MJK1, MJK2 and moving body

[richardh]

Me again!
I have AGAIN updated my thinking and decided that it it entirely possible for the police photographer to take MJK2 (partition wall toward main door) without moving anything. This is in line with Disco Stu's theory which I can now show is valid.

In this image below I have positioned the camera so that it 'closely' matches MJK2. Note (as per Disco Stu suggests) that the right leg is now in the position I originally assumed was MJK's left leg (the pointy thing sticking up).

Note also that the door knob in the render is in more or less the same location as shown in MJK2 (assuming it is the door knob) and the bright light strip coincides with the corner of the room or perhaps the window frame.

It's certainly not a perfect match, perhaps because I have no idea of original lens size or focal length. Also the original MJK2 images (well the images from the internet) may well have altered in dimensions (width /height).

But it does demonstrate that perhaps MJK2 was achieved with minimal disturbance of the crime scene AND demonstrates also that the bed, table and Kelly's postmortem position could remain exactly the same in both MJK1 & MJK2.

[Prosector]

I am fascinated by this thread because I was about to ask the same questions myself. I think there is something deeply troubling about MJK2 to the extent that I almost wonder if it wasn't faked later for some reason. A point that no-one has mentioned is the hand in MJK2. It looks very much as if it is the thumb that is visible in the picture but in that case it would have to be someone's right hand, not their left. It may be that it is a trick of the light and it is actually her little finger we are looking at but it looks awfully like a thumb.

My next question is what are the objects on the table to the left that look like a couple of hams? The three flaps of her abdominal wall would seem to be on the right of the table so what are these other things that don't look at all blood stained?

Prosector

[richardh]

The little finger on Mary's left hand does look thumb-like in MJK2 because it's a trick of the light. However, If you look at my render (the render above and in all of my Miller's court videos & 3D's) you can see that the hand, wrist and little finder line up nicely against the real MJK2 photo.

The two objects (couple of hams) are in fact bed clothes (or some contend it is a bolster).



I would also suggest that those bed clothes were the same bed clothes that first appear on MJK1 stuffed down the side of the bed by her right leg. I reckon that when they photographed MJK2 they removed the bed clothes in order to place the camera into the MJK2 position (perhaps on the washstand?). It's a suggestion.

[Prosector]

Thanks Richard - I'm sure your right. And looking at MJK2 again it's fairly clear that the table has been moved out and more towards the foot of the bed in order to shift the bed so that now the abdominal flaps are nearer to her knee than her shoulder as they are in MJK1.

[Disco Stu]

Hi Richard,

I had to give this thread a miss for a while: After last weekend's close analysis, I wasn't sleeping so well. I take my hat off to your resolve.

I want to stress that I've got no wish to push my opinion over your original idea. I just didn't want you putting your usual high level of effort into, what looked to me, a wrong turn.

There's two more items I'd like to point out, as much as anything to try and clarify alignments. The first is the positioning of the fold of fabric just to the left of the hand in MJK1. I notice in MJK2, a small patch of white in line with the hand and with the drooped corner of (for argument's sake) the bolster on the table. What do you think of this as being the tip of the aforementioned fabric?

The second is the cut/garter line you note in MJK1. Sad to say, I believe this is a cut off point for where her knee was skinned. Tracing a line from the little finger in MJK2 to the opposite edge, I see a faint line running diagonally left-down. Is it possible to add this line in to your model and check if it does line up, please?

[richardh]

There's two more items I'd like to point out, as much as anything to try and clarify alignments. The first is the positioning of the fold of fabric just to the left of the hand in MJK1. I notice in MJK2, a small patch of white in line with the hand and with the drooped corner of (for argument's sake) the bolster on the table. What do you think of this as being the tip of the aforementioned fabric?

The second is the cut/garter line you note in MJK1. Sad to say, I believe this is a cut off point for where her knee was skinned. Tracing a line from the little finger in MJK2 to the opposite edge, I see a faint line running diagonally left-down. Is it possible to add this line in to your model and check if it does line up, please?

stu,
I have marked the area in red where I think you're referring to the fold of fabric in both pictures.

I can't see where you mean about the faint diag line. where are we looking - using the yellow line and numbers?



thanks.

N.B: Do you not think that 'garter/cut' line in MJK2 is a bit too neat and circular (and blood drip free) to be a gash?

[Michael W Richards]

I really do think that MJK's Legs and hips were rotated to the right for the MJK2 photo. In the first photo (MJK1) her left knee is close to the mattress yet in MJK2 it is quite high off the mattress.

I post below the image I made last year to demonstrate:



That IS the left knee I'm looking at isn't it (in MJK2)?

Can someone post MJK1 & 2 with dots where her left and right patella are please?

I saw the CGI recreation you made starting with the MJK photos Richard,..quite well done.

It occurs to me that based on your question above that some people may not be aware that both of Marys thighs were stripped of skin and viscera, the left one was only stripped on the inside of the thigh...therefore it looks intact on one side and is almost translucent from the other side, due to the material being stripped from it.

Also, interesting suggestion that MJK 2 was taken from the alcove via an opened window, and that MJK 3's angle suggests that the bed was moved.

On point B, I said that forever here, without support. Your point A also makes some sense, they could have recorded that the windows were locked when they entered, but there is no need to then assume they remained locked while they were in the room,...the scene itself and the smell might have necessitated the opening, not just to take the photo.

Cheers

[Disco Stu]

Hi Richard,

Bang on the money with the red marking. What do you think? The possible cut/garter line starts just above your number 9 (in MJK2). I've tried lightening, darkening, inverting, but I just can't get it to stand out. So I've circled it.



I get where you're coming from with the garter/cut line. I have a few reasons though:
-The skin tone changes above the line. I believe it is exposed sinew we're seeing above the line. The same area in MJK2 also looks, to me, like exposed sinew;
-It's hard to tell whether the left thigh was cut below the knee, due to the camera angle. The lower cuts may be in a similar position on both legs;
-The PM states, "The whole of the surface of the abdomen & thighs was removed". The only other potential demarcation, as far as I can see, lies between your numbers 4 & 5 (in MJK1).

Regarding your question of regularity, I can only say that I've seen animals skinned and a neat, circular cut is fairly simple through fur. That even seems to apply to inexperienced cutters, as long as there is someone to tell the how to do it. No, I'm not suggesting it was a slaughterman (before anyone asks).

There seems to be more blood on the right leg than the left, despite there being more extensive dissection of the left thigh, according to the PM, and a long gash down the left calf.

[richardh]

stu,
In response to your suggestion about the fabric (now know as 'red cloth'!

Here's the 3D 's of 'red cloth' in relation to MJK1 & MJK2. Seems they also match up.

I'll try to do a quick .gif animation to prove I've not just painted a bit of red cloth on a flat picture

[richardh]

Red cloth animation.. (sorry for the new post but my edit time expired!

[Wickerman]

Also, interesting suggestion that MJK 2 was taken from the alcove via an opened window, and that MJK 3's angle suggests that the bed was moved.

It might be expecting too much to think those windows opened as intended, but we do have an observation by the Times.
"...Mr Arnold, having satisfied himself that the woman was dead, ordered one of the windows to be entirely removed..."

True or not, who knows. No other reporter provided that detail and the press had complained that they were not permitted to go inside Millers Court to see the crime scene. So how did the Times reporter know this, or was he told by a tenant, or the photographer?

Interesting that we see a sketch of the photographer inside the room...
(Ignore the red lines)


(Courtesy, Stewart Evans, 2000)

Creative license?

[richardh]

Below is a reply to your other point Stu, about the faint line you thought might be the other side of the right leg's circumstance cut.

While doing this one I noted something which may be of significance. Here's the image:



Note the 'red cloth' in position, the exposed right femur matches also.
And my 'garter/cut' ring is indeed in the same location as the faint line you mentioned Stu. Again, the angels and so forth are not smack on but this does demonstrate that your theory is holding true.

The bit I discovered which may be of significance is the position of the thumb of Mary's right hand. I admit that I moved my model's right arm toward her body as I think it was abducted too far. When I moved it in, her thumb of the right hand took the position you see in the above images. And if you look at the original MJK2 you'll see the little protuberance that I have to admit I thought was a glancing shot of her right femur.

On looking very closely at MJK2 I really think that protuberance DOES look thumb-like.

Another 'happy coincidence'? I'll put the suggestion out there for you all to argue over

[Amanda Sumner]

Clearly the photo is a mock up , a fake.
This is not Mary Jane Kelly.
Only one photo was taken of her, through the window, I believe.

There are just too many things wrong with the photo for it to be genuine.

[Michael W Richards]

Below is a reply to your other point Stu, about the faint line you thought might be the other side of the right leg's circumstance cut.

While doing this one I noted something which may be of significance. Here's the image:



Note the 'red cloth' in position, the exposed right femur matches also.
And my 'garter/cut' ring is indeed in the same location as the faint line you mentioned Stu. Again, the angels and so forth are not smack on but this does demonstrate that your theory is holding true.

The bit I discovered which may be of significance is the position of the thumb of Mary's right hand. I admit that I moved my model's right arm toward her body as I think it was abducted too far. When I moved it in, her thumb of the right hand took the position you see in the above images. And if you look at the original MJK2 you'll see the little protuberance that I have to admit I thought was a glancing shot of her right femur.

On looking very closely at MJK2 I really think that protuberance DOES look thumb-like.

Another 'happy coincidence'? I'll put the suggestion out there for you all to argue over

There are many possibilities. One of which has not been mentioned on this particular thread. Camera's from the period were often equipped with a remote shutter, operated by squeezing a rubber bulb attached by a tube to the camera itself. In the shot there is clearly bedding or a duvet, or sheets, stuffed down between the bed and the partition wall. Around the spot where the shot back across Mary towards the door was made.

If someone were crouching out of picture, holding the shutter bulb with their left hand, could that hand we see be a thumb of a right hand....perhaps the man steadied himself while crouching and didn't realize his thumb was in that shot.

Cheers

[richardh]

Could well be Michael, but non-the-less it does look very thumb-like to me, the more I look at it.