MJK1 & MJK3 don't tally!

[richardh]

I've been messing with my 3d program and have created a model which is accurately photo/perspective matched for MJK1. That's to say I have brought MJK1 image into the program and created a camera and perspective setup so that I can build the 3D scene over the photo and it should accurately depict all the things in the scene. So i created just the table, the bed-base/mattress/headboard AND MJK in almost the exact position. After I was satisfied it looked as accurate as I could make it. I saved the result and then tried to tally the model up to MJK3. I've tried every way to make it fit. If I get the table matched then MJK and the bed are way up in the air. If I superimpose MJK so her legs line up with the MJK3 photo then the table is miles off the horizon.

So either my maths and perspective set up is crap... OR MJK, the bed, table or all three were moved between MJK1 and MJK3 being taken.


Tomorrow I will upload both the still images as well as a YouTube video to demonstrate. I admit that my calculations might be off but I can see no way to get MJK's left leg (which to me is very close to the mattress in MJK1, to locate to the position it is in MJK3 (that's to say quite raised off the mattress).

More tomorrow.

[lynn cates]

math

Hello Richard. I look forward to your video.

If you have a math problem, perhaps I can help? Also, Chris Philips does math.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Hi Richard,

This was debated around 2000, dunno if its archived.

Rob McLaughlin was involved, I recall that, and I believe the general concensus was that the benn was indeed moved in order for the photographer to position himself for the shot.

As I said, may be worth an archive trawl on this one.

Monty

[richardh]

Thanks for the replies. It looks likely that the bed was moved BUT the thing that struck me while faffing with my 3D toy is that MJK herself looks to have been moved. Like I said, my maths (especially trigonometry) is laughable so I need to take some time to check and recheck what I've done. But I'll ask this: The left knee in MJK1, is it low to the mattress? because in MJK3 it is certainly higher in the air (to me).

It's as if the photographer has pushed down the right leg to get a better camera angle and thus the left leg/knee has risen (she must have been a bit stiff!).

more soon

[Tecs]

Thanks for the replies. It looks likely that the bed was moved BUT the thing that struck me while faffing with my 3D toy is that MJK herself looks to have been moved. Like I said, my maths (especially trigonometry) is laughable so I need to take some time to check and recheck what I've done. But I'll ask this: The left knee in MJK1, is it low to the mattress? because in MJK3 it is certainly higher in the air (to me).

It's as if the photographer has pushed down the right leg to get a better camera angle and thus the left leg/knee has risen (she must have been a bit stiff!).

more soon

Hi Richard,

If you can prove through analysing the photography that her body moved in such a way as you describe, then that might give us a clue as to how far rigor mortis had progressed and therefore time of death.

Another example of where we can still get clues from something we think we have wrung every possible clue out of?

Do we know the exact time the photographs were taken?

regards,

[Stephen Thomas]

So either my maths and perspective set up is crap... OR MJK, the bed, table or all three were moved between MJK1 and MJK3 being taken.

I suspect the former but let's see what you've got.

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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