MJK1, MJK2 and moving body

[Natasha]

I agree that the arm (if that's what it is) does appear to be palm down. However, if it was moved between the PM and the photograph, it would seem by comparison to be the only body part that was moved. Dr Bond made no comment on rigor, or even time of death, so we can only guess if that would have prevented movement.

Hi Stu

It was commented on, that rigor was setting in. If the pic was taken after the examination then it's quite possible that the arm had been moved. I suspect the hand may have been unclenched, perhaps to inspect weather Kelly had anything in her hand, or maybe to inspect any other injuries, as there is mention of cuts to the hand.

[richardh]

Hi Richard.
In your recreation of Stu's idea I notice you positioned the right arm with palm up. I had long noticed this that Stu pointed out but I thought the hand was palm down, we cannot see any fingers what I see is the forefinger slightly curled, with palm down, thumb hidden from view.

I acknowledge that you are the expert here, but I thought I'd just throw that in for good measure.
I do realise Dr Bond described the arm as supine, but we are under the impression that his description was how the body was found, and we are comparing his words to the photo.

What we do not know when the photo was taken, before the autopsy or after, the arm could have been moved before the photo was taken.

I acknowledge that you are the expert here

I'm certainly NOT an expert. I'm only going on what I see and read about the case like everyone else. I do have a medical background but I doubt that helps much.

Firstly, regarding Dr Bond's report; The first paragraph of the report is, to my mind, reporting of the body's position in situ, so I would suggest that the photo (MJK1) would match the first paragraph (at least) of the report.

Next issue is the term 'supine' in relation to Bond's assertion that

...the elbow [was] bent & the forearm supine with the fingers clenched.

The term supine (nowadays) is used to describe a body/person lying on their back. For individual body parts we would use the terms 'anterior/posterior to describe the front or back of something. For extremities (hands, arms, feet) we use the term dorsal/palmer (back of hand / palm of hand) or dorsal/plantar (top of foot / sole of foot). The front of the arm (palm to elbow bend) would be referred to as anterior and the back is posterior. 'Supine' doesn't aid the visualisation of the position of the forearm.

So to describe the forearm as 'supine' is not really helpful as it is anatomically inaccurate and has led inevitably to an ambiguous interpretation.

Is it supine like the rest of the body as in lying on her back? in which case the hand will be palm up. Or is it supine as in the anterior aspect of the forearm is face down on the mattress, in which case the hand will be palm down.

I suppose all we can go on is the photo (MJK1) which itself is open to interpretation. Is what we are seeing (where Stu circled) the right arm or is it a pile of bed sheets/clothes that look like an arm?

Another thing to consider: If you position yourself in the anatomical position (go on you know you want to) you will have your arms slightly abducted from your body, your palms will face front (anterior). Now, going on Dr. Bond's report... abduct your arms further from your body (he said the arm was slightly abducted but to me the fact he stressed slightly abducted means the arms would be more abducted than in the resting anatomical position - so abduct those arms more - say 30 degrees from the body. Now he says the elbow was bend. From that position you can only bend your elbow one way and that is away from your body. That would suggest that MJK's palms were up. If her palms were down then she could only bend her elbow back toward her body.

All this rests on what Bond mean by 'supine' AND what we see (or think we see) on MJK1

EDIT: something else, Dr Bond says that the right arm was resting on the mattress.. and then says the elbow was bent. Could this be interpreted to mean that the humerus part of the arm was on the mattress and then the elbow was bent so the forearm was raised OFF the mattress by something like sheets or bedclothes? IF it does mean this then it could only mean the hand was palm UP. AND also that my first right arm positioning model was correct in that the right arm was quite high off the mattress (going on Stu's red circled right arm position)

[richardh]

I suppose Bond could have meant the forearm was 'supinated' or externally rotated which would again put the hand with palm UP but this doesn't agree with what we think we see in MJK1

[richardh]

Palm UP




Palm DOWN





I think I've got those ALL wrong. The right arm position just does not look right. It's far too high off the mattress. Are we sure those are not just sheets/clothes that just look like right arm parts? I'm looking at the 'dolphin head on its side'!

As an after thought: if the right arm was stretched across to the other side of the bed with the fingers almost over the mattress edge, then surely Dr Bond would have specified as much in his report. To me 'right arm slightly abducted..' Is actually telling us that the right hand couldn't possibly be over at the other side if the mattress? especially when we know that MJK was off mattress centre toward the left side of the bed.

AND

What IS this?

[Wickerman]

I think I've got those ALL wrong. The right arm position just does not look right. It's far too high off the mattress.

Hi Richard.
Even in the photo we see a small portion of the far side of the mattress between the end of her fingers and the exposed bone of her right leg.
You say the hand appears too high? - but in the photo, wouldn't you agree that it looks like it is laying on the far side of the bed?

Ok, I spot something.
The far top corner of the bed, to the right of her head, that corner is too close in your recreation. What I think you have assumed to be the corner of the bed is actually the corner of her pillow.

I think the actual corner of the mattress is obscured by her right elbow.

[richardh]

To be honest, I'm starting to doubt my 3D model accuracy! everything about that picture is a contradiction when you start trying to CGI it. The width of the bed, the angle of the headboard, the difference in angles and projection of the headboard/bed, the corner of the room...

I think one of the biggest obstacles is to decide the correct dimensions of the original picture AND work out the original camera stats. I think I've gone wrong big time somewhere and now all the small discrepancies are magnified.

I'll work some more!

[Disco Stu]

To be honest, I'm starting to doubt my 3D model accuracy! everything about that picture is a contradiction when you start trying to CGI it. The width of the bed, the angle of the headboard, the difference in angles and projection of the headboard/bed, the corner of the room...

I think one of the biggest obstacles is to decide the correct dimensions of the original picture AND work out the original camera stats. I think I've gone wrong big time somewhere and now all the small discrepancies are magnified.

I'll work some more!

Hi Richard,

I thought I'd go without pestering you for a bit, let you find your bearings. I personally think you were doing a fantastic job, and if there's errors it's due to the medium. That said, have you made any progress with your adjustments? I can't help a great deal with exact measurements, but I can have a crack at proportions if that's of any use to you?

I wish I'd had that enhanced version of the reverse angle shot a couple of weeks ago. It really clears up a few things. The enhancement also shows just how much space there was on the far side of the bed, compared to how compressed everything seems in the full body shot.

[richardh]

Hi Stu
Yes I have been working on improvements. In fact I actually sort of began again as I wasn't at all happy with aspects of the positioning of, not only MJK, but of the camera angle I was basing everything off. My first concern was the bed (base) and the headboard being at odds with each other. Initially I was of the opinion that the headboard couldn't have been attached to the bed given that odd angle it seems to be set at. I couldn't get the bed-base and the headboard to marry-up using the focal length /lens and image sizes as my starting point.

It turned out that I had my setup wrong. I had to work hard to arrive at the correct (or as near as damn-it) focal length and lens size that produced the original photo. Once I had that right, I could then position the camera correctly and I finally succeeded in getting the bed and headboard to actually align properly. The Bed and headboard are really the most important aspects of the scene as they are the basis for everything else in the room. I've had to faff with lots of other bits of the model but It's looking good and in my mind much more accurate.

I'll be showing it soon but in the mean time I have been working on something to do the external photo of No.13 (would that be MJK1?). It's taken me a bit of time and involves maths (not my strong point). I'm hoping it might help answer a few long-standing questions that have been asked about that particular photo.

[Michael W Richards]

Just a quick reminder for those who find some issue with Marys right arm...it was essentially held onto her body by sinew at the point the picture was taken, it was reported that it was "nearly severed from the body".

Cheers

[richardh]

You'd have thought they might have mentioned that in the PM? Reported by Whom?

Just a quick reminder for those who find some issue with Marys right arm...it was essentially held onto her body by sinew at the point the picture was taken, it was reported that it was "nearly severed from the body".

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

You'd have thought they might have mentioned that in the PM? Reported by Whom?

One is from Bonds autopsy notes Richard...." the right arm was slightly abducted from the body & rested on the mattress".

Cheers

[richardh]

The word 'abducted does not mean severed or detached. It means 'moved away' from the centre of the body (mid-line).This is a particular and exact medical terminology. In no way does that sentence say that the right arm was cut away or damaged whatsoever. It is simply saying that the right arm was positioned away from the mid-line of the body (abducted) and it rested on the mattress.
from Websters medical dictionary:
"Abduction: The movement of a limb away from the midline of the body. The opposite of abduction is adduction."

I need to reiterate this point because if people assume that abducted means 'severed' or 'cut' they are categorically wrong.

When you flap your arms like a bird flapping wings you are abducting and adducting your arms.
The only reference to damage to the right arm in the PM is:
"Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds." (Nothing (ref: arms) was severed or detached in any way)

One is from Bonds autopsy notes Richard...." the right arm was slightly abducted from the body & rested on the mattress".

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

The word 'abducted does not mean severed or detached. It means 'moved away' from the centre of the body (mid-line).This is a particular and exact medical terminology. In no way does that sentence say that the right arm was cut away or damaged whatsoever. It is simply saying that the right arm was positioned away from the mid-line of the body (abducted) and it rested on the mattress.
from Websters medical dictionary:
"Abduction: The movement of a limb away from the midline of the body. The opposite of abduction is adduction."

I need to reiterate this point because if people assume that abducted means 'severed' or 'cut' they are categorically wrong.

When you flap your arms like a bird flapping wings you are abducting and adducting your arms.
The only reference to damage to the right arm in the PM is:
"Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds." (Nothing (ref: arms) was severed or detached in any way)

I believe that the reference in this case Richard is that the limb was " drawn away from the midline of the body or an adjacent part or limb", meaning that the arm was not aligned in a conventional manner with the rest of the body and it "rested" on the mattress adjacent to the body. The reference to sinew attachments or some physiological material connection that still existed to the body itself was I believe a press quote, the specifics of which I don't recall at this typing, but the inference was clearly that the right arm had been partially severed from the body.

I referred to Bond as a formal nod on that point, not as the source of the specific quote.

Cheers

[Disco Stu]

Hi Michael,

I've got to agree with Richard on this one, and in so doing admit that I also made the same assumption. It turns out abduction, medically, is indeed specific to alignment, not to connection. As Richard noted, the only mention of injury to the arms in the PM, inquest or Dr Bond's later report to Anderson is of extensive, jagged wounds to the arms themselves, not the connective tissue.

Of course Dr Bond may not have been the most thorough examiner, not commenting on rigor mortis until the Anderson report, and stating the body was found, "quite naked". But, with regards to the wounds and mutilations, he seems to have covered things amply, certainly to a point where there's no contradictions elsewhere in the available records.

[Disco Stu]

Hi Richard,

We really do need a common reference system for the photos. The on-site references are confused by having them named differently in the victim page and photo archive. Pick something, let me know and we'll run with it.

I don't envy you trying to work out lenses and camera angles. I like my method of guessing and testing. It takes longer, but I don't end up with grey hair at the end. May I ask whether the camera ended up inside the room, or do we have to wait and see?

As always, I await your external rendering with eager anticipation. The last animation you did of the court was spectacular, and I'm sure the new one will live up to your high standards. If I can be any help with the calculations, give me a shout.