|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 459
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 9:39 pm: | 
|
Hi All,
Well I am not quite sure what you are all going to make of this, but this is the thread I promised. There might be something here of interest.
When I was doing these I noticed some strange inconsistencies. As you may or may not know I use a 3D programme called Poser for the basic figures and then work over them.
They are anatomically very correct and are handy because you can view the figure from all angles and use different camera shots.
I constructed a figure of Mary using the large photograph for reference and did take a great deal of trouble getting it as exact as I could.
Here it is.
If anyone thinks that there is anything wrong with it then I would be grateful if they would let me know as it is obviously important to get it right.
I have kept it blocky and non detailed in certain areas as I didn't want to get into cheap horror movie territory here. But it does give the general information as much as it can be gleaned from the photograph.
Right here it is.......hope it doesn't offend anyone, but I think it is a useful exercise.
Sorry I have to say that all the pictures by me on this thread are copyrighted and if anyone wants to use them for anything please could you contact me first to check, Thanks
Jane
(Message edited by jcoram on July 14, 2005) |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 460
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 9:50 pm: |
|
Stephen Ryder already brought out on a previous thread that he thought the leg had been moved and it was discussed there along with other things.
You can see here that the left leg is very flat against the mattress and in fact it is in a very unnatural position......
I think it highly unlikely that anyone's leg would naturally fall in that position. Dr Bond said that it was a 90 degree angle to the torso. This I don't think is a natural position.
After I had completed this I turned the 3D figure around so that it could be viewed from the other side..........the left leg didn't match at all, no matter how I moved it and repositioned it. I matched the right leg and the angle up exactly and this is what I came up with.
There is not manipulating here at all, promise, this is exactly how it came out without changing the figures pose at all.
Obviously I had to recreate parts of it using the larger picture from the other view as the smaller picture does not cover the whole body, but the figure was already there and just had to be drawn over.
Copyright Jane Coram 2005
(Message edited by jcoram on July 14, 2005) |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 461
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 9:56 pm: |
|
You'll see that the left leg is much flatter than in the smaller photograph showing the same shot. The angle of the knee in the photo is much steeper.
 |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 462
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 10:01 pm: |
|
I was now obviously bewildered and thought I would try constructing a figure using the other photo to model it on, from exactly the same angle and with the left leg in the position it is on in the second smaller photo,
This was the result of that:
Copyright Jane Coram 2005
(Message edited by jcoram on July 14, 2005) |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 463
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 10:06 pm: |
|
I matched the angle of the left leg exactly and left the right as it was. I also tried to match the camera angle exactly so that it gave a correct position for the left leg.
Then I turned the figure around to see how it would look from the angle of the body in the first larger photograph, and what that left leg would look like from that side,
This is what I got.
Copyright Jane Coram 2005
(Message edited by jcoram on July 14, 2005) |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 464
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 10:15 pm: |
|
The left leg is much higher up from the mattress and at totally a different angle.
The table has obviously been moved in one of the shots too.
From the above I came to the following conclusions which of course are only my ideas and which may be totally wrong.
I think that the larger photograph with the full figure was taken first and the leg was in the flat position on the mattress. The table was at the top of the bed.
I think that the leg was in that unnatural position because of the damage to the inner left thigh and to the hip joint which may well have been dislocated by force.
I think the second photograph was taken to show the damage to the inner left thigh and the hip joint, but the leg was at the wrong angle entirely for that shot, so the leg was propped up by the police to include the mutilations there which couldn't be seen in the other photograph.
The table was moved down to show the other side of the organs and body parts on the table, which also could not be viewed from the larger photos view point.
Those are just my ideas, but I thought it might be interesting to see what others can come up with as I may have got this totally wrong and misinterpreted the information entirely.
I am fairly confident though that the left leg is not in the same position in both photographs. The table certainly isn't.
Hope someone finds something to say about these otherwise I am going to feel like such a fool!
Jane
xxxxx |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 677
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 10:18 pm: |
|
Jane; I'm dying to see your pictures. Maybe its my slow dialup connection, but I am not seeing any images. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 678
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 10:25 pm: |
|
Sorry Jane, I tried again and they came up. |
Judith A. Stock
Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 39
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:24 pm: |
|
Jane, your re-creations have moved me beyond words; to hell with the leg position.....THAT FACE! I'm so impressed with your dedication to accuracy, and your obvious feeling for these sad women. Thanks so much for your work, your care, and your attention to detail. We "knew" the women before, but now.......we KNOW them. Does that make any sense at all? Whether or not it does, my hat is off to you and your talent. By the way, a lack of comment on your work should NEVER lessen its' quality....some of us have simply been dumbstruck by it.
Regards,
Judy Stock |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 905
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:04 am: |
|
Jane,
I think you may be right in your interpretation of the photos. Anyway, it makes more sense than anything I have been able to come up with.
I still think her face was much more square and not quite so "pretty." But I know that getting the face right was not your purpose here.
Andy S. |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 465
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 1:45 am: |
|
Hi All,
I should have pointed out and forgot that it is meant only to show the position and to clarify the photo........
I actually was tempted not have a face, but just blur it, but instead I chose a generic face, which is literally just a face and not meant to be Mary as such. No one really knows what she looked like, so it is a bit hyperthetical anyway.
It is a pretty one true, but only because that seemed better than doing anything else.
I have been very worried about how much to put in and how much to leave out.
I am of course going to do the other victims shortly from all angles, with accurate clothes on them.
I was afraid that if I actually made it look like the portrait I did of her, which of course I could have done then it would have been wrong somehow.....so it is just a person on a bed reconstructing the scene. A bit like a crime watch reconstruction.
I felt that was more respectful to her.
For that reason I also didn't take the flesh from the top of her right thigh, but shaded it so that it could be seen where it was taken. Performing the mutilation on the picture would have been wrong somehow as well.
So, please don't look on this as a picture of Mary as such, but a reconstruction for research purposes.
I would be grateful though for any suggestions or comments on how to improve it, or if you think I should put anything else in, or any other way to present it which would be useful to you all.
Thank you for your kind comments though, I was worried about how they would be received.
Hugs
Jane
xxxxx |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 466
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 1:48 am: |
|
Hi Andy,
I actually think you are right about Mary, because of her Irish blood, a fairly square jaw and very attractive but not pretty as such, tough and able to look after herself.
xxxxxxx |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 772
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
As I explained back when Stephen suggested that the leg had been moved, I think he (and now you) are completely misinterpreting the second photo. I am fairly certain that the section you call the leg in that shot isn't, and that it's the pile of bedsheets seen from the other angle.
In your photo above where you compare the actual photo and your illustration, showing that they don't match, you have her knee inside the frame of the picture. The second photo is a closeup of the groin area and so, it seems to me, the knee shouldn't be in it at all.
This link is the old angle comparisons I made between the two directional shots of MJK:
http://www.rippernotes.com/MJK-photo-angles.html
I connected lines between the part of the hand, the line on her right leg, and the corner of the table, and then indicated the section must people presume to be her leg in the closeup shot and drew it on the full body shot. The thing you have identified as Mary's left knee lines up perfectly with the bunch of cloth in the other angle.
If you take your illustration and then get more close up on it so the knee extended outside of the frame, I think your illustration actually proves my point more than yours.
If, for example, we were to include the table in your 3-D illustration and then compare the shots as you do above, the table would only extend part way to her knee, but in the actual photo the table goes outside of the frame of the image. Unless the table somehow drastically changed size between shots, or the bed or the table was moved by about three or more feet, you don't have the two images lined up correctly.
What I did was take your version and then blow it up quite substantially, the way the second image is a closeup of the groin area, and then do a comparison again:
(And, for the record, I drew in the "bedsheet" area myself, as I don't think that was modeled correctly in yours... I also think the angle of your rendering is off some, but I couldn't really modify that too easily, though I did rotate in two dimensions a smidge.)
Alternatively, if you can't buy into the idea that the section most people see as her knee isn't actually her knee, you should do comparisons with the bed turned at a 30 degree or more angle between shots, to go with the theory that the bed was moved in order for a cameraman to get in there. In that case the knee could come up that far and it would explain why the two angles don't match.
(Message edited by dannorder on July 15, 2005)
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 773
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 10:22 am: |
|
Also, we have to be very careful about what the camera angle we think we are seeing is.
(I've drawn lines to indicate the sides of the 2nd photo as cast across the larger full body photo from the other angle.)
Here is what most people seem to think they see:
Here is what I think we are seeing:
Note how in the second one the table is lined up correctly as it is shown in the closeup photo, whereas in the first the table comes nowhere close.
One way or another the expectations people have about what they are seeing are just wrong... either things were moved around in the room quite dramatically between shots, or the closeup view of the carnage has people thinking they see features that aren't there.
(And, boy, do I make a ton of typos when I'm in a hurry...)
(Message edited by dannorder on July 15, 2005)
(Message edited by dannorder on July 15, 2005)
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3707
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 10:44 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
I had the same thoughts as yours, actually, and I too -- judging by its position and outer shape -- found a striking similarity between the bed sheet standing up on the full figure photo and the part sticking up on the 'second' photo (by some interpreted as a bent led and a knee).
This was my initial interpretation and I still think it might possibly be a correct one. The thing that might speak against it, is that -- although the item sticking up on the 'second photo' does look more like a flap of something, it also looks more like tissue than fabric and it also seems to be attached to the stomach area with some muscles or bone structure.
Which is why I at one time thought it might be a flap of skin from the thigh standing up from the carved leg. This, however -- as Jane kindly pointed out to me -- seems to conflict with the statement by Dr Bond, who said that all tissues and skin was removed from the left thigh.
So... personally I don't know what to think. The item some interprets as a bent leg and knee, looks to me more like a hollow flap (and as I see it, the hollow inside of it is perfectly visible, seen from underneath) and not a solid form. This what the form indicates to me. On the other hand, the texture seems to indicate some kind of bone/skin/tissue material, possibly attached to the body.
What are your thought regarding this, Dan? Because I must confess the whole thing puzzles me just as much as it does Jane. But like you, my initial reaction was that the item corroborated with the flap of sheet standing up above the leg on the large picture, although the texture of the angled item does not look like textile on the 'second photo'.
Would be great to hear Stephen's opinions too on this, since I know he once started a discussion on the subject of the moved leg.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 15, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1591
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
Hi Jane
Impressive work as usual, Jane. Well done.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
See "Jack--The Musical" by Chris George & Erik Sitbon
The Drama of Jack the Ripper Weekend
Charlotte, NC, September 16-18, 2005
http://www.actorssceneunseen.com/ripper.asp
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 774
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I admit that the patch there from this angle seems to look vaguely more biological than cloth, but I don't really know what to make of it. Of course any cloth on this side wouldn't be pristine white and would be absolutely covered in blood and muck, as it's exactly where virtually everything that was removed from her body passed right next to.
My main point is that is that length of body is from groin to knee, then all dimensions in the rest of the photo appear completely out of all proportion.
For example, when it's not cropped off, you can see her left pinkie bent into a curl there, and the distance from the last knuckle to the end can be clearly made out. If that thing in the pic is her knee it looks like it's not even as big as her forearm should be, let alone the nearly twice that length that should be the distance to the knee.
Unless the camera is about three or four feet back from the edge of the bed on that side (and the "pinkie" is not a pinke), I cannot see how that could possibly be long enough to be the knee... and if the camera is that far back they tore the wall down or moved the bed four or five feet, and then things may have fallen down or been rotated... not to mention then the table would be a whole heck of a lot larger than it makes any sense to be, and the flesh from the legs and lower abdomen on the table look like the wrong size too.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3708
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:16 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your views.
I agree, I have noticed that thing with the proportions as well -- which possibly might explain why Jane couldn't make it work when she tried to rotate the body -- but I though that might have been the results of a distorted perspective from the camera, where the distance might make the item on the second photo appear smaller than it really is and therefore constructs incorrect proportions.
But as you say, when we compare with other parts of the body... So, interesting points.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 15, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 468
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
I can see your point here totally, and I actually went there myself at the beginning......you may well be right, but a couple of things swayed me against it.
The first is that the piece of white sheet seen there is marked off in each of the shots......way above the disputed area. There is no other piece of sheet anywhere below that of any shape or size........the leg is lying flush against the bed.
You can see that the angle it forms with the lower part of her forearm is identical, so there is no question that is the same piece of sheet.
Secondly, if that is a flap of sheet, it would have to be about three feet across and the angle it forms at the top is too acute for a sheet formation.........
next if you look at the actual form of the object whatever it is......you can see that it is actually one form and there is not a leg lying in front of it.......
I will put the actual figures I used on another post so that you can see more clearly how I arrived at where I got in the end.
As I said, I actually went the same route as you exactly because those were my first thoughts on it......I also thought it might have been her pelvis from an odd angle, but after doing all the 3D stuff I ended up with that being her leg.
Have a look at the next post and see if that sparks off any other thoughts........
Jane
xxxx |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 469
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:29 am: |
|
okay the first picture didn't come out for some reason......I'll try again.
 |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 775
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:46 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
Unfortunately I think your physical dimensions on these are all completely off here.
I don't know where you get the idea that the area I have marked as a sheet would be three feet wide... But what you do have to consider is that in the first photo we are seeing the side of it head on and not the full length.
Similarly, the item you marked on the second photo as being its match is not even close to the same size or angle... the thing you have marked there would be behind the sheet in the first photo if I am correct.
If you are honestly saying that that area of the second photo is a space 3 feet wide, then the leg in the foreground must be about 6 to 9 feet long... and that's just the lower leg! And look at the contents of the table, if your area is three feet wide, the table would be almost larger than the full dimensions of the entire room.
Remember that the entire room was only 10 or 12 feet square roughly... are you actually arguing that that small section of the closeup photo is 1/3 or 1/4 of the entire room? (To clarify: 1/3 or 1/4 the width of the room, or 1/9 to 1/16th of the surface area... from the looks of the long photo I'd say that it'd have to be smaller than 1/16 or 1/25 of the surface area that we can see, and we don't see the whole room in the long photo, so that area is probably nor more than 2/3 of the space of the room, if that).
On your 3-D model you need to zoom zoom zoom in and then scoonch down towards the floor some (although your model probably isn't flat enough the way you have her posed), and then point it toward the back wall (more towards her head) instead of the side wall. Then I think you'll end up with more accurate dimensions.
You might try adding a stick with measurements color coded on it so when you do the rotations it rotates along with, assuming Poser can do that. Add the table too. You'll see what I am getting at.
(God, wonder what I did with my 3-D software... I could show you what I mean, though it wouldn't be as pretty.)
(Message edited by dannorder on July 15, 2005)
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Willow Paisley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:06 am: |
|
Wow. Your work truely amazes me. I am so impressed.
Thank you for letting eyes such as mine be able to see this.
Willow P. |
Mal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
yes it looks like bedsheets covering her left leg, it's just sheer fluke that it looks like her leg..the knee is way too high up in the air; in comparison to angle of the split leg bone. in addition, that leg is more likely to flop down onto the bed matress.....it's probably been dislocated.
there is something strange about this mutilation, those pelvis/ thigh injuries are too heavy and brutal for a knife blade, it looks like he's used a hatchet or an axe. |
Pamela Chandler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:44 am: |
|
Jane, Thank you for these re-creations. Once again you have brought Mary to life for us even in death. Your dedication to this project should be commended. |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 37
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Jane,
Your work is absolutely amazing! I believe that what we are looking at is the bend of her leg. It is very possible that her leg had been propped for the second photograph in order to show the extent of damage to that area. I want to ask everyone about the possibility that the bed was moved in order for the second photograph to be taken. I suppose that one thing that would need to be taken into consideration is the size of the camera that would have been used (large tripod; "boxy", cumbersome?) to take the photographs. I have to admit that I have always wondered about the table. It seems as if the contents on the table don't match up. Also, am I correct that the second photo was returned anonymously? I'm not sure what bearing that has on this, but I thought I would put the question out there. Here is what could be a problem, though. Is it just me, or does the angle of the (knee?) seem not long enough? I'm not sure if I am asking this right, but the more I look at the second photo, the more it seems like if that was her knee, then what would be considered her thigh seems awful short. I would appreciate any feedback on this. Thanks! Oh, and Jane, well done! You have obviously put a great deal of work and thought into this! Thank you!
Sandy |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3709
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Hi Sandy,
Actually, your point about the angle not being long enough is quite similar to the point Dan delivered above regarding the proportions. I personally see this as a problem too, but I feel Jane is much better to judge physical features than me, since she posses previous experience from working with historical reconstructions from skeletons and bone structures.
I agree, Jane has put a lot of work into this and I think she has done a tremendous nice work as usual. Her pictures just shows how new and old questions can be illuminated thanks to reconstructions of this kind that has never been done before -- regardless if they lead to any result or not.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 470
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Hi everyone,
I think that I have found something that will help.
The district nurse just popped in and I wasn't going to let a chance like that slip by was I?
She used to be a theatre nurse and she had a look and confirmed a few things for me.
I can see why the perspective caused so many problems.......it is very strange to say the least.
I dropped the skeleton of the figure over the photo and matched the angle, so it is a bit clearer how I reached my conclusion.
Here it is,
see what you think. I hope it helps and doesn't confuse the issue any more!
It is as close as I could get it, but you get the general idea......the limbs on the skeleton were for a 5ft 10 inch woman, so I had to shorten to limbs to Mary's size, but you can see the general idea I hope.
The hand is a bit funny too, because you can't manipulate it much in the skeleton form.
Jane
xxxx
 |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 679
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 1:35 pm: |
|
I'm not particularly good at spatial relationships, but that won't stop me from putting in my two cents worth.  My theory on the rounded portion sticking up in the second photograph has always been that it is a hipbone. If JTR stripped off all the flesh in the lower abdomen then the bloody coxae of the pelvis would be all that was left. See the links: http://truegrid.com/show_hip.html http://biology.clc.uc.edu/fankhauser/Labs/Anatomy_&_Physiology/A&P201/Skeletal/selected_bones/Bone_Features.html (scroll down to "os coxa" for this one) We would be looking at the iliac crest. |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 471
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 1:38 pm: |
|
The conclusion I reached is that the femur of the left leg lines along exactly with the skeleton femur.
The thigh bone of the right leg lines up with the thigh on the skeleton and the lower leg is more or less right, although it might be an inch or two out because the programme is a bu**er to manipulate.
I can put up the full image if it helps so that you can see the whole skeleton and the angle of the left leg compared to the other shot.
it is very intriguing isn't it?
Love Jane
xxxxx |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 472
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
Hi Diana,
I went that way too......I thought it was the pelvic bone, although I didn't know the proper name for it!
I only realised it wasn't when I did a lot of rotating and positoning. I think the picture above shows where the pelvis is.........it does look about right to me.
Any more thoughts on it?
xxxxxxxxx |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 680
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
The problem is it looks too big for a coxa and too small for a knee and too fleshy for cloth. Then you have to deal with camera angle and foreshortening. So your position is that the true coxae are buried in that mess of hamburger (no disrespect intended) just south of her hand? Could be. I had an anatomy and physiology course but you are the artist with an eye for proportion. |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 38
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Jane,
Having the skeleton dropped over the picture definitely clears things up. Great job! These reconstruction photos are truly amazing. Thank you.
Sandy |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 473
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Hi Diana,
I did have nightmares over it I have to say, not because of the content, but it is a very hard photograph indeed to interpret.
I think the problem is that the left thigh was skinned to the knee, so we are seeing the layer of fat with muscle showing through....I think.
I have been faced with similar problems on a lot of occasions in my museum work, although I usually have the benefit of something physical to work on, like a skull etc.
I think at the end of it.......that skeleton was just dropped straight over the top and it fitted......although as I said, I had to shorten the limbs by a couple of inches.
I do think as you said that her pelvis is buried underneath a mound of mutilated flesh.
I might try dropping he skeleton over the other view and see if I can match anything up that way, by marking the bone against folds of fabric etc.,
that might work.......it will be interesting to do anyway........keeps me out of mischief......I am determined to get to the bottom of it!
Hugs Jane
xxxxxxx |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 777
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
The skeleton pic is pretty, but since it isn't based on any external frame of reference for positioning other than how you think it should go, it's no more convincing than what you had written before. I mean, I could just as easily go back again and zoom in on your skeleton, rotate it and put it into the stance that I think it should be in. Without some outside reference to confirm the dimensions, the skeleton doesn't mean a thing.
What we need to do is find something in that photo that we can all agree what it is we are seeing, work up a size for it, and then use that to try to judge the length of the leg / bedsheet / pelvic bone.
What we can see of the hand is a good start. The table is also a good reference. Both of those very clearly indicate to me at least that that area is way too small to be what you think it is. For example, the pinkie we can clearly see in that photo ends up almost as large as an entire rib on your skeleton.
But then you could try working out the size of those and calculate the dimensions on your end to see what you come up with.
(Message edited by dannorder on July 15, 2005)
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 681
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Actually, after looking at your view again, I'm beginning to see what you mean. I believe I can make out the pubic arch and ischia buried in the pile of flesh just north of the disputed projection. |
Marsh
Police Constable
Username: Marsh
Post Number: 3
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 2:16 pm: |
|
hi all just a thought maybe with all the mutilation in the groin area the leg would just
lay at that angle ,with no tissue or sinew to keep the leg from laying prone on the bed. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 682
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 2:39 pm: |
|
I copied one of the pics into paintbrush and marked the pubic arch and ischia, but it changed it to bitmap which I don't know if this website likes and then it was deleted because it was more than 200 kb. |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 474
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 2:48 pm: |
|
I am doing what Dan suggested and trying to get a point of reference to work from. I do think though that everything does line up when the skeleton is dropped over.......I think eventually we can work it out between us, and it is worth the effort, because it is a very important point.
Dan had a good idea there though, so I will see what I can come up with.
xxxxxxx
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3711
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 2:51 pm: |
|
Diana,
This site can only take JPEG (usually websites can also take GIF, but I don't know if that is recommended here fro enclosed pictures), and as far as the image size is concerned, you can check out the resolution size on the pic you want to enclose; the resolution size limit here is 600 X 600.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2770
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Hi
Have said something on this on the other thread!
Good work Jane but still cant agree with that leg thing
Suzi |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3714
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Suzi,
A copied response from me on that other thread, that I post here as well:
"Jane think the knee nearest the door in the skeleton's too high it was splayed and didnt really obscure."
What on Earth do you mean here? I don't understand a thing of it. Please elaborate.
And what do you mean 'nearest the door'? The leg Jane's been talking about is the one closest to the camera -- that is Mary Kelly's left leg (not left as we see it). Or have I misunderstood you?
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 475
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 6:32 pm: |
|
What I have done is what Dan suggested and try to get some point of reference. I have done some screen shots which actually shows the whole of the 3D programme I use which might make more sense of it for all of us!
You might be able to spot things I have missed then and we can sort it out.
What I used as a point of reference which I think is a good one for scale is the gash across the calf of Mary's right leg. There is no way that can be wrong. I think we all agree that gash is measurable and is a fixed point on the photo. From that we can get scale and a body position for mary that is very accurate.
Here then is the 3D model created using that as the fixed point.
I had to correct the back right leg on it a few times.......as I had terrible trouble getting the angle right. You can see underneath in the end it did work.
I then set it so that it couldn't change the pose.
I think that is at least a reasonable rendering or Mary from the left hand side. it might be a tiny bit out here or there because there are some limitations with joints in the programme, but I think it is close enough for what we want.
Just in case anyone is interested this is how you get it accurate.......you can import the background picture and construct the wire frame over it. Takes ages because you have to get it right from all angles of course.
Better carry on in the next post, hope this isn't boring people into a coma.
xxxxxxx |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3715
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 6:51 pm: |
|
OH WOW, Jane,
What a soft-ware!
If it wasn't for the slightly depressing subject, I'd be salivating as we speak. Looks very user-friendly too (although that doesn't necessarily mean that the task itself has to be easy...).
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 476
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 7:23 pm: |
|
I then used the camera to pan around and I did take a few screen shots so that you could see her from a few different angles on the way, which I thought might be a bit interesting. As far as I know this is the first time she has been seen from other angles. I have actually covered a couple of bits as this programme is very anatomically correct.
Pictures copyright Jane Coram 2005
Those are just some different views, I had better go onto a new post for the final view with the walk through of how it was done.
xxxxxxx |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 477
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 7:34 pm: |
|
Now the final phase,
I put the other smaller photo back into the programme and matched the figure to that from the other angle.
I have included the whole figure so that you can see it all from that angle. You will see the angle of the left leg is quite low........we might need to sort out what is actually going on there. Basically all I wanted to do was find out what that bump was that was sticking up and where here left leg had gone.
I will come back to the gash on the right leg in a minute. I haven't forgotten about it.
Oh I wish the programme was user friendly Glenn, it's a bit like playing poker, you can play it easily, but winning is another matter! I have lost a few rounds to Poser in my time!
I better do another post to deal with the gash on the leg.
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 478
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 8:11 pm: |
|
Right now here is the second photo which I have enhanced as much as possible to see if that helps us at all......please do not spot the number 666 of anything else on the photo, my nerves won't stand it..........
I have put a box around the gash to give us the point of reference.
I have overlaid the render of the same pose on top of the photo, but left the left leg off so that you can how it fits on...........
I was amazed at how the camera angle distorted things, but it is the same pose that I started off without and it hasn't been touched at all apart from panning around it to get the other camera angle.
So at least you can see how I reached my conclusion.........even if you don't agree with it. 
Jane
xxxx
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 779
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 8:53 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
But the problem here is that when your rotated that figure and decided where to place the camera on the x, y and z axes (height, width and depth) as well as the zoom level of what the camera was seeing, you were guessing... and you lined it up so that what you thought was the knee lined up with the knee. If you are wrong, then the whole thing is off. And when I said that I think you're wrong and that it's off, you detailed every step you took but didn't show anything at the end step to show that you are right.
And, in fact, unless you skipped a step there, the figure isn't lining up right at all... What you call her knee is up higher in the photo than in the model, and the width of the body in the photo is more than how you have your model lined up.
In order to accurately place something in three dimensions you would have to identify three points that are not in dispute, and then line things up so your camera location and zoom level all match up. Three points, hence the term triangulation. The problem here is finding three points between the two photos that are not in dispute.
When I did it, I used the gash in the leg, the wrist, and the corner of the table, as shown in the link I provided earlier (http://www.rippernotes.com/MJK-photo-angles.html), which led me to the conclusion that the knee actually lies outside of the frame of the second photo. Of course the problem with that is you think that the table must have been moved, so that point out of the three I guess isn't technically without dispute.
You apparently chose the knee, the gash and perhaps part of the leg or the wrist or something to try to sort it out. But the knee is in dispute, so that doesn't work either.
Now, while we may not be able to agree on three points not in dispute that are in common between the two photos (unless someone can come up with one other than the leg gash nearest the camera in the second shot and the wrist), what we can do is do some other comparisons to see if one of the theories is at least in the right ballpark. For example, we can look at the section identified with the leg, figure out roughly how long that would have been on Mary, and then measure other nearby things and see if those distances make sense compared to each other...
We've got a pinkie finger, the table, and the flesh on the table in the background to try to use as guides, so that should help us out some.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 479
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 10:01 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
I can see what you are saying, but even if you think the angle is not totally right, I really don't think that there would be that much disparity.....we know that Mary was a buxom girl, we know her height, and the female form can vary a lot, certainly.......but not so much that it would be that far out.
I just want to check that I am interpreting what you are saying correctly because I may be getting the wrong end of the stick, but do you think that the large rectangular shape in the smaller photograph is in front of the left leg and that her left leg is lying down out of shot?
Or are you just saying that it is her leg, but the angle it appears to be at might be a perspective illusion. If that is the case I can buy that......it is possible that the leg is actually flatter than it appears in that second photo, but by how much I don't know......I would be interested to find out.
But if the large angled object in the second photograph isnt her left leg then what is it?
There is nothing else I can see in that photo that it could be... a theatre nurse of many years experience took one look at it today and said that it was her left leg without a shadow of a doubt........and even highlighted the femur and muscle structure on it.....so I don't know what to think.
I not only used the gash as reference, but the organs lying between her feet, the angle of the wrist.....the angle between the legs.....the fold of sheet bunched directly in front of what I believe is her left leg in the photo.....the slither of white sheet which falls between her arm and her pelvis which runs under her right arm.......and I have to say I think they do seem to line up.
I am not saying that there couldn't be other alternatives, but If it isn't her leg then what is it?
I will see if I can find any other information that might help in the way of light casting shadows which I think might be a way to go.....there is a nice strong light coming through the window and I can probably do some light directions from it to see if the table has been moved.
As I said I am not saying you are wrong, certainly not, but I do think it needs to be investigated further.......I think there are a lot of people that do think that is her leg and that it has changed angle between pictures, and certainly that the table has been moved, so I do think a few more experiments would be helpful.
I have nothing better to do anyway and it's been really useful for me in other ways, so I will carry on for a bit longer.
In the meantime if anyone else can come up with anything it would be very helpful, because the answer might be staring us in the face all the time!
Hugs Jane
xxxxx |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2191
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 3:55 am: |
|
Thankyou Jane for these uniquely demonstrated models.They are a fantastic help in so many respects
but particularly to someone like me who has trouble looking for long at the actual photo.
I am following the disputed leg angle bit but not quite so much interested in that, since what has grabbed my attention more at the moment is the attack itself, which divested of its photographic gore, tells us exactly what the ripper got up to with poor Mary.
What I think I see here,and no doubt there will be those who don"t agree,is someone very fixated indeed on the female area of reproduction-both internally and externally.
Now this has always been known about the ripper but unless you can actually "see" his attack,just like you have shown us,you dont realise where the main frenzied and very violent onslaught took place, a violence so extreme in fact that the flesh has quite literally been ripped apart,with his primary focus the genital area and the internal organs of reproduction.
Yes,he did attack other areas,the face ,the arms,the heart,but the area of very sustained concentration appears to be the lower abdomen,breasts and genitals.
In the light of your information then,this carnage does not come across to me as being
the work of
a[a ritualistic worker in Black Magic following the routines and symbolisms of witchcraft for example
or
b]a person whose main purpose is to extract certain organs of the body efficiently for profit
later
or
c] the work of a lover,previously sane enough to have a lengthy, ongoing,close, albeit fairly stormy relationship with his victim
-the mutilation focus is too directly and obsessively
focused on the areas referred to above,IMHO.
So huge thanks Jane for your really marvellous clarification of the ripper"s work.Hope you can soon begin work on the others.We will then possibly be able to line up the models and see the pattern and similarities of their injuries more precisely.
Love
Natalie
ps I think the "wire netting" works very well to help keep these models from being too lurid.Also the "joint" lines.[I have those little "wooden models"
with flexible joints that can be used to get angles right for drawing and they too can be quite helpful in this to gather some of this positioning information.
|
Marsh
Police Constable
Username: Marsh
Post Number: 4
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
hi all jane, this is most impressive work. one stands back in amazment. keep up the good work.
marsh |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
