|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through December 05, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
The Kelly Crime Scene Photographs:
Archive through December 05, 2000
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 03:17 am |        | ROGER: You might want to move the green markings a bit to Mary's right. It looks to me like her nose is broken and mashed way over towards her right eye.
Thanks for posting this pic, you're helping a lot!
Janice |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 08:44 am | | About the eyes,
If you look at the last pic of Roger, to the left (MJK's left/ to our rigth)of the green nose, same height, you can see soething sphere-like, white+red+black (like a pupil). Isn't that Mary's left eye? (Yuk) |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 04:03 pm | | | To me , Mary's face looks like a skull with the left eye in the socket. I think ' mass of scars ' may have been a police euphemism , it looks like most of the flesh has been taken off the face in my opinion. |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 06:15 pm | | David,
I see where you mean, thanks for the clear description. I'll post the pic so that you can comment tomorrow evening, if I get the chance, for comment. (The web masters must love me :) )
Janice,
I'll correct the error when I get a proper mouse (I'm doing this on a laptop with one of those ghastly touch pad things)
I think the nose is mostly missing (look at mutilations on CE)
Jill,
The 'eye' could be an artifact caused by my increasing the size of the picture and the computer 'filling in' detail based on the scaling algorithms. To resolve that one we need a good, hi-res scan of the original pic :) These were stolen from the Casebook MJK victim page.
Simon,
I can see the eye you mean under the green line I placed to approximate where the eye should be. Again, it could just be a noise artifact, and the only way of resolving that is to get a hi-res scan of the original. The signal to noise ratio of my source pic is pretty low.
All,
Thanks for the encouragement. I'm glad you find my attempts of use :)
Roger |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 03:21 am | | Roger
After looking at your pic, I tried to search for the same blink on the same spot on other pics, like the one of june 9th, in the previous archive.
And I found the spot again, several times. I repost your pic of june 9th with a black rectangle to situate the spot.
 |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 05:44 am | | ALL!!!!!,
LETTER CARVINGS FOUND ON MARY'S FACE
I redirect you to the post of George Sitouriou 6/14 7:30 pm under Topics->Ripper Victims->Markings on Mary Jane Kelly
Can anyone confirm this finding seperately on the photograph this person meant? Can anyone confirm the finding on pre-diary photograph version? Or is this a prank?
He found the word 'FIVE' carved up in Mary's face. |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 01:51 pm | | Jill,
There is nothing in the ME report about an eye being removed, but it does look that way :)
It was late when i posted my reply, and i didnt check my source :)
Roger |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 01:56 pm | | Leanne's image, with her ammendments to show the word.
I pass no comments yet
Roger |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 02:17 pm | | David,
As promised :) Based on your excellent description, here is what I think you described. If its wrong, we'll drop the discussion to private mail until i get it right. :)
I hope this is acceptable...
Roger |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 05:28 pm | | Roger,
I have seen for myself now that it is not an eye, only light, blood and carving playing tricks. I'm looking at the picture of the A-Z now. Where the 'eye' is larger than on your pic. The whiter area is skin from the cheeckbone, and since this protrudes more than other facial characteristics, except for the nose, has cought a lot of light. The darker area that I percieved as a pupil, is blood and carving: Dr. Bond's report states that part of the cheeks was cut away. Also the nose was cut away, which if it would still be part of MJK would still have been lighter than the cheeckbone. Since this reference was missing I had made the mistake as perceiving it as an eyeball.
Thus I set my record straight: It is no eye, it is flesh of the cheeckbone that was partly carved up.
Greetings and thanks for your pics,
Jill |
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 05:30 pm | | Hi Roger,
What has been identified as a chemise in the above photo is a combination of things.
The top item is mutilated abdominal flesh.
The lower of the two circles is highlighting part of the bed sheet. If you look at the white item folded over the left shoulder and follow it toward the foot of the bed you'll see that it is also the white item that rides up a bit, just under the left arm, and rests on what would be Ms. Kelly's hip. It continues to run down the body, under the left leg. It is clearly visible under the right leg, and appears to be covering the right foot.
It isn't a chemise, it's part of the bedding.
I hope you found my observation helpful. |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 08:58 pm | | Roger,
Yes, your upper purple circle is what I have described as the chemise crescent. Thank you.
David
upper purple circle....hmmmmm. Quite a pretty piece of poetry--oh, there I go again! |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 11:26 pm | | David, I now see what you are talking about. Yes, indeed that could be part of Kelly's chemise by her left arm but, as Joseph has pointed out, it could also be part of the bedding. It does appear that it follows the body and can be seen under the left knee and then it reappears by her left foot but it is too difficult to say either way. However, I still maintain that the "crescent" shape covering the abdomen is flesh and that there is no indication that the left leg has been covered in any way in photo #2. As Tom Ind has shown, the femur can clearly been seen and there is no way that that is a fold in cloth. I have to wonder why you would think that the Ripper would want to be hampered by the chemise? Considering the total mutilations to the chest and torso it seems inconceivable that he would just work around it rather than cut it out of the way. And my observation about Dr. Bond totally missing the chemise still holds true.
Wolf. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 06:38 am | | Hi All,
To add to the discussion if we are seeing Mary's face from her left side (pic1) or turned to us and view the right side more (pic2):
I have used the picture of Stewart, that he posted on the 'Markings on MJK's face' thread, as background and base of portret-perspective possibilities.
When drawing body's this mainly starts with the construction and relating it to simple geometrical forms like a box for a chest and spheres for the skull. It doesn't matter if you look at the back of the head, or from aside or frontal these spheres will be viewed the same in relation to each other. The only way they differ is their position in relation to their surroundings.
A skull can be build up by two spheres that intersect each other. The two spheres together are to be considered as one volume. A center line accross the surface of this body will always start at the bottom of this body and ends at the top of it. It doesn't matter at what angle you view a human skull, these points are fixed. If you look at a frontal portret this line will be seen as perfectly straight, because of foreshortening. If you look at a face from another angle, this center line will bulge. The more from an angle, the more bulged the center line gets.
The facial features can drawn as surface circles crossing the 2sphere body. Depending on the perspective (frog, bird, eye-height) you will see this surface circles as a line or ellips. Of course only a little part of this ellipse or circle is drawn. The height where they should be situated can follow general rules. For example the eye-height is appr. where the two spheres intersect. The nose height will be appr. at the bottom of the top sphere. The height of the mouth will be more or less halfway between the chin and the nose... So much for theory.
I have drawn a left view (as in 'FIVE' on the left cheeck) and a more right-side view, following these construction rules, over the picture of Mary. Let's examine the left-view (green construction). You will find nothing on the picture that fits the mouth line even appr. The same problem again with the nose. The hairline that we actual see does not fit with what we should see in such a perspective. We would never see hair on the top where we actually see it now (yellow crosslines), we would see more hair at the bottom of this view (other yellow crosslines). Neither does the jaw line really fits. We can not see the left ear of Mary. We do not see the neck as should be. The actual way the hair falls according to gravity in this perspective, is not how it should fall. When so much discrepancy with law of perspective is met, only one conclusion can be drawn: we are not looking at Mary's left side of the face, apart from JtR mangling the skull totally, which he did not do (still even then there would not even be that much fault).
 
If we now look at the other angle, a head turned to the left so we look at Mary's face from up front, and see much of the right-side of her face, we do not come accross so much discrepancy. Actually everything neatly fits: the nose, the mouth, the chin-line, the right jaw-line, the right ear, the hairline and the way the hair fall, and the neck.
Final conclusion, we are looking at Mary's face appr. in the perspective of pic2. And the cuts that have been viewed as the word 'FIVE' are positioned along the center line of the face, not on her left cheeck.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 08:52 pm | | | I have wondered, isn't it true that in fetal development the various facial structures grow in from the sides and join in the middle? When this doesn't work right you get harelip or cleft palate or both. I wonder if the underlying musculature, tendons, fat etc. reflects this. That is when you strip the skin off do you see some kind of demarcation line in the middle? I am not knowledgeable enough to answer this. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 03:22 am | | Hi Diana,
The only demarcation line left on a grown skull is at the top of the skull: from the back of your head and over it. This line helps forensic doctors to determine how old a person was when he died: only well in adulthood (late twenties) this line begins to close more and more -> when an adult person dies in his early twenties, the skull will show some seperation there, while one in his thirties would less and less.
This demarcation line is the only one left, but for with some people an indent at the chin. There is no demarcation line running accross the frontal face.
As for muscles, some overlap the center, there is no demarcation line to distinguish. |
Author: Ashling
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 04:11 am | | JILL: I appreciate all your hard work, but still disagree with your conclusions. The face I see is positioned about halfway between the two images you have drawn. For instance, her right eye is between the two green circles and her nostrils are lower down.
Mary's left cheek is turned onto the pillow, but does not rest flat. Her face is tilted ever so slightly upward--for maximum shock effect, IMHO.
When viewers stepped around the door, they would get the effect of making direct eye contact with the victim.
From a technical standpoint, I compared what you said a few days ago to my own face. My ears do not line up with my nose, they line up lower down with my mouth--and I have medium size ears with small lobes. So I don't think you can establish hard and fast rules about Mary's bone structure.
I still say the chin sags sideways to the left, which at first glance makes it appear that Mary's cheek is flat against the pillow. The postmortem exam states that "the nose cheek eyebrows and ears were partly removed," so we can't say Mary was lying flat on the pillow just because we can't see the left ear ... at least part of it had been cut off.
All in all, this is a fascinating discussion.
Janice |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 05:56 am | | Hi Ashling,
I'm going to try to do the same thing as the previous two, with the position you point out: post that later
The ears:
They DO line up with your nose, but the mistake is easily made. If I tilt my head up just a little bit and for example use my right hand lined up with the underside of my ear, it will seem to be at the height of my mouth. The mistake is that you then not made a circle that crosses the center line straight but tilted: your hand is horizontal, your head is not (see picture). But I admit I had made a mistake in retelling the theory of position of the ears: between the start of the eyebrows and base of nose NOT the eyes and base of nose.
The chin sagging:
I have admitted on the other board that the chin is sagging a bit. When a head is not in a straight position every muscle and skin sags, because of gravity. This of course is normal sagging. The chin clearly sags more than this. But the jaw itself is not dislodged, which results only in a minor basic perspective discrepancy. The sagging chin is the only real thing that didn't neatly fit the last overlay view I drew on the last pic of Stewart. (the actual bottom of the center line is not the chin, but the center of the neck-spine just underneath the head / All these circles and spheres are only theoretical of course). The basic construction will stay the same, unless the total skull is crushed or the jaw dislodged.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 07:18 am | | Ashling,
Your proposal is something like this, I believe (see pic).
The hair fall with your proposal would not be exactly as we see it now, but there's only a little discrepancy there, which I have no problem to dispose of in your favour.
But what I think you see as the nose, is actually the light area of the cheeckbone. The post-mortem report declares that a piece of her nose is cut away: this would evidently leave a dark area with blood, never a total light area.
Besides that, there is a problem with the mouth, where you think you see it. I guess you think the right mouth corner ends where the point of the star-cut is. First of all, you would foreshorten the mouth there to much. Such a foreshortening would rather be found on the first left-view I posted earlier. Secondly the mouthline of a closed mouth will be straight always, not a jagged line. There could be an extra jag or cut visible, but the moutline would be there still. If the mouth was not open we would see more of a gaping hole, which isn't found on the picture.
Then there is the sagging chin plus the mouth: What you see, in this perspective you propose, only as a sagging chin, would then be actually a dislodged jaw. The big discrepancy in perspective of where the chin should be against where she is, is to much for only an inch sag. The whole line-up is distorted then. The post-mortem does not report this.
Lastly we see an area we should not see, and again we should not see her right-ear in this way.
I can see some of the reasons why you think it is this perspective. Mainly this would be the two darker areas, more centered, a bit above the two eyes, which you could interprete as the brow ridges coming together with the start of a nose at the top. But if you look more to the area where Mary's head rests on the pillow, you will notice the same thing in a foreshortened perspective, rather suggesting the one you base the eye-position on, as I think you do, is a feature of the right side of Mary's face, and the other of the left-side.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 08:00 am | | Or are you thinking these are both eyes (see pic)? Because they never could be both the eyes of Mary, without one being cut out and stitched at the side of the head.
The empty space between two eyes is exactly the same as the length of an eye: meaning you could neatly place three eyes in a row next to each other, no matter if you have big or small or normal ones. If someone supposes this to be the position of the eyes, this would mean Mary had a space of two eyes between her windows of the soul. This would also give her an abnormal broad nose, since the sides of the nostril wings are almost neatly alligned with the inside start of the pupils iris in normal position. She would have a mouth like a frog, because the mouths corners are perfectly alligned with the center of the pupil itself.
Characteristics that make up a particular person's face, will always have exceptions on these construction rules. But these discrepancies are minor ones. With the eyes certainly nothing more than 4mm, or the person is really disfigured. And I repeat that Mary was called a beauty, not an alien-lookalike.
So there must be made a choice between the two. I chose the left one as basis, because besides all my other reasoning of perspective view, the right one could more easily be like a blow to the temple. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 05:40 pm | | Jill , when I see the face I see the features aligned as per the yellow face of your 7.18am post. As I said before , with this it COULD be possible that the FIVE was carved on the left cheek.
Its my opinion that if your diagram of the cuts on Mary's face is correct then it is likely the cuts were carved with a small knife. A big blade would leave sharp slashing marks across Mary's features , these cuts seem to have been made carefully. Could this have been the same weapon which mutilated Eddowes and cut Stride's throat ? |
Author: Jon Smyth
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 06:42 pm | | Jill
Excellent, I have been trying to fiddle with this editing program with little success.....trying to get my view across. Your 7.18am pic (yellow eyes).
All the previous attempts to get Kelly's facial perspective seem to be dancing around the area.
At last you got it.
If this is Ashlings view, and I see it is Simons view then I can say without a doubt, I agree.
What tipped me off to this perspective was I think we can see Kelly's left nostril. And you have hit it right on target this time. |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 23 June 2000 - 03:22 am | | JILL: Thanks for your latest drawings. The yellow eyes view is close to what I see, but not quite there. I'm not using a brow line or eyebrows as a guidelines. My husband has pointed out where he sees them and he's probably right, but it could be cuts or shadows also--so I put that factor aside for now.
To match my view you need to put the yellow eye circles just above the yellow arch instead of below it.
The last drawing with red circles has the eyes at the right level, but the right one needs to move just a bit towards the center of the face. The outer arc of the left eye ends just before the spot where the inner arc of your left red circle begins. In other words, move the red right eye circle towards the nose just a bit and move the red left eye circle towards the nose a lot.
I think Jon and I concur on seeing the left nostril--just below your yellow horizontal slash.
The chin sags too much for me to estimate where the corners of the mouth are. And I appreciate what you're saying about the post mortem not mentioning a broken jaw, but I think it possible that the effect I see might have occurred if not only the flesh, but tendons, nerves, and muscles or whatever were severed also. I apologize for not knowing the correct terms. My weekend is committed, but maybe I can research facial structure on Monday, and perhaps express myself better later.
To conclude, the yellow lines for the sides of the face need to be shifted upwards (towards Mary's right) a little bit--maybe between 1/8 and 1/4 an inch ... Wish I was metric literate, to communicate it better to you, but I'm not.
If I've overlooked any of your questions, please let me know. And thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to draw this. My grades in art class were only in the average/middle range.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 23 June 2000 - 06:22 am | | Janice, Simon, Jon, All
I will explain what I have done with all three versions. The only part of the construction I did that is based on the picture is the two spheres. Everything else I did was changing the perspective of normal proportions of facial features as if there was no picture underneath. I repeat none of the features I have overlayed are based on what was seen on the picture, I even set off the the viewing of the background after detemining the perspective of the center-line.
Ashling - This (my above statement) means that if I put the eyes higher (which is based on the intersection circle), and the nose line lower, her face again would be more distorted than only a dislodged jaw. If I broaden her right cheeck, she would get a right half of the face that would be wider than the left, ... I know facial features differ in form, longness, wideness, ... but at the end they all follow the same construction rules, up to maybe 2mm exception. I have portretted people since I was 10, learned the rules when I was 14, and have seen no exceptions on the rules since then apart, from gross disfigurement. Not even JtR with his knife could change anything about it, unless he peeled the whole face off, cut it in pieces and glued it on a clay-made deformed skull.
I will try to explain how you are trying to change basic construction in what you are seeing. To put the eye-height higher I either have to make her look totally upward (=tilting the head to much, not even a dislodged jaw could look out of angle like this then) OR move the top sphere more to the right of the picture. If I do the last I make her head longer than it is (look at how the hairline falls back). Let's just suppose I still will do it. This will bring the intersection line between the two spheres also more to the right (=her eyes higher), at the height where you propose. But now look, the base of the top sphere has moved also, and it is at this bottom approx. the baseline of the nose is. If I do not touch the base I have drawn on the yellow perspective, it is already in fault, and you still want me to lower it. After that you are asking me to include the part, that I left out of the yellow perspective I'll either have to change the perspective of the yellow-center line so that we end up again with the green perspective or I'll have to make the right part of her face more broad. After doing the last and making sure that the intersection is kept, the result is an askew jaw line (blue sort of ellips-thing). And then I'll let half the chin sag. How much alterations and total deformities you want me to do, before it fits what you think you see?
About the chin sag: even if all muscles and tendons and skin is cut through, there is still the bone of the chin left, which will not move unless the total jaw is dislodged. Thus if a chin would sag so much as proposed, you will be able to see skull where it left its original position.
Also, you have said, in a previous post, that her head is not resting on the left cheeck in a pillow, but is tilted. This tilted yellow perspective rests on the left back of the head. But when we reread Dr. Bond's post mortem report we find: "The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed, the shoulders flat but the axis of the body inclined to the left side of the bed. The head was TURNED ON THE LEFT CHEECK. " Add this with the least alterations to be made to construction rules, to fit the picture, and I'm sticking with the red perspective.
Jon - there is no nose there. What looks the most like the base of nose that was cut away is the supposed 'E'. You are looking at a V carved accross Mary's cheeckbone, almost like the one of Eddowes. There is a dark patch just under the baseline I've drawn, but that patch repeats itself again almost at the left end of Mary's face. There is only half a mouth to be seen on the picture where I've drawn the mouthline on the yellow perspective, while the half mouthline on the picture there still keeps running more to the left of her face.
Simon - I would agree with you that the cuts on Mary's face were done with the use of a small sharp knife, although I have no expertise to have any weight on that argument.
All - Why go looking for noses, half mouths, dislodged jaws, deformities in perspective, deformitites of the face, when there is a much simpler explenation that fits perspective law, construction rules, that is logic, that is where almost all facial features are to be found and matches the most with the observation of Dr. Bond. You only have to accept that particular cuts were made central to the face, like the post-mortem examination reports. And isn't it even logic that if JtR wanted to be her made unrecognisable that he would attack just those features the most, leaving very dark bloody marks there, as viewed on the picture?
Greetings,
Jill
Anyone out there voting for the red perspective? I think Stewart and Diana did after rereading their post on the markings thread. Any other takers? |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 06:38 am | | All,
Back from looming deadlines and sundry other horrors, I'm now posting the revised mapping, showing David's chemise roll (on both pics) and another artifact that i have spotted that maps between the 2 pictures (both marked in pink). I have also mapped the artifact on the left hip of MJK in blue. Additionally, I have Hi-lighted Thomas' split femur here, for the sake of convenience of reference.
As always, I leave interpretation to others :)
Roger |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 09:17 am | | G'day,
There's that @#*&%$! 'Hart' word again!!!!!!!!!
Leanne |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 11:45 am | | Jill,
Im with the red perspective
R |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 12:46 pm | | Roger,
Thanks so much for your excellent work in posting these photos!
Using your pink circle, you've correctly shown the chemise in its rolled-up state in photo # 1 (the right-posted one.) But then you placed your pink circle also in photo # 2 (left side). In the left photo there is no chemise in the pink circle, because it has been rolled down over the legs for modesty's sake--you are showing where the chemise WAS, not where it IS, in the left photo.
Notice how blood-saturated the chemise is in photo # 2. It is totally soaked through in all quarters. In this state, the shape of the bone shown in the orange circle clearly shows right through it.
David |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 04:59 am | | David,
Thanks for the kinds words. As a gut instinct, I still feel that if we can understand the MJK, and CE SOCs we have a big part of the puzzle.
In response to your query, I simply reflected the pink outline for mapping purposes, since I can't say for sure there is nothing in there, due to the contrast and lighting on the second picture. That is to say, I dont disagree with yr hypothesis, nor do I actually agree with it. For me the court is out until there is a better scan of the picture. :)
The more I look at picture 2, the more difficulty I have resolving the position of the left leg as shown on picture one. It appears to have been moved quite considerably, in relation to the rest of the body. If someone, perhaps Thomas, or with her knowledge of both anatomy and 3d/2d mapping, Jill, could mark up the pictures to show how the skeleton of the left leg is laid, I would be grateful.
Rog |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 08:17 am | | Hi Roger,
I'll try it. On which of the pohotographs would you want this? And would you have need of an extra position illustration/sketch (like perhaps a top view/ 'us looking down on the body)? Will not be before next week at the earliest.
Cheerful greetings,
Jill |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 04:00 pm | | Jill,
Feel free to use the one i posted, right click on the image and select 'save as, then you have both pics to play with, if you can show the skeleton on both then that would keep the reference in the pic.
If you would do a plan view of the SOC then that would be great.
As an aside, if the left leg is laying like i think it is, then MJK must have either had a broken leg or had rickets as a child
Roger |
Author: Antony Palmer
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 08:08 pm | | Hi there,
I'm new to the board and have some photographs that don't appear to be on the board. One purports to be of Mary Kelly's room, from the outside. The other shows the arched entrance to Miller's court from Dorset Street. How do you post pics?
Antony Palmer |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 10:40 pm | | Antony,
Welcome aboard. How to post pics is in the Formatting link on the left. Check to see if the pics arent already on the MJK victim site on the main page.
Roger |
Author: Steve
Tuesday, 05 December 2000 - 02:37 pm | | Hello All,
Does the camera lie?
Follows a couple of diagrams showing the locations of the
furniture,camera and lighting of the Dorset St SOC photos.
The data has been obtained from a 1/6 scale model of the scene.
The basis of the model is.
1 The back wall and the partition wall are at 90Deg to each other.
2 The dado on the back wall is horizontal.
3 The door panel in the partition is a standard 30" type.
4 The camera was a 1/2 plate (6 1/2"x 4 3/4") with a standard lens.
/IMAGE{MKPLAN1}
/IMAGE{MKPLAN2}
I've not included all of the dimensions for the sake of clarity but the following
are of particular interest.
The bed is a single size 3' wide.
The gap between the head of the bed and the partition is just over 2'.
The gap between the foot of the bed and the partition is over 3'.
Both the table and the bed are turned to within a couple of degrees of the same angle.
The table falls within the arc of the entrance door.
The camera is tilted by just about 1 1/2Deg to the right hence the verticals are not
vertical in the photo.
(And just for the Diary fans the supposed 'FM' is only 18" above the floor.
James must have been on his hands and knees to write that!)
Enough for now look forward to any comments.
Steve |
Author: Steve
Tuesday, 05 December 2000 - 02:47 pm | | Double post and no images. Can't tell my\ from my/
Steve |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 05 December 2000 - 02:51 pm | | Steve , is your information accurate enough to draw relative measurements in relation to finding out the actual height of the cadaver on the bed ? In other words could we take a measurement from the door or the bedhead and , using a scale , find out the length of the body to a reasonable degree from these.
It would save digging up the skeleton to find out ! |
Author: Steve
Tuesday, 05 December 2000 - 02:51 pm | |
|
Author: Steve
Tuesday, 05 December 2000 - 03:04 pm | | Simon,
I've given this a try using a scale skeleton with limited sucess. To get an accurate view as to the size of the body it would need to be carried out on a larger scale. One thing I can say is that the body is less than 5'9" and more than 5'4".
I'll try to post the images again now but the server keeps going time out.
Steve |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 05 December 2000 - 04:28 pm | | Hi Steve:
Excellent work, Steve! I am glad that your diagrams demonstrate that the so-called "FM" cannot be what the Maybrickites claim it is given its evident low elevation above the floor. You show considerable space between the bed and the wall. I think, as I have expressed here before, that at the time of the murder the unused washstand was in that corner where the "FM" is seen, as one contemporary newspaper sketch shows it was post-murder, so that James Maybrick, nor anyone else, could NOT have put the offending initials on the wall with the furniture in the way. The washstand was moved out from the corner and the bed placed at an angle the way you show it in order to allow the photographer with his large-plate box camera on its tripod to take the smaller of the two photographs of the murder scene, looking toward the outside door leading to the court. Again, congratulations on a fine piece of investigative work.
Chris George |
Author: Grailfinder
Tuesday, 05 December 2000 - 07:06 pm | | Hi all;
Thought you might be interested in a reconstruction of Kellys features that I done a few years ago.
Using manipulation tools in Photoshop, I Cut/Copied/Pasted/and nudged her features back into position, or rather, the positions according to my ideas of things, such as angle of head etc.
The next stage, was to remove any cuts and/or blood from the face.
The hardest part to work on, was the point of contact between Kellys cheek and the Bed.
I accept that the final picture is by no means accurate and is just one mans view of the C/S.
(See image below)
Cheers |
|
|
|
|
