Working position of the killer

[Pierre]

Many of us have ideas that include information being withheld Pierre, but proving that requires some evidence that there was some sort of collusion or suppressed information.

There is evidence Michael. Look at MJK3 and MJK1.

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

There is evidence Michael. Look at MJK3 and MJK1.

Has it occurred to you that the doctors would have required full and unfettered access to all sides of the bed upon which the mutilated body of Mary Jane Kelly was lying in order to carry out their initial examination? As the bedstead was found 'close up against the wooden partition' (evidence of Dr Phillips), either the wooden partition would have had to have been dismantled or the bed moved to allow the doctors the access they needed.

Once the bed had been moved, the photographer could have taken further photographs to augment those he had previously taken showing the original state of the room.

It really seems to be very simple.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pierre,

A word to the wise.

If you are going to use one of my drawings upon which to superimpose your fantasies [Post #18], at least have the good grace to first ask my permission.

Being a charitable sort of chap, I can only imagine that the copyright notice at the bottom of the drawing escaped your attention.

Regards,

Simon

[DJA]

Arghhh!

Adblock not working!

[Michael W Richards]

I think as David said Pierre, you can imagine all the scenarios you want to explain how body/bed positions don't seem consistent from MJK1 to MJK3. What I believe is that there must have been some manipulation of the crime scene to allow for any photos to be taken, this room was 10 x 10 without furniture, there the police and photos to negotiate the space. As I said before, there were apparently 6 photos taken by at least one photographer, who knows what positions the bed/Mary/table were in for those shots.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

A word to the wise.

If you are going to use one of my drawings upon which to superimpose your fantasies [Post #18], at least have the good grace to first ask my permission.

Being a charitable sort of chap, I can only imagine that the copyright notice at the bottom of the drawing escaped your attention.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

it did. And thank you for your kindness.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

I think as David said Pierre, you can imagine all the scenarios you want to explain how body/bed positions don't seem consistent from MJK1 to MJK3. What I believe is that there must have been some manipulation of the crime scene to allow for any photos to be taken, this room was 10 x 10 without furniture, there the police and photos to negotiate the space. As I said before, there were apparently 6 photos taken by at least one photographer, who knows what positions the bed/Mary/table were in for those shots.

Yes Michael, but the problem is we don´t have any data source suggesting the police moved around furniture. What we do have is data sources suggesting the killer might have done that. They may have a low reliability but they are there.

When I make a suggestion or work with a hypothesis I go all the way with it. When I do, that doesn´t mean that I am convinced of anything.

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Yes Michael, but the problem is we don´t have any data source suggesting the police moved around furniture. What we do have is data sources suggesting the killer might have done that. They may have a low reliability but they are there.

When I make a suggestion or work with a hypothesis I go all the way with it. When I do, that doesn´t mean that I am convinced of anything.

Regards Pierre

We do have some information that we do not need confirmed by the police Pierre, for example, almost certainly the killer left the room via the door. Both windows were latched, the door was likely set with the latch off so that it would lock when it closed behind the killer as he left. That means there wasn't any furniture that later impeded access to the room. Which means "forcing the door open" was likely inaccurately characterized.

What we also know is that Elizabeth Prater claimed she could hear when Mary "moved about" in her room, which suggests that there wasn't noise made that was loud enough to wake her again after Diddles initially did.

We also know that Marys throat was first slit when she was close to the partition wall, because of the splatters. Since she is in the middle of the bed when found, she must have been later moved to that position.

[David Orsam]

Yes Michael, but the problem is we don´t have any data source suggesting the police moved around furniture.

Yet it is part of your case (as you confirmed to Elamarna) that the police moved the bed against the partition, and the table against the bed, in order to create MJK1. So, by your own words, there's a problem with your case is there not?

What we do have is data sources suggesting the killer might have done that. They may have a low reliability but they are there.

I would say you are wrong about that. The data source which suggests the killer moved the furniture is of high reliability. It is the evidence of Dr Phillips that the door knocked against the table when it was opened.

What we don't have, Pierre, is any data source suggesting the killer barricaded the door with any of the furniture. What we do have, fortunately, are data sources of very high reliability that the door was not barricaded.

[Michael W Richards]

Yet it is part of your case (as you confirmed to Elamarna) that the police moved the bed against the partition, and the table against the bed, in order to create MJK1. So, by your own words, there's a problem with your case is there not?



I would say you are wrong about that. The data source which suggests the killer moved the furniture is of high reliability. It is the evidence of Dr Phillips that the door knocked against the table when it was opened.

What we don't have, Pierre, is any data source suggesting the killer barricaded the door with any of the furniture. What we do have, fortunately, are data sources of very high reliability that the door was not barricaded.

I keep seeing the same unsubstantiated remarks even after its been proven they are either pure speculation, inaccurate, and/or, pure fiction.

Why this is allowed at all puzzles me, that it continues annoys me, and I don't understand why the source isn't restricted to voicing any of these so called theories under our Fiction section.

[Michael W Richards]

One additional point....Mary Kelly had defensive wounds on her. When Elizabeth Prater and Sarah Lewis heard the call out, both listened for further sounds which did not come. That means the call out DID NOT signify the beginning of an attack on Mary.

Some evidence of that comes from Elizabeth Prater in particular, because she could "hear when Mary moved about in her room", and heard nothing after the call.

[Pierre]

One additional point....Mary Kelly had defensive wounds on her.

What is the evidence?

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

What is the evidence?

Regards Pierre

Knife slash wounds on her arms, and nicks on her hands.

[Pierre]

Knife slash wounds on her arms, and nicks on her hands.

The whole body was full of wounds. It is impossible to know anything about defence.

Regards Pierre

[Abby Normal]

One additional point....Mary Kelly had defensive wounds on her. When Elizabeth Prater and Sarah Lewis heard the call out, both listened for further sounds which did not come. That means the call out DID NOT signify the beginning of an attack on Mary.

Some evidence of that comes from Elizabeth Prater in particular, because she could "hear when Mary moved about in her room", and heard nothing after the call.

The defensive wounds probably came while she was crying out in my view.
And the ripper was nothing if not efficient at quickly silencing his victims, which is why they didn't hear anything immediately afterwards.

We've gotten contentious on this before and I don't want to now.
But I will concede your scenario is possible, just not probable IMHO.