MJK1, MJK2 and moving body

[Wickerman]

AND

What IS this?

It's her right Femur, Richard.

[GUT]

Maybe that's why they had the developer/fix wash tray setup below the small window in anticipation!

I actually wasn't aware that they did thanks,.

[richardh]

Maybe that's why they had the developer/fix wash tray setup below the small window in anticipation!

G'day Richard

Just wondering, and probably off thread, but any thoughts on wet or dry plate. I seem to remember that dry plate was only really introduced in the early 80's.

If it was wet plate, they needed to be developed pretty much immediately so I guess it was a bit like Polaroid in that you knew what you had before you left. But imagine having to effectively carry your darkroom with you.

[GUT]

G'day Richard

Just wondering, and probably off thread, but any thoughts on wet or dry plate. I seem to remember that dry plate was only really introduced in the early 80's.

If it was wet plate, they needed to be developed pretty much immediately so I guess it was a bit like Polaroid in that you knew what you had before you left. But imagine having to effectively carry your darkroom with you.

[GUT]

Thanks for all the work you're putting into this Richard.

[richardh]

Yep, there are problems with that version. The next one will be more accurate.
thanks

[Wickerman]

As I mentioned previously, I see her right hand resting on the far edge of the mattress, whereas you appear to have her right hand elevated for some reason.

I marked up this photo to show a red line where I think the far side of the bed was, and also where the top corner is, where the red line turns.

The blue line represents a pillow or bolster, beneath her head.
In your 3-dim. recreation you appear to have the right side of her bed running up the side of her head - I think it is a bolster.



At least, that may account for a scaling problem?

[richardh]

G'day Richard

The focal length really worries me, because as you obviously know, any error in that regard will throw all the perspectives out, can you give me any insight into how you calculated it and what plate size did you use when working it out [or did you do as I would and not worry about the actual plate size and simply calculate it to say a 5X4?].


If I can assist with the maths re the outside photo give me a yell as once upon a time it was my strong suite however I admit it is pretty rusty know.

Yes GUT, I have had to use trial and error to arrive at what I think is the best combination. 50mm lens and quarter plate image dimensions (6.5 x 4.25). This seems to fit well and the bits that were 'all to c0ck' are now falling into the correct place.

May I ask whether the camera ended up inside the room, or do we have to wait and see?

Stu, the camera (using the settings and dimensions above) still suggests its position to be inside the room by the big window. BUT it is very close to the sill and if they DID take the whole window out (or just slid it open for that matter) then the photographer could have positioned it actually on the sill and got the shot. The camera would be petty hard up against the wall/window in any case I would think.

As for naming convention of the photos. I do get confused and call them different names to be truthful. I tend to name them in the order you might think they were taken. MJK1 would be the external shot of No.13, MJK2 would be the full length 'discovery' photo and MJK3 would be the partition to door photo.

[richardh]

Michael,
Are you maintaining that Bond, in his PM, was inferring that the arm was partially severed/cut away from the body by using the term abducted? if you are then I can assure you this is a wrong assumption on your part. 100% Bond was describing only the position of the arm from the body. He was not inferring or implying anything. He was using a well used and common medical term to describe position so that other medico-legal professionals are able to discern from his report how Mary's body was positioned accurately. Please trust me on this one.

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

[GUT]

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.

G'day Richard

The focal length really worries me, because as you obviously know, any error in that regard will throw all the perspectives out, can you give me any insight into how you calculated it and what plate size did you use when working it out [or did you do as I would and not worry about the actual plate size and simply calculate it to say a 5X4?].


If I can assist with the maths re the outside photo give me a yell as once upon a time it was my strong suite however I admit it is pretty rusty know.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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