MJK1, MJK2 and moving body

[richardh]

Here's a turntable of the latest MJK position:



(11th Aug 2014 23:40)

[richardh]

Stu,
Having looked again, I have changed my mind over the positioning of the right arm. The area you marked in red I think is not the arm but bedding and mattress. I think the arm was lower toward the mattress but in the same abducted angle shown here:



I am submitting that this (yellow arrowed) is the right thumb, especially if the big pointy thing is the right knee:

[Amanda Sumner]

Thank you Richard. You are quite right, and thank you for directing me to the right place. My apologies.

[richardh]

Amanda,
On another thread regarding the discussion about the little finger/thumb I found this pic which was posted to demonstrate the left hand positioning:


taken from this thread which goes a long way toward demonstrating the little finger/thumb myth.

[richardh]

I'm very sorry you feel that the thread has got messy. I thought that the whole point of this threads is to discuss and debate. What more appropriate thread to put it on than one that is comparing the two photos of which one I have an issue with? Whether it is a little finger or not, it does not alter the other issues I have raised, which I feel are very valid. Please continue your thread, as you would rather ignore those issues. I just find it bizarre when it's so obvious to me, that an eminent site like casebook, did not debunk it years ago. Any photo with an odd painted hand , holdings a box (?)camera and being passed off as a genuine police photograph is very odd, to say the least!

Amanda
With respect, this thread was started in order to discuss the positioning and movement of MJK, not the provenance of one of the photos. There are lots of threads devoted to that. Also, there are many threads that discuss the left hand and little finger/thumb theory. AND those threads actually answer many of the questions and concerns you have. Some of the answers are conclusive too. But I want to concentrate on the positioning and possible movement of MJK between those two photos on this thread.

[Amanda Sumner]

Hi Amanda,

I'm sure people are happy to discuss your ideas at length, myself included, and would happily do so on a thread devoted to your theory.

Thank you Disco Stu, and my apologies to you and Richard if I sabotaged your thread. It was not my intention to, just was not sure where to go, and here seemed as good as any. Your modelling of MJK, the original photo, is really very interesting. Keep up the good work!

[richardh]

Stu
"slightly abducted" really does mean that the arm was simply moved away from the medial (centre) of the body. when you stand and flap your arms like a bird flapping its wings you are abducting your arms away from the midline point. The If the Dr meant 'partially removed' he would have said as much. He is using correct medical terminology to describe the anatomical position of the body so that fellow Drs and others in the medico-legal profession can visualise correctly the scene. In my revised model, I positioned the right arm exactly as the AP stated. I abducted the humerus away from the body, bent the elbow, positioned the forearm supine and curled the fingers into a clenched position. I abducted the arm to match MJK1

If the right arm was partially severed then the Dr would say so in those exact terms. He would not leave room for ambiguity and mis-interpretation.

[Disco Stu]

Hi Amanda,

I'm sure people are happy to discuss your ideas at length, myself included, and would happily do so on a thread devoted to your theory.

[Amanda Sumner]

Crap! this thread has got awfully messy and convoluted very quickly!

I've got some many things going on in my head that i need to put them in some sort of order before I put them in a thread.

Firstly (and quickly) the left hand in the partition-to-door image (MJK2) - you're looking at the prominent lateral styloid process (1) with certainty. The head of the metacarpal (knuckle)(2) of the little finger, then the pip joint (3) which from that point the little finger is bend DOWN into the abdomen which is why it vanishes and which is why it does look like the tip of the thumb (it isn't).

I'm very sorry you feel that the thread has got messy. I thought that the whole point of this threads is to discuss and debate. What more appropriate thread to put it on than one that is comparing the two photos of which one I have an issue with? Whether it is a little finger or not, it does not alter the other issues I have raised, which I feel are very valid. Please continue your thread, as you would rather ignore those issues. I just find it bizarre when it's so obvious to me, that an eminent site like casebook, did not debunk it years ago. Any photo with an odd painted hand , holdings a box (?)camera and being passed off as a genuine police photograph is very odd, to say the least!

[Disco Stu]

Hi Richard,

Sorry, you're right. I'll see if Amanda wants to start a separate thread to discuss her theory.

And thanks for confirming I'm not crazy about the sticky-uppy-bit-of-wrist. I'll avoid using medical terms from now on.

That's some fast work on the projection! So the thumb does sit too high in MJK1 compared to MJK2. If the blankets were moved, maybe the arm moved with them? Regarding rigor, the phrase, "slightly abducted", may refer to being partially removed. A partially severed arm would be rigid in itself, but not necessarily in it's joint. Now, to prove whether it's a thumb.

[richardh]

Hi Richard,

Sorry, this debate has taken us off topic. I did notice your thumb suggestion; thumbs seem to have become a theme for the day. I've got to say I'd be puzzled if the thumb was there, in line with the hip, as the right arm appears to be stretching to the far side of the bed in the full body shot. If we can prove it's the thumb, that would be strong evidence of movement. Can you get an arm length from the left and see where it would need to be to fit in the shot?

[ATTACH]16093[/ATTACH]

Stu
Thanks for that post. You have made me re-examine my models because I can now see what you are saying about that right arm.
Firstly: if I can quote from the autopsy report:
"the right arm was slightly abducted from the body & rested on the mattress, the elbow bent & the forearm supine with the fingers clenched."

You said that it looks like the arm is 'stretched to the far side of the bed' and upon looking at it I would agree with you. SO I went and requisitioned my model to get this overlayed on MJK1:


and this on MJK2:


and this is the top down:

[richardh]

Crap! this thread has got awfully messy and convoluted very quickly!

I've got some many things going on in my head that i need to put them in some sort of order before I put them in a thread.

Firstly (and quickly) the left hand in the partition-to-door image (MJK2) - you're looking at the prominent lateral styloid process (1) with certainty. The head of the metacarpal (knuckle)(2) of the little finger, then the pip joint (3) which from that point the little finger is bend DOWN into the abdomen which is why it vanishes and which is why it does look like the tip of the thumb (it isn't).

[Amanda Sumner]

Hi Disco Stu,

"The exposed thigh bone is consistent;"

Are we talking about the same photo? ( MJK3 ) The thigh is not exposed, it's covered with cloth. For some reason I can't put both photos side by side for comparison.
How can you say it's consistent when one can't even see it?
Why, also have you put the full bed shot of MJK again, on here, when we are clearly discussing the one taken on the other side of the bed?

[Amanda Sumner]

Hi Amanda

I can refer you to this thread for the common points of reference, as Richard, myself and others have been discussing them. If you'd like to go through the points that have been discussed, as objectively as possible, and indicate where you think we're going wrong, it would be quite useful to the discussion. I'll offer a short re-cap of my main points:

- Assuming the right leg is near-vertical in both shots, the 3d projection fits both, refuting the idea of the body being moved;

- If the right leg was resting on the sheeting, as appears in the full body shot, the sheeting would, by all likelihood, be heavily blood stained.

- The alignment of the hand is consistent;

- The Styloid Process is consistent with a left hand from what I can see;

- The position of the white fabric over the abdomen appears to be confirmed;

- The cut/garter line appears consistent;

- The exposed thigh bone is consistent;

This all points, as far as I can see, to a murder consistent with the suggestion put forward in the PM, and I don't see discrepancies in either photo when compared to the PM. I don't see evidence of the body being moved between photos.

My first point I want to make, is that I am not here to offend. The second point I want to make is that you and Richard have done an excellent job. However your project has raised the very issues that I have raised and have yet to have a satisfactory answer to.
I am sorry if you feel that the thread has gone off topic. I believe it is very much on topic. It is about comparing the photos.
How you can say that the arm is consistent when the full body shot shows her arm to lie right across the top of the abdomen, but in the second one it's lying higher on the chest, further down the side of the bed, and yes, showing a thumb in my opinion.
The points raised on here and the diagram showing the discrepancies between the leg and hip positions, does show that, indeed, the hips have been rotated slightly. How would this happen? I can't imagine anyone present would want to particularly touch the body, especially if the whole point of the photograph was to record evidence.
Another point I would like to raise is rigor mortis. The body starts stiffening roughly 3 hours after death, sometimes a bit longer, but certainly after six hours the body is markedly stiff. Now, depending on when MJK died, but I think the general consensus is between the hours of 2.30.am and 4.00.am, her body would have been very stiff on discovery, and even more so by the time the door was broken down. It would have been nigh impossible to move any limbs at all without breaking the joints, so why would anyone do that? Any movement the body would have naturally made while the bed was moved would still be in a fixed position, even if shifted on the bed slightly.

There is no way the legs would raise like that without being held up, and as I said almost impossible to do. The furthest knee is also too high, in my opinion, to be a natural part of her body.
I am also of the opinion, and I will stretch my neck out further, by saying that what we are looking at is not a corpse at all. Why? Because if that had been a real body, it does not matter whose, there would have been no need to plant a false hand on one side and badly paint in another on the other side because the corpse would have had its own.

It does not matter either, if others disagree. I feel justified in raising these issues because isn't the evidence of MJK's suffering bad enough, in the original full body shot of her on the bed, without others making a mock up of her to hoax and deceive? I will leave others now to look and make up their own minds, if they haven't fixed them already.

I will stand firm with my opinion. Whatever it is, it's not a photograph of Mary Jane Kelly.

[richardh]

"Styloid Process is, and where it occurs?"

There are two Styloid proceses (I should know, I xray them every day). Lateral and medial Styloids - or put it another way, the wrist.

Re: The little finger / thumb - without a shadow of doubt the MJK2 images shows the little finger. I can see where people might think it's a thumb at first look, but it is CERTAINLY a little finger. even without the benefit of those 3D's you can see it's a little finger with a bit of shadow at the PIP joint giving the impression of a thumb joint.

EDIT
Also, If I was going to fake a photo, I would make damn certain things matched up with previous evidence. I wouldn't included smudges and brush mark touch-ups and I would line my 'body' up the way the autopsy report stated was the original position.