MJK1 & MJK3 don't tally!

[RivkahChaya]

The reason, I suspect, the photo of the body was taken in situ rather than the usual practice of the mortuary, is because of the condition the body was in.

They wanted a photo of it intact. Reports show Kelly was taken out in boxes.

Monty

Good point. They probably could tell that the first attempt to lift her might result in her falling apart.

But, while "gloomy" might not be exactly the right word, the room wasn't exactly flooded with natural light. I'm sure the photographer would have had to bring in something, even if it meant kerosine lanterns. In spite of the fact that there wasn't the usual problem of getting the subject to hold still for a long exposure, you still needed light get a good picture, and those pictures are really pretty good for non-studio, indoor pictures at the time.

[spyglass]

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.

Hi,
Simon wood wrote an indepth article on the questions you raise as well as somethimg else he noticed.
It should still be in the dissertations section. He also shows accurate diagrams, check it out.
Regards.

[Wickerman]

A couple of things Ive noticed can be addressed...the body was cold, and in a state of rigor which was advancing at the time she was examined in the room. That means her limbs would not be easy to move.

An ordinary, and well-used, shell was brought on a cart, so the body was able to fit regardless of how extensive the rigor was.

A better question is what exactly is on the night table along with the stomach flaps? Anything?

There is a report that say's the police were satisfied that no weapon was found in the room.
Whatever anyone thinks they see is an optical illusion.

And another question, we have from the left, from the right, how about from the foot of the bed? Anyone feel there may be more Mary Kelly slides taken? I sure do...maybe as many as 6.

Yes, at least enough to make it worth while, likely several plates were taken.

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

Yes, at least enough to make it worth while, likely several plates were taken.

Regards, Jon S.

The glass plates are heavy, though; there's a limit to how many a person could carry. Certainly, the photographer would have planned for more than one, in case one broke, or otherwise got damaged, but you get to a certain number, and you are carrying a large amount or heavy glass, which it seems to me would make damage more likely.

Anyone know exactly how much those glass plates weighed? I've seen some in museums, and they varied in size-- I'm guessing that pictures with as much detail as the MJK photos were pretty big ones. Anyway, even the smaller ones were pretty heavy-looking. Anyone who has ever put up a small mirror, or put together a relatively small picture frame with a pane of glass knows what I'm talking about.

[MajorParts]

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

[Wickerman]

The glass plates are heavy, though; there's a limit to how many a person could carry. Certainly, the photographer would have planned for more than one, in case one broke, or otherwise got damaged, but you get to a certain number, and you are carrying a large amount or heavy glass, which it seems to me would make damage more likely.

Anyone know exactly how much those glass plates weighed? I've seen some in museums, and they varied in size-- I'm guessing that pictures with as much detail as the MJK photos were pretty big ones. Anyway, even the smaller ones were pretty heavy-looking. Anyone who has ever put up a small mirror, or put together a relatively small picture frame with a pane of glass knows what I'm talking about.

They do have weight, no question about it. When a photographer is called to a murder scene he had better come prepared.
I've seen leather bound cases which when opened were divided into several slots, this was a photographic plate carrying case.

The photographer would either arrive with a boy apprentice carrying the kit between them, or arrive on a small horse and cart with all the kit loaded on the back.

Regards, Jon S.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!!

[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

[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,

[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?

[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]

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