects having been moved.

If her legs could be moved at the hips and knees, I'm going to suggest once more that this was because so much muscle tissue was missing, that rigor was never going to set in those joints, or at least not set typically, and that this might account for the miscalculated TOD.

[Bridewell]

Forgive my ignorance. What's the item on the left side of the table?

[The Good Michael]

If MJK1 was taken later after moving the bed back into place (if that did happen), Kelly's leg could have fallen down during the jostling. This would mean that rigor mortis had not fully set in (or that some tendons in the hip had been cut) which recalls to mind the idea that Kelly was seen around 8:30 AM.

Mike

[Bridewell]

Hi Richard,

The body wouldn't be moved in the modern era, but the reason for taking the photographs, at that time, was perhaps simply to catalogue the full, horrific extent of the injuries. In that event, I think your suggested explanation quite plausible.

[richardh]

Tecs, I doubt I can prove anything but it's an interesting exercise nontheless.

Below I have posted 3 animations.

1st shows MJK1 with my model superimposed. It's quite a close match IMO. Look at the body joints (ankle, knees, elbow, shoulder). Neck and head are close and feet are almost spot on. Wrist joint is a bit off but I think the hand/wrist of my model is a bit off).

2nd one shows the same 3D model over MJK3. You can see that the legs don't tally. The table and table legs line up. MJK's wrist lines up as does the groin area (and the right ankle but I've cropped that off for this image).

3rd image shows what happens if MJK's hips (only the hips) are rotated. The legs of my model have not changed pose. All I've done is rotate her hips. The legs really do tally up quite accurately. Both knees line up and even the angle of the legs.

I am preparing a YouTube vid to demonstrate a bit more clearly what I've done. I'll post it later tonight.

MJK1 with 3D overlay



Same 3D model superimposed onto MJK3



Same 3D model superimposed onto MJK3 but with hips rotating



thoughts?
R