|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 688
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 8:49 am: | 
|
Hi Jane (& all),
First of all, like everybody else I think you've done a wonderful job again, Jane!
However, I've got a few comments I hope will be helpful.
The dark and narrow vertical area in the vaginal region (in your pictures above it starts close to the top right hand corner of the red box and ends just left of what seems to be the femur) seems to me just that, the vagina. I had always thought it was that, but the skeleton a couple of pictures back strengthened my belief. So maybe that's helpful.
Another thing that struck me is that in the first picture where you constructed the wire frame over the original photo it seems as if something is lying underneath her bottom, pushing her hips upward.
Looking at the original photo only, I have the impression of seeing more of the front of the lower left leg than the wire frame figure, meaning more the front of the knee, the shin and the instep. Still looking at that original, I feel the upper right leg should be a little lower than it is shown in the wire frame figure. The angle between the lower and upper right leg seems to be closer to 90 degrees than the wire frame figure shows.
I hope this doesn't make things more complicated (although I'm afraid it will) and hope that it's useful as well.
Again, as always, great work!
All my best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 480
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 9:25 am: |
|
I'll talk to Frank first,
That is helpful indeed Frank. Just the sort of thing I was hoping people would come back with.......I do want to get it totally accurate.
Daan has given me some good ideas to work on too.......hopefully at the end of it I can put up a 100% accurate version. These really only are experimentals to refine them and get them spot on.
I did actually do about 3 million versions to get it right and i will go back and check which one I actually used in the end. I will have a look at it again.
The trouble with that wretched programme is that when you get it right from one angle, then you have to change it from every other angle as well, then of course the first one is wrong again! Drives you up the wall.
I do agree though that the area you mention is the vagina..........obviously I felt I had to take that area off the wire frame because it is very realistic in the programme.......but I will double check that it does go over the top.
I have a shot of the skeleton over the original first photo, maybe it will be a good idea to put that up and see if it matches. Someone might find that of intrest anyway.......
it is interesting if you suspect that the left leg should be even lower on the mattress, which would be the case if you see more of the front.......that would make the angle from the other direction even more subtle and the difference in angle between the first and the second even greater.
Mind you I have got an award winning tooth abcess at the moment, and am so stoned on pain killers I'm seeing two of everything anyway!
Thanks.......
Hugs Jane
xxxxxx |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 481
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 9:37 am: |
|
Hi Natalie,
Thanks for saying that, it is exactly what I was aiming for........
I do agree totally about the attack. It showed some things up that I hadn't noticed before. I think people are so shocked when they look at the photos that they find it hard to be objective.
I obviously see them in my sleep now......but what you pointed out about the areas attacked and the ferocity is unbelievable.
One thing I noticed, which is not actually noticeable until you try and construct the wire frame is that I am fairly certain that the left leg and hip joint was so viciously maimed and mutilated that the entire leg from the groin down and pulled away sideways from the torso.......I am going to do some reconstructions to see if others think that is possible. Dan noticed that something was wrong and gave me the clue when he mentioned the width of the hips.......being different from the wire frame. I think because of the angle of the left leg and the distance across the pelvic region that the left leg is almost detached and just held on by some flesh. I haven't done the experiments on that yet so I could be wrong, but it is looking likely.
It might also account for the disparity that Frank mentioned.......I actually couldn't get the Poser figure into that position because it was only designed to do what a normal human living body would do.
If that is the case then what you have said about his reasons and method of mutilation does tell even more than I had even imagined.
But I will do the other experiments first and see if they come up with anything.
Thank you so much for the input, very helpful indeed.
Love and hugs Jane
xxxxx |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 482
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 9:40 am: |
|
Just to say thanks to everyone for the comments. It has been very hard work and not very pleasant to do, although interesting, but hopefully between us we can get a really accurate reconstruction of the crime scene which will be useful for research.
Keep coming with the ideas........
Love Jane
xxxxx |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 780
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
I hope I don't come off sounding rude here, but I am quite frustrated at this point. It seems like you have missed or misinterpreted basically everything I have said to you.
The fact that your model body is too narrow to match up with the corpse's body in the actual photo from the second (close up) angle does not mean that the leg was dislocated, it means you don't have the model zoomed in far enough and positioned correctly. Dislocating the leg would not add another six or more inches to the waist, which is about how far off your model looks. (Additionally, you have to take into account that your model still has most of the flesh on the body, while the corpse has a large slab of flesh from that area removed and placed on the table. The model should fit over top the photo and be significantly wider than what's shown in the photo, not substantially thinner, as yours is.)
As far as your earlier questions, I am having a very difficult time trying to come up with a way to answer them other than the way I already had explained all of that multiple times and with diagrams earlier. Everything I could think to say would just be a repeat, and, since it didn't seem to go anywhere the first time, I need to try to figure out some completely different way of explaining it.
But let me get back to some important questions you haven't answered: How long do you think Mary's left upper leg was? Using that figure, how large would the table sitting behind her leg in that same photo have to be if what you think is her full upper left leg is actually her full upper left leg? And, again, how big was the room itself? As I have suggested quite a few times here, from my measurements, you are way, way off at matching your model to the physical dimensions of the features present in that second photo.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 684
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 11:02 am: |
|
Suppose the "second photo" was actually the first one shot with everything in exactly the position Jack left it. Then the bed is moved. The left leg,which had been dislocated by Jack was precariously balanced in its upright position. The jostling caused by the movement of the bed would have caused it to flop down into the position we see in the whole body picture. Of course I can't prove this nor be dogmatic about it but it would explain why the leg seems to be projecting up in the "second picture" and is laying down in the whole body shot. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 685
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
Natalie, I agree with you about his prime area of interest.
After taking an anatomy course last summer I came to the conclusion that the only reason he removed the liver, stomach, intestines and spleen was that he couldn't get to the heart through the rib cage.
Bond found that the intercostal muscles (muscles between the ribs) had been removed in several of the spaces between the ribs. I think he was exploring the possibility of getting at the heart that way and discovered he couldn't do it.
He had to tunnel upward from the abdomen, removing the organs that were in his way and then cut a hole in the diaphragm. I believe his real areas of interest were the organs of generation and lactation, the kidneys, and the heart. The rest got cut up and moved around because it was in the way. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 686
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
Jane, thank you for your work and expertise. One of the best things you did was to sharpen up and enhance that second picture. I don't know how you did it, but what was a blurred mess of pixels now is distinguishable (and more disturbing). Could you do this with the whole body shot? |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 690
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
Too bad to hear about that tooth abscess (and the 3 million versions you had to do before it seemed right enough)!
Here are some further thoughts. If in the large photo the line of the bedside table would be extrapolated it would touch Mary Jane's left elbow and the tip of her right knee (or what's left of it).
Her left hand at least seems to be higher than her left knee in this photo, while in the other it's quite obviously the other way around (if that is her left knee of course).
And I may have found a third reference point Dan was looking for, although I admit it's not a very clear one and may not be very helpful, but let's just see what you think of it. The bed clothing lying against the right shin in the large photo has a lighter patch in the middle, which is not very wide at the top. Might this be the roundish shape with the dark spot on its left in the smaller photo, just like you suggest in one of your pictures at the top of this thread?
Again, I hope this helps.
All my best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2192
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Jane,hope your tooth eases soon!Don"t overdo it!
What you have provided us with here has given great impetus so however you adjust things the initial impact has moved us all here and given plenty of food for thought.
Thanks again for sharing with us all this treasure chest of expertise!!! |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 483
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
HI Dan,
I can see what you are saying honestly......I just want to know what IS going on, because I know something isn't right, I just don't know what it is.
you are correct the figure doesn't match when it is dropped over the second figure, that is the whole point.....I want to know why it doesn't fit. So please don't think that I am saying you are wrong, I just want to have a satisfactory explanation for it........because I cannot at the moment understand why it is happening.
It shouldn't be.
After I had done the intial figure from the first photograph I expected to turn it around and drop it over and bingo........it would fit perfectly.....but as I began to rotate it I could see that it wasn't going to and by the time I had got it the correct angle for the second photo I didn't expect it to match up........
I will do as Frank suggested and go back and check the primary figure again using the first photo to work from just to tweek it and get it totally accurate........
I can do several things to fix it with absolute accuracy........I will try a few and see which one works best. There are lots of techniques used in museum reconstruction for this.......if I think they will be of interest I will post them up.
I purposely put that drop over on to show that it doesn't match up, perhaps I should have clarified that at the time........I think I might have caused the problem by not explaining myself properly.
The fact that they don't match up is nothing to do with the figure I used.Something very wierd is going on and I want to know what it is,
I have been doing 3D reconstructions for museums and other institutions for over 30 years because primarily I am a sculptor and you do get used to thinking three dimensionally.......... I was so puzzled by this I thought it needed some exploration........
I did of course leave literally dozens of stages out of the above posts. So please don't think I am saying I think you are wrong.....I am saying it needs to be investigated to find out exactly what is going on.
I will see if I can break down how the figure was constructed from the first photograph in more detail at the risk of boring everyone into catatonia..... as it is possible then to see how points on the figure were used to match it as closely as possible........I will then put in the area around on each stage so that it can be seen how the environment is moving with the figure and then it should be techinically impossible for it to be wrong at the end of it.
If anyone thinks that I went wrong anywhere along the line they can post and tell me.
i think this is the only way to do it to be absolutely certain that no mistake has been made with the angle and camera position.
I can import the figure into another 3D programme and put the bed and the table in and the walls as well I suppose at some point which I intended to do anyway......but I will take it a step at a time and build it up gradually.
It is of course important to get it right.......if I can guarantee that the figure from the first photograph is accurate to the nth degree then when it is turned around 180 degrees it should show without any reasonable doubt where her left leg would be from that angle......
That is what we all want to find out.......so bear with me and as I say if anyone thinks that it is wrong in any aspect at all as I go through correct me and we will take it from there.
Jane
xxxxx
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2193
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Diana,
That sounds a brilliant anatomy course!Yes I can see what you mean and that too is interesting.Why the heart I wonder?Possibly an ideal trophy?So he stole her heart and obliterated her face.
Maybe then there was some symbolic significance in what he did...... maybe then he did,after all
know Mary Kelly! |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 484
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Thanks Frank,
Very helpful..........I will do what I suggested above and go through the initial reconstruction of the figure step by step and please will people tell me if they think that I have gone wrong anywhere.....I will put in the objects around over the top which I think might be best done in another 3D programme, they will only be rought shapes and not works of art, but they will give us a solid foundation to work on because obviously if they are locked to the figure then as she moves they must be in the right place.
I do think that bit of fabric is useful, thanks......I have spotted some other things too that will act as good landmarks.
Jane
xxxxx
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 485
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 2:37 pm: |
|
HI Nats and Diana,
I do have a few thoughts about that as well, but at the moment I am concentrating on what's in hand!
I do think though that your idea about the table and the leg is worth looking at a bit further Diana, because that thought had crossed my mind too,
In the meantime I did some enhancing on the second photograph to try and bring out as much of it as I could. This is the result so far, I hope it is useful.
on the second one I have adjusted the black and white levels as much as I could to see if that shows anything else up.
and the last one is the best I could get from the original copy I had close up.
I couldn't do much with the abdominal area, but I will have another try and see what I can do, unfortunately the larger photo is even worse in certain areas and the information just isn't there to begin with, so I can't do much with it I'm afraid, but I will have another go and see what I can do.
Jane
xxxx |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3721
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 3:03 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
What one can clearly see in the picture thanks to your sharpening efforts, is that it now seems reasonably clear that the angled part we're discussing -- the so called leg and knee -- are attached to the rest of the body.
Now, IF we for a moment really consider that it is the left leg and knee that we're dealing with here -- and that you are correct in your suggestions that the police might have propped it up in order to be able to photograph the mutilations on the leg more thoroughly -- could it be that the whole inner thigh (with the skin) was carved away but the tissue on the outer and top parts of the thigh and parts of the thigh bone was left on the body?
Because your sharpening of the details has made me even more convinced of, that what we actually see is INSIDE a hollow piece of human body part, seen from underneath -- as far as I can see it is absolutely clear that there goes a border of skin from the bone and alongside the whole form, and then the rest is the inside of the hollow leg.
Could it be -- since some have troubles with making it add up here with the proportions -- that the last part of the bone closest to the knee was actually cut away, along with the kneecap, and therefore only a flap of skin from the top and outer part of the thigh remains from it, and thus the forms and proportions of the leg does not add up? So what should be the knee is in fact a piece of skin from the knee area but the knee is gone, and therefore it gets odd?Is this possible, or do my eyes deceive me that much?
In any case, that could possibly that what remained of the leg
might have been propped up by the police for photographing.
I don't know if you understand what I am trying to pull here, but this is VERY hard to explain in English for me.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 16, 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: 486
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
HI Glenn,
I think you are right at least in the most part even without doing any further work on it, the other part you may well be right as well and I think we need to do some further experiments on it.
Firstly you are totally right, the inner part of the thigh was completely carved away and if you look at the first photo you can actually see that quite clearly....so spot on....I am going to do some drawings over it to prove you are right there.......
you are also totally right that the outiside and in fact some of the front as well by the looks of it was left intact, and again you can see that in the larger photo..........
I might still have to do some more work on the other part about the skin being lifted up......because I won't know for sure about that until I have done the other 3D reconstructions with other objects in the picture attached to the body as it were as they move round and then he might be able to get a better idea.
so that is what I am working on now.
Thanks for the input......I think we will get there in the end.
Love Jane
xxxxx |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 487
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
You are right about the legs in the first rough visual I did being slightly high as I drew them freehand and from the photo......that will teach me.
I have checked though on the poser figure I used for the other stuff and the left leg did need to be twisted down a tiny bit from the buttock, although only slightly and the right leg just a tiny smidgen......I do think now that it is just about as exact as it can be.
It does actually make the difference between the two angles even greater now.........but I will go through each stage carefully making sure that we are totally accurate all the way and just wait until we get there.
If I post it up perhaps anyone would care to check and see that I am at least going to be working on something that is accurate.
I am also going to cut away the parts of it that are cut away in the photograph because that does change the perspective of angles etc, and makes it easier to judge how close we are getting.
Thanks for that. I will correct the rough visual when I have finished and make sure that it is spot on. They were just meant to be rough guides anyway at the moment.
Hugs
Jane
xxxxx |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 689
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 8:14 pm: |
|
I am having a problem with the item we are identifying as the femur. Please look at the pictures in the links --
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~dp5m/phys_304/figures/femur.gif
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~dp5m/phys_304/figures/femur4.gif
As you can see the femur does not end in a simple knob. Instead there is a sort of neck projecting off from the top of the femur in the direction of the os coxa (hipbone) and ending in a knob which fits into a socket in the hipbone.
What we are assuming to be the femur seems to end in a simple knob, however it could be we are seeing the slight widening that is at the top and the neck and knob are obscured by the coxa. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 690
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 8:22 pm: |
|
Could the neck and knob have been broken off? Could it be what we are looking at is the top of the femur split in two and seeing the marrow inside? |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 488
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 9:49 pm: |
|
Hi Diana,
That is one of the problems I have been having with it..........I totally agree, as I said, nothing makes much sense in it......which really annoys me no end!
Thanks for those links, very useful.
There was a discussion on the boards before about whether or not the femur was disfigured in any way, but I am not sure how it was resolved.
All I keep thinking is that if it isn't her leg, then there is nothing else in the first photo that it could be from another angle........nothing at all, no sheet and it is attached to the body as far as I can see even allowing for the mess.
I am quite happy to have any other suggestions as to what it might be put forward, but I think we would need to be able to see it clearly standing up in the first photograph........and there is nothing else there.
What I am going to do in a minute, as I can't sleep because of this wretched abcess is to actually take the figure into another 3D programme, put her on a bed with a table in the place it is in the first photo......put objects in around her in the right positions and the right scale and then see what happens. We've got nothing to lose.
Just while I was twiddling around I put the outline on of where the outside edges of the leg would be if that is the leg.........
it would seem if that is the case that as Glenn said the whole of the inner thigh was carved away or hacked, which could possibly account for any mutilation to the femur, but the outer surface of the thigh was not touched.
Anyway, we will solve this puzzle if it is the last thing I do!
Thanks for all your help
Love Jane
xxxxxx
 |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 691
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:39 pm: |
|
It almost looks like the swelling at the upper end of the femur is concave which would make no sense unless it was broken and we are looking at marrow.
I'll pray for you that your relentless pain will let up. |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 489
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 6:09 am: |
|
Hi Diana,
Thank goodness.......I have sorted it out at last, well a lot of it anyway........I thought I would go crackers!
As I couldn't sleep I did what I said and took the corrected figure into another 3D programme and put objects in around it......to begin with it looked like something out of Bedknobs and broomsticks, with flying beds.....it would normally take weeks to put the scene together so what I put together in a couple of hours is obviously very very rough, but good enough to see what we want to see.
I am just rendering them up and sorting them out a bit and I will put them up in a while.....it does really show what we want to know though and later I can do some much better quality ones from all angles. (Well obviously not all....but a lot!)
I am so relieved it was really bugging me!
Hugs Jane
xxxxx
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 691
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 6:20 am: |
|
Hi Jane & Diana,
I have some questions at this point:
- Would the femur normally be so close to (what seems to be) the vagina?
- Would the femur (not the knob part) have that widened end the way it looks in the photo?
- Although it had a long gash in it, according to Dr Bond the left calf was still there, so we should be able to see it, or so one would expect, but where is it? In what you've outlined Jane the thigh looks good, but the calf seems to be too small or skinny.
More things to ponder.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 490
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 8:35 am: |
|
HI Frank,
To tell you the truth that was a very quick and lazy outline just to show that it could be a leg and yes the calf if rather anorexic........so just take it for what it is.....something that is vaguely leg shaped!
I also wonder about that shape which is in the right place for the femur, and I am not sure about it being too close to the vagina because with the damage that was done to that joint then I think perhaps it could have ended up anywhere........
I wonder if it might be muscle or tendons?
I think I can now at least establish beyond doubt that it is her leg at least, so perhaps we can take it from there..........
I'll put the pictures up that I have just done.....and they are hysterical......they look like Salvador Dali on a very bad hair day, but they do show the points that we need to sort it out......so I can do some realistic ones later!
I will have them up shortly and I think they do help an awful lot......well they cleared it up for me anyway.........hopefully it will for others as well.
Hugs
Jane
xxxx |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 439
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 12:50 pm: |
|
If I look closely at the link that Dan posted above, the one with the triangulations, it seems to me now that what I've been thinking all along was the left knee is in fact the piece of material that sticks up to the left(outside) of the left leg. I think that it's sticking up because it was the part of the sheet that Jack used to pull the body to the left hand side of the bed after he cut her throat .
This would explain to me why the "thigh" is so short in the second picture.
For what it's worth.
Mags
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3723
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 1:34 pm: |
|
Mags,
I used to think absolutely the same thing myself, but what has made me change my mind about it, is the texture of the flap seen in the close-up picture; to me that looks more like bone/muscle and skin tissue than it looks like fabric (even if we consider it being covered with blood and gore).
Besides, if you look closely it appears to be attached to the rest of the body with some muscles or similar.
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: 491
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 2:32 pm: |
|
HI All,
Sorry for the delay in getting back, but I had to have a lie down, this rotton abcess is really getting on my nerves now.
Here are the pics.......and you are allowed to laugh at them, because I did them in a couple of hours and this scene should have taken weeks to put together......I will do some proper ones when I get time, I just wanted to see what people thought before I went any further.
First of all I have only got the figure on the bed fairly roughly because it is a total nightmare rotating shapes in the 3D programme I used, so we are not looking at angles here at all, only deciding what objects are.
I think the problem has been that foreshortening, that is the strange things that happen with perspective are really very deceiving, and sometimes you get real surprises when you look at things from different angles in 3D programmes.
So don't look at how accurate the angles are, they are not......but you can still see what is going on as the picture revolves and which bit is which.
The first picture is just to show you the problems in matching objects on the screen in this programme and what it looks like. It shows how the objects were placed in the work space.
The next one is the figure dropped onto the bed and I have tried to get the left leg in the right position on the mattress and Mary in as close as I could to the position she is on the bed......she isn't totally right, but she is close enough to be usable for this exercise. You will just have to take my word for that.
It does look very strange I know, but you want to try it ! I couldn't find a table wire frame so I put a box in the right space.
Here is the picture, then I will tell you what's going on! 
sorry the type is hard to read, but the resolution is so low it won't come any clearer....I think it is clear what they are anyway.
 |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 492
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 2:56 pm: |
|
All of the different components were locked then so that they became one object in effect, so that as it's moved round it moves as one item. That way we can be certain that nothing has moved independently,
The next one shows the whole scene moved around a bit.
I drew in the bits of sheets between the legs just to make it clearer to see what was what.
the one after is just moving it around further. It's obviously a more aerial shot .
 |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 493
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 3:07 pm: |
|
The next one is a more clear view from the other side. I put a few indicators of the sheets in between the legs to match to the second photo. This is not the shot shown in the second photo of course.....it's just so that we can track features as they move.
 |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 494
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 4:37 pm: |
|
You can see now where the sheet that is underneath Mary's arm in the larger photograph is from the other view. You can only see a slither of it from this angle as the rest is hidden behind her thigh.
The table you can't really tell from this angle because it is an aerial view but in the next shot you can see where it is in relation to the bed.
Unfortunately I can't get the exact angle in that programme because of the work space size and dimensions, but I have got it as best as I can.....I think it is enough for you to see what is what.........as the objects were all grouped and moved together.
You can see the left leg is still very flat against the mattress and there is nothing else in the picture that shape could be but her leg......
again I've sketched some of the sheets in.
I do stress that the angles aren't exact by any stretch, this is just to locate the objects in the photo. You can see though that the table is actually almost out of shot to the left. This must be about right as the bed was butted close to the table and square to it, so it could not be much different to what you see above.
The camera would have had to have been at her right shoulder to get a shot of the table as it is in the second photograph. I will do a little rendering of it if you want so that you can see what I mean. |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 495
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Nearly there you'll be pleased to know!
This last one I hope should do it........I used the second poser figure that I created with the left leg raised. The rest of the figure is totally identical to the first. I just lifted the leg up as if it were propped up to match the object in the second smaller photograph.
This is the result. As far as I am concerned that does convince me without any doubt that is her leg.............
I couldn quite match the angle as it is almost impossible in that programme to match angles absolutely identically.......but I think this is enough to show what I wanted to put across. If not then I am afraid that's it.......I can't think of any other way to go with it, unless anyone else has any ideas.
Jane
xxx
again I put the sheets in to try and give some context for the shape. Hope it helps.
 |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 496
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Last one just as a round up.
Here are Stephen's excellent colour ups of the scene which were enormously helpful in doing these reconstructions.
I have just marked on them where that sheet is that is tucked under her arm and also where the symbol is that is being discussed on the other thread again, so that it is put in context.
Thanks for putting up with my inane ramblings, but I hope they were at least useful to someone.
 |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 783
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
You have the end of the table placed too close to the head of the bed. It actually comes down at least half a half more, if not a full foot.
More importantly, the left leg and the bunched up bedsheet are not even close to being accurate in your model. Dr. Bond's report said that the left leg was at right angles to the body, and in your model the leg is about 45 degrees. Worse than that, you have the knee in completely the wrong spot in the full photo (partly because of the wrong angle, but also just in general), which makes your comparison to where the bedsheet is totally off.
See how in your version the bunched up sheet is about a foot away from the knee, thus making it look small in comparison to the leg...? That's wrong.
There are also a number of other problems in the model, but they aren't as significant in relation to what it is you are arguing right now.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 692
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Jane -- If this is what you can do when in pain and distracted, I can't imagine how great your stuff will be when you feel better. BTW, can you get to a dentist? or the emergency room? |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2198
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Thanks for these Jane.I can see what Dan is on about but heck,you are getting closer all the time
so don"t overdo it if you are unwell with your tooth we have waited 116 years for these 3D birds eye view sightings of JtR"s vandalism-we can wait a few days more!
Terrific and impressive work.
Nats
xxxx |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3724
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Boy, Dan, you do stress your points rather hard, don't you?
"...not even close to being accurate in your model",
"...completely the wrong spot",
"...totally off",
"There are also a number of other problems..."
"That's wrong."
Now, she's actually responded to your views rather humble, hasn't she? If you get that bloody frustrated, when why do you even bother?
I don't know if Jane have placed the knee that far down (and in such case, very slightly), but as far as I am concerned, you are the one who have placed the knee a bit way off track, unless you believe what you think is her lower part of the leg for some reason is broken in two and twisted.
If you look at the crime scene photo, what you consider to be the whole lower part of the leg is in such case bent and twisted in a strange way, not straight, which is pretty weird unless the killer or the police played thigh master with the calf in question.
The area is so light that it is hard to see any clear details anyway, but judging from the bent shape, I find your position of the knee way up on the top of the leg rather strange. From what I remember from my artist's anatomy class, that bending we see on the leg should indicate the dividing between the lower leg and the thigh -- that is, the knee bend. However, that's beside the point.
You don't agree with her, that's fine. But regardless of who's right or wrong, Dan, there is no need to get rude and annoyed about it. Unless you believe yourself to be the sole expert.
Jesus Christ!
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 17, 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: 497
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 6:17 pm: |
|
HI Dan,
I did do another one with the knee where you say, as the other option, because like you I did think that it could be either or....
obviously I didn't want to put too many up and confuse people, that is why I said not to look at the angles at the moment, just to try and identify what objects were. Some people have identified the knee as lower down the leg, which is why I put that one first , but it was just a toss up.
I did say though that this was incredibly rough just to get some comments as it would take weeks to do one totally accurately......it is really just to get a discussion going.
I will put one up with the knee in the other position, which I have done already , and I will move the table down a foot at the side of the bed and then put them up.....
I should have them done within about half an hour as I have to adjust the figure on the bed to move the angle of the knee.
Jane
xxxx |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 694
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Jane, you are remarkably patient for someone with an awful toothache. Or does all the diagramming give you a distraction? Would ice help? It's six pm here in Texas so I suppose its midnight where you are. Is it keeping you up? Are any of our posters dentists?
(Message edited by Diana on July 17, 2005) |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 692
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 7:14 pm: |
|
Hi Jane & all,
Great work again, Jane.
Just one quick thought before I'm off to bed, which has to do with the smaller photo. The left border of it is obviously formed by MJK's left hand pink and a point very close to the tip of her right knee. One point on the right border must be close to her right ankle. Because of the cut below the right knee, both parts (from knee tip to cut and from cut down her shin to right border of photo) can be roughly estimated and then be transferred to the larger photo.
Maybe and hopefully someone make something of this - I certainly can't, at least not at this moment (I'm too tired).
Sleep tight,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 693
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 7:44 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Although I totally agree with you on Dan's tone, I'm afraid he could be right about the position of the left knee.
I'm only an inch taller than MJK was and the distance from my shoulder to my elbow is about 35 cm or 1 ft 2. My lower leg is about 50 cm or 1 ft 8 long. The approximate length of MJK's left upper arm can be roughly measured and if you would use the relation between my upper arm - lower leg and transfer it to the large photo, the knee would be where Dan pointed out it would be - provided that her left foot is rather stretched out so that we see the instep (or front) of it and her toes at the very end. What strengthens this is that Dr Bond wrote that 'the left thigh was stripped of skin, fascia & muscles as far as the knee'.
I do agree that, if it actually is her lower leg, it looks rather broken in the dingy photo.
Again, sleep tight all,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3725
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 8:35 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
"...Dr Bond wrote that 'the left thigh was stripped of skin, fascia & muscles as far as the knee'."
Yes, he did, but that part in Bond's statement does not seem to corroborate that well with how it looks on the second picture anyway. Clearly, what we see there looks more similar to a flap of skin and tissue from the outer and upper part of the thigh (the texture on it doesn't look like that on a piece of fabric or sheet) -- however, the INNER side of the thigh seems to be completely stripped (so that we're looking into it's hollow space).
Besides, if that whole part that's discussed on the large full body picture was the lower part of the leg beneath the knee, then that would make it a bit too long and, I feel, out of proportion with the rest of the body. I can't see how that would measure up.
As you say yourself, if it isn't a knee bend there, then she has a hell of a strange broken curve on her lower leg. That is not how a leg looks like. Clearly that bow must be the leg bend indicating where the knee is. How else can it display such a form?
But that was not the point with my post -- I don't feel we all will be able to agree on those details and I believe it is open to interpretation like everything else anyway, and we all probably see different things in it -- I myself am certainly not 100% sure on this; I think the mutilations makes it too difficult and the information is too sparse. Under such concitions, personal interpretations can never be avoided regardless how smart tools we use, although I believe such modern inventions helps us to get closer.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 17, 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: 498
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 8:44 pm: |
|
HI Dan
Sorry for the delay.......first of all I couldn't find the blooming file I had already done and had to re do it, then of course I found the original as soon as I had finished. I did the whole post and then Explorer quit on me......don't you just love it?
Here is the other version with the knee higher up........I couldn't actually match the curve of it in the programme for the reason Glenn mentioned, because no matter how I positioned it , it wouldn't curve that way.......which was why I wondered about the position of the knee in the first place and why some people put the knee further down I suppose. Still it is in the right place with it lying flat at a right angle to the body. The sheet flap of course is in the same place.
I did feel uncomfortable about moving the table down, although I did it as requested for the other view......you will see that the shadow behind the rear leg is very narrow indeed, which indicates that it was very close to the bed, no more than an inch or so away at the leg.
If you put a plumbline along the leg and extend it upwards you will see that it falls quite high up the arm. if you move the table down of course it would not line up.
But it is the equivalent of a foot lower on the other view as you can see.
I did of course point out that these were very rough just to show what object was which in the picture and actually raising the knee higher along the bed, doesn't really alter that at all.
Here is the first picture with the knee higher and the plumb line put in to show why I put the table where I did......
 |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 499
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 9:26 pm: |
|
Here is the other view, but again, restrictions within the programme make it impossible for it to be totally accurate....it is however quite possible to see that it doesn't really make a whole lot of difference when it come to making sense of the second picture, because even with the knee higher it doesn't fit at all.....it only fits when you lift her left knee upwards.
And even with the table moved a foot lower down I still can't make it anything like a match for that second photo.
I don't know what 3D programmes you use, but maybe they are better than the ones I have. If so I could send you the wireframes of wavefront objects and you could twiddle with them yourself and get the positions exactly right......I have gone about as far as I can go with it, I just hope someone else has better luck.
Even some sketches would help if people can't use 3D programmes.
Here is the other view as close as I could get it with my programme.....
I did however see if by rotating it a lot I could make it match as it is.....and there was no angle in any direction that gave anything close to the second photo......whether it be sheet, leg or what have you.......there is no shape there it could be.
The only piece of sheet visible in the second photo behind the body is the tiny slither just below the right arm.........in the first photo you can identify that easily.....
it is almost touching the bottom of the arm and is just the correct width....it also fits in the space between the lower arm and the knee from that angle and between the lower arm and what is left of the thigh in the other one.
I do stress that these are very rough it would take weeks to do them properly, they were just ideas and not intended to be anything more than that...... they are only what I have concluded using two 3D programmes and the photographs.......
others may well have their own interpretation and I will be really interested to see what they come up with.....but this is my offering and it seems to fit....that's all I can say really
Love Jane
xxxxxx
 |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 500
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 9:38 pm: |
|
sorry, just to clarify, the bit of sheet there is a bit hard to see because it rendered in white with a grey inside against a grey background......
but you can see on the second photo that it matches in width.......look at the width of Mary's arm which is say 10 cms (4 inches) at most even is she was chubby........
that would make that piece of sheet about 15 centimeters (6 inches) across at most. Even at the widest part at the top it is no more that 20 cms (8 inches)
Also if you look at the second photo you can see a little 'nubbin' sticking out of the top a sort of little nose..for want of a better word.
Looking at the first photo you can see the little nose sticking up there in exactly the right place. The sheet itself isn't sticking up, it is draped over what is left of her lower abdomen and only gives the illusion of sticking up...that is why on the second photo you can only see the top slither of it poking over the top.
Hope that clarifies my reasoning on this......because it isn't very clear in the 3D model.
Hugs Jane
xxxx |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 501
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 9:51 pm: |
|
Last one I promise and then I am going to get some sleep before I have to face the dentist tomorrow......ouch!
Here is what I mean about the nubbin, you can also see the scale of it more clearly, I think I have it about right.....of course you are looking at the top side of one and the under side of the other but you can at least see where I am coming from.........
wish me luck tomorrow, I am going to need it......I wouldn't mind it was the blooming dentists fault in the first place for not doing his job properly........typical!
xxxxxxx
 |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Jane,
I am writing this to say that I commend you on the work and dedication that you have shown in your reconstruction photographs. You have done a tremendous amount of work on these, and I know I speak for most (if not all) when I say that I am completely amazed at the work you have done on this thread! Through your work you have been able to raise a lot of questions, show insight, and bring up many new possibilities. It is due to work like this that keeps the boards fresh, interesting, and thought-provoking. Thank you, and please keep up the good work!
Sandy |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 502
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 3:25 am: |
|
Thanks Sandy,
I really just throw ideas into the pot now and again to see if there is anything of interest there at all. Sometimes something comes out of it and sometimes not.........even then at least you can rule things out sometimes which is a help in itself I hope.
I think I have gone about as far as I can on this because I have used every utensil in my broom cupboard and am now down to cobwebs, someone else might be able to take over and get somewhere with it.........
I do think it is important to find out things like this though because at the end of the day it will add to our knowledge of the case, as I say if only to rule things out.
I'm off to the dentist now.....whoopeee!!!! I am going to have so much fun........hee hee.
I am going to start on the other victims shortly and see where that takes us.
Love to all
Jane
xxxx |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3726
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 3:53 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
So... it looks like my initial belief, that the flap was that piece of sheet on the full body picture, was actually wrong and you were right. As you say, looking at the mutilated thigh on the full body picture, it actually looks like the piece of sheet is lying on top of the thigh instead of standing up that much. Clearly the big thing we see on the second picture is human tissue, that is... the leg.
Yes, there is a piece of sheet actually visible on the second picture, behind the leg where you've marked, so that must be it.
Besides, if they did prop up the leg (which I believe may have been broken out of position where it is attached to the stomach area anyway) on the second photo, then it is also possible that the sheet was disturbed or flattened out a bit.
Thanks for your large efforts, Jane. Interesting as always and very thought-provoking. Beautiful stuff. Even those who don't agree with you must at least acknowledge that you have put a lot of serious work into it.
Good luck at the dentist's!
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 18, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 785
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Yes, I admit I am frustrated, but I feel that Jane is basically jumping into these models without taking the time to read Dr. Bond's report or to examine the photos in a way other than her preconceived idea of what she is seeing. Most of my objections (the triangulation of points in common between the two photos, the impossible sizings involved in her rendition of the second angle, etc.) have been completely ignored. When she does respond she just does another model using the same information she used to make the very first one. She's going around in circles, and it's tedious at this point.
The knee is definitely not where she had it in the model that I pointed out to her on. There is no way a leg could be bent at a 90 degree angle from the groin and end up with the knee that far down on the bed. It's absolutely physically impossible, unless the upper leg were twice as long as a normal human upper leg (not to mention her other leg) and also broken in the middle with such a severe break that it bends like a knee. You can even see in her version that the foot ends up in completely the wrong spot compared to the other leg. I mean that discrepancy is obvious.
As far as the lower leg looking twisted and you deciding that it must be a knee there, Dr. Bond's report says that the calf on that leg was sliced open and flesh removed. The strange "twisting" you think you see would almost have to be a knife wound that happens to cut out a side of the leg, ruining the normal curve of the flesh there.
It's all fine and good to do fancy looking models, but to go into such detail with multiple posts while basically wildly eye-balling positioning of things instead of figuring out the geometry involved and then asking for input and then ignoring it just doesn't accomplish anything meaningful to the case.
I love Janie to death, but these models are just plain inaccurate. I've never been one to pick sides in a debate based upon who my friends are or not, I just call things as I see them. I'd love to be able to say that these are a brilliant resource, but when several objects are placed several feet out of place and in physically impossible locations you just can't rely upon them.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 503
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
Well I did say at the beginning that they were only very rough visuals just to see what people thought.
The subsequent reconstructions were only following your suggestion on things you thought I had wrong or that would clarify the situation........ I would have been happy just to put up the initial visuals I did of something I thought was interesting that's all. I wasn't trying to prove anything.
I just felt that as you brought objections up I ought to answer them and follow your suggestions out of courtesy.
All I can say is that I have gone as far with this as I can......using what resources I have......if people don't agree with them, then of course that is fine.
I have done the best I can do with what information I had and you are obviously seeing something I have missed.
I know you are busy, but when you get time I think everyone would be interested to see a different interpretation, because I have a lot on unanswered questions that it might help me with.
I can only use my experience in forensic reconstruction to give my conclusions, but of course that doesn't mean they are right.
And I love you to pieces too, I know you want to get to the bottom on this as much as I do,
Love Jane
xx
sorry just a post script........the use of 3D programmes is used very widely indeed in forensics by the police and museums and is a very reliable resource because it does give information that is almost impossible to gain any other way.....but we always use the photographic and written evidence primarily and just use the 3D programmes to confirm our first thoughts.
And the angles which might look very odd to the human eye are in fact totally accurate and only look extremely odd because of the foreshortening caused by the extreme camera angle. Just thought I should clear that up.......there must be other 3D programme users out there who can confirm this to their dismay.........it can be a nightmare!
xxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on July 18, 2005) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
