|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 569
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 5:12 pm: | 
|
Amazing picture, Stephen. Good graphic work. And may I say, the scene is becoming more and more gruesome...
Regarding photo 2: The most natural thing for the photographer to do - without turning the bedside table nearest to us out of position - would be to move the feet side of the bed out a bit, which would make Kelly's left leg closer to the table, as Stephen points out.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 205
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 6:35 pm: |
|
Stephen,
What specific points of reference are you using to draw the diagonal lines in the above photo? Seems like we'd need a more precise geometric diagram. But thanks for the colorized photo! 
Andy S.
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2859
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 7:03 pm: |
|
Hi Andy -
My diagram is definitely not precise - just a rough estimate.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1082
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 7:47 pm: |
|
Please bear with me folks, because I find analysing the photographs difficult, but could the first photo have been taken after the bed was moved into a north-south alignment, with the head of the bed south and the foot north? The door-like structure which I'd always taken to be a piece of the partition, might then be the cupboard door, and the fireplace would be just out of shot on the left.
Robert |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 3:12 am: |
|
Andrew wrote:
"But that doesn't make sense either. A thumb is about the same length as a little finger. So if the visible portion of the little finger is only half the finger (due to its being bent),"
Take a look at your finger. Barring gross abnormalities, it should have two knuckles. When bent it'd show either 1/3 or 2/3. In this case it's 2/3 (from that low angle on the other side of the bed), with a bend in the middle looking like the one knuckle of a thumb.
"it should appear too short to be a thumb."
Only if you have the rest of the hand to judge by, and you don't because it's cut off at the edge of the photo.
But between the leg with the garter or whatever (obvious in both photos) and the placement of the innards on the table, there is no doubt at all that the camera is roughly where Stephen indicated. Except probably lower (where that bundle of cloth is). And the lines in the diagram would be much closer together. The left line should be moved to just slightly to the right of the left edge of the table and miss the disputed knee completely.
If you want the geometry, it was done (in reverse) in my link above.
The question then becomes picking a scenario:
1) The camera was placed on the bed without moving things (except that bundle of cloth).
2) The table and bed were moved out parallel to the wall to fit the camera and photographer.
3) The bed was rotated to allow the camera and photographer (and, if so, by how much).
I've heard people say that things were definitely moved in some way... what source did that come from?
If there were rotation involved, I think it'd have to be very slight based upon how the table lines up and the door in the background. Either that or assume the table was rotated too, which would not make much sense. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 5:54 am: |
|
The colour certainly brings out more detail,and there are a couple of things that might merit a bit of thought.
Fistly there is I believe a pillow lying on the floor under the table.This could mean that the pillow fell or was dumped on the ground before the table was put in that position.Also the under sheet is away from the matress,and in a rumpled position on Kelly's left side.To me it suggests that maybe those two items were dislodged during the course of a short struggle.As a cry of murder was heard,then maybe Kelly had both time to cry out and put up a token resistance,during which the pillow fell and the sheet was dislodged.
As the body parts appear to cover the table on the side nearest the bed,It might indicate that the killer straddled the body during the mutilations,and could only reach that side of the table.It does seem like indentations caused by a kneeling figure,are evident where the top of Kelly's left leg and her chemise meet.
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 207
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 12:35 am: |
|
Hi Dan:
When I bend my little finger like that I see a stub far too short to be confused for a thumb. There is enough of the hand visible for comparison. I'm not saying I'm sure about anything, but in the inverted photo 2 I see what looks exactly like a thumb slighly separated from the rest of the hand -- the photo showing the portion of the hand up to the top knuckle of the index finger.
But actually, I'm tending to think you are probably right. The blurred swirl in the foreground of photo 2 seems to correspond with the blanket roll (or whatever) in photo 1. In fact, I suspect the camera may have been placed on top of this roll for the photo.
An interesting question now is, "Who rolled up the blanket?" It seems to be intentionally rolled up. On a cold night such as it was, it is unlikely Mary had it rolled up. Would the killer take time to do it? That leaves only the police? Why did they roll it up. Was it covering a portion of Mary's body?
Andy S. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 3:36 am: |
|
Hi All,
It is my contention that the photograph of the body lying full length on the bed was taken through an open window. Since we read that Kelly & Company could reach the door lock via a broken window...and that when the door was forced open it banged against the bedside table, ergo, the space between the window/wall and the bed was minimal, to say the least. Since Cinemascope had not yet been invented, it would have required a distance of at least two metres to get the full length shot.
The second photograph is explained by the bed having been moved and a camera with a specialised viewfinder used for the close-up, which requires that the table complete with its mass of flesh is
also moved accordingly.
Hell folks, lets keep things simple! Open one or all of the doors that act as a temporary partition
that divide the room? Em...food for thought.
Rosey :-) |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 11:20 am: |
|
Hi all.
In another thread on here someone mentioned something about it being taken in a morgue if it was looking for certain wounds but it got me thinking. How sure are we that this photo wasn't taken in a morgue then? Look closely. It could be anywhere. We just presume it was taken in Millers Court but look again at the table in the background. It has either been moved and now somehow looks longer or it is in fact another table. Could be another morgue table. Just a thought.
By the way, love the crocodile theory. Made me laugh.  |
Steven Atkins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 6:19 am: |
|
Hi Sarah,
Glad you liked the Crocodile theory but the very presence of Mr.Crocodile along with other items of bedding visible in both Photographs,rule out the morgue theory.
Best regards,
Steven |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 221
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Hi all
Sorry to dig this all up agin.. but I cannot believe that this chemise existed!! I think thta it's just a bit of rucked up sheet..follow it around the body and see if you agree..after all the esteemedDr Bond did say that the body was naked and he should have known after all!
Cheers
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1816
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 5:19 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi
But Phillips said "She had only her under linen garment on her".
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 223
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Robert
Did he?ok have just looked it up in the bible aka a-z you're right (natch!!) It does look like the sheet though doesn't it!
Thanks for that
Suzi |
John Casey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Hello all.....have done a little bit of enhancement on the second photo, and one thing did strike me.
In the first photo, you see cloth, material, sheet, chemise or whatever, immediatly next to the hand in D6. I believe the same bit of material is present in the second photo in A and B 4,5, & 6.
I think the reason Mary's left leg looks as if its flat on the bed in the first photo is because of the angle from which it was taken (IE, slightly above the body looking directly at her somewhat elevated knee.) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page