Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Sam Flynn]

When you look at that wrist we can see a high point at the right side as we look at it.
That is the ulna. Everybody's ulna is higher than the radius joint. Your's is the same, slightly bend your left wrist as in the photo and your ulna will be higher than the radius joint.

It's her left hand, and her little finger - visible, is not the thumb.

If you bend your right wrist, as you think it should be in the photo, that joint would be the radius, but your radius is not higher than your ulna. Which means you cannot replicate that position by bending your right hand.

It's physically impossible.

Quite right, Jon. On all counts.

[packers stem]

Look close enough on an enhanced image and you can even make out the nail lol

And I've not even started on the rings or the saw yet .... for another day

[packers stem]

When you look at that wrist we can see a high point at the right side as we look at it.
That is the ulna. Everybody's ulna is higher than the radius joint. Your's is the same, slightly bend your left wrist as in the photo and your ulna will be higher than the radius joint.

It's her left hand, and her little finger - visible, is not the thumb.

If you bend your right wrist, as you think it should be in the photo, that joint would be the radius, but your radius is not higher than your ulna. Which means you cannot replicate that position by bending your right hand.

It's physically impossible.

Sorry Jon
It's not
The physical impossibility here is a little finger taking on that form .It just can not have that curvature .
Put it to the test .
Create a poll on your Facebook wall and don't lead people with the question .
Just put up a zoomed photo and ask if little finger or thumb .
See what the responses are .
8 out of 12 will give me a majority verdict and I know it won't be anywhere near that close
Ripperology has been desperately trying to make excuses for it since it was spotted .... it's nonsense
And it's not the only flaw with the photo but I guess there'll be an alternative explanation for everything
Ripperology eh

[Wickerman]

This is precisely what we should be asking .
Unfortunately you seem to be basing your answer on what you believe should be there .
I'm not that easily pleased .
You don't have to be an anatomical genius to recognise it's a thumb .
We need to work out why .....

When you look at that wrist we can see a high point at the right side as we look at it.
That is the ulna. Everybody's ulna is higher than the radius joint. Your's is the same, slightly bend your left wrist as in the photo and your ulna will be higher than the radius joint.

It's her left hand, and her little finger - visible, is not the thumb.

If you bend your right wrist, as you think it should be in the photo, that joint would be the radius, but your radius is not higher than your ulna. Which means you cannot replicate that position by bending your right hand.

It's physically impossible.

[packers stem]

How does a right hand end up on the left side of the body?.

This is precisely what we should be asking .
Unfortunately you seem to be basing your answer on what you believe should be there .
I'm not that easily pleased .
You don't have to be an anatomical genius to recognise it's a thumb .
We need to work out why .....

[Batman]

They are not. And it's not an "estimate", but an extrapolation of the field of view of MJK3 onto MJK1, incorporating the analogous landmarks in either photograph, where the frame cuts off, etc.That was a mere slip; I've forgotten more about the Eddowes case than you'll ever learn.You can see hardly any of her left leg in the second photo, if you can see any part of it at all.

FOV doesn't give you perspective.

And just WOW at the rest of what you said.

[Sam Flynn]

Your estimates are all over the place.

They are not. And it's not an "estimate", but an extrapolation of the field of view of MJK3 onto MJK1, incorporating the analogous landmarks in either photograph, where the frame cuts off, etc.

Just like where you placed the ripper with Eddowes on her left side. He was on the right side.

That was a mere slip; I've forgotten more about the Eddowes case than you'll ever learn.

You can't even show us with MS Paint how your leg looks in that second photo.

You can see hardly any of her left leg in the second photo, if you can see any part of it at all.

[Batman]

The very speed with which you responded demonstrates that you just didn't bother to even think about what I said, did you? You just dismissed it out of hand, because - here, as elsewhere on the boards - you always think that you've got the right answer. Well, you're in for a rude awakening, because...

THAT IS NOT HER KNEE!!!

I have seen that image before and it doesn't tell you perspective which is why I was so quick. Your estimates are all over the place. Just like where you placed the ripper with Eddowes on her left side. He was on the right side.

All I had to do after taking a skeleton and posing it in the same position as the photo was change the perspective.

You can't even show us with MS Paint how your leg looks in that second photo.

[Sam Flynn]

No, your perspective is all out.

The very speed with which you responded demonstrates that you just didn't bother to even think about what I said, did you? You just dismissed it out of hand, because - here, as elsewhere on the boards - you always think that you've got the right answer. Well, you're in for a rude awakening, because...

THAT IS NOT HER KNEE!!!

[Batman]

We don't need 3D reconstructions; just look at all the objects that appear in one photo and work out how they would appear from the POV of the other photo.

Here's an old drawing I made which shows, superimposed in green lines on MJK1, the rough line of sight captured in MJK3: the mutilated abdomen; the left hand; the bolt of cloth; [part of] the intestines on the bedside table. Although cheap and cheerful, it should be clear that Mary's left knee lies well outside the green lines and thus well outside MJK3's field of view.

[ATTACH]18874[/ATTACH]

If I were to draw it now, the only thing I'd change would be to put the "camera" a bit higher and angle it slightly downwards. But that would be a small adjustment in the vertical plane only and I wouldn't change the horizontal alignment much at all - certainly not enough to include Mary Kelly's rather chunky left knee in the frame.

3D is better and line of sight doesn't tell you perspective.

All I need to do was change perspective and it lined up.

[Batman]

It doesn't really line up much at all, though. Her left femur is all wrong - either that, or she's deformed.
Save yourself some time. You couldn't get that perfectly aligned in a million years, because it's anatomically impossible.

No, your perspective is all out. She isn't deformed. That's a standard female skeleton in a spread eagle pose. All you need do is change the camera perspective and she lines up.

Draw us where her femur is then using paint. Draw her leg around it. Add in the sheets if you want. That is pretty simple to do but I suspect you won't because you know what you are describing isn't really there at all.

[Sam Flynn]

We don't need 3D reconstructions; just look at all the objects that appear in one photo and work out how they would appear from the POV of the other photo.

Here's an old drawing I made which shows, superimposed in green lines on MJK1, the rough line of sight captured in MJK3: the mutilated abdomen; the left hand; the bolt of cloth; [part of] the intestines on the bedside table. Although cheap and cheerful, it should be clear that Mary's left knee lies well outside the green lines and thus well outside MJK3's field of view.



If I were to draw it now, the only thing I'd change would be to put the "camera" a bit higher and angle it slightly downwards. But that would be a small adjustment in the vertical plane only and I wouldn't change the horizontal alignment much at all - certainly not enough to include Mary Kelly's rather chunky left knee in the frame.

[Sam Flynn]

Here is a 3D skeleton overlay I did.

It's a rush job, but basically, I just adjusted perspective and it lined up pretty well.

It doesn't really line up much at all, though. Her left femur is all wrong - either that, or she's deformed.

If I spent longer on it I bet I could have it all perfectly aligned and tell you details like the focal length that was actually used.

Save yourself some time. You couldn't get that perfectly aligned in a million years, because it's anatomically impossible.

[Batman]

Here is a 3D skeleton overlay I did.

It's a rush job, but basically, I just adjusted perspective and it lined up pretty well. If I spent longer on it I bet I could have it all perfectly aligned and tell you details like the focal length that was actually used.

[Batman]

I understand most things, perspective included.

That is NOT her knee. It's that bolt of cloth we see running almost parallel with her left forearm and hand in MJK1, which REMAINS in the same relation to her left hand and the (now invisible) line of her left forearm in MJK3. That piece of cloth also lines up with the "garter" on her right leg and the flaps of abdominal flesh we see on the bedside table in both photos. It all fits, believe me.

What you and others are doing is seeing a "bendy-looking thing" in MJK3 and, because knees are "bendy things" you assume that what's in the photograph must be a knee. Well, it isn't. I used to think it was, too, until I worked it out and realised my mistake.

Can you reference the coloured circles in my photo please in your model and in a moment I will upload the 3D composite for you.