What the photos may tell of her last moments

[Blues]

too much credit...

Now I am of the belief that this was the work of the lover - we agree there - but I do not think that this is the work of a copycat. A copycat would have continued to "copy" whenever the situation required it - "Blame it on Jack...just mutilate her." And murders would have continued - possibly escalated or worsened in severity if that's possible. The problem with this is that it assumes that not only the person can kill (a serious personality flaw) but that he can also chop a body up at will (a much MORE serious psychological disorder). Some can kill...but what happened to MJK is the work of a heartless F who not only did it out of extreme HATRED for her, but did it with the ease of someone who had DONE it before. Someone kills someone...that might happen...but for them to then take a knife and defile every inch of them...reach into their rib cage and pull out half a lung...and then cut out their heart? This is not a case of "Holy S...I killed her...Oh well, I'll just pull out the surgical gear, gash her throat to the vertabrae...deflesh the thighs...the forearms...seperate an ARM!...the BREASTS...the liver the uterus"...oh my Lord...This is not the work of someone who wants to make it LOOK like someone else did it. To perform this kind of work, you MUSTMUSTMUST be even more heartless than a murderer. You must be sicksicksick . Jack the Ripper - if we are to believe that he murdered the women that were disembowelled/mutilated etc. (for if we don't agree that he did murder THOSE women, this whole website and conversation is moot) then it speaks of a sick progression that ends with the death of MJK. MJK, IMO took to entertaining Johns in her room - once Joe was gone - in her room because JTR killed on the streets. She was "safe" in her room. She controlled that scenario. She thought. Her clothing etc. speaks to the fact that she was comfortable. I just cannot - and never will - buy the idea that someone can simply RUIN an individual to the extent the MJK was because they needed to "copy" JTR. It doesn't follow rational sense that ANYONE can mutilate someone to this extent. Fear of being "caught" (which this person wasn't at the time...he was in the confines of a room that at the time posed no threat) doesn't jibe. He was able to go about his work at his leisure. Now - a murderer goes about his work and then leaves. This is not the work of a simple murderer. This is the work of a depraved man. Depravity like that does not simply wash over you. It is learned...it is practiced and it is stomached through practice. This is not the work of a ONE TIME KILLER. No way. Not gonna buy that in a million years. But - I'm open to your views - kidding of course?

Blues

Thread related.......can anyone deny that by the state of Mary Kellys clothing, or lack of it, that she was in the company of someone she either intended to be, or had been, intimate with?

Ok...good.

Now, does anyone remember the witness who is accreditted with seeing Mary and a man together enter her room?

Mary Ann Cox....good.

-Who is the witness that sees Mary leave her room after that?There is none.
-Who is the witness that sees Mary return to her room? The discreditted one.
-What can be gleaned from these small factoids, in connection with the pictures of Mary in MJK1, and MJK3? That the Blotchy Faced man is the only known suspect in the death of Mary Kelly.

Excellent.....just like Mr Burns says it.

Now, the room being dark and quiet by 1:30am means that they were inside together...in a situation that may involve Mary undressing, and one that did not require light. Or it means one or both had left. Since for them to have left before 1:30 am puts them in potential contact with Mary Ann, or Elizabeth coming in for the night....and neither sees them ...or him or her alone, its reasonable to assume that they both were still in the room at the time it goes quiet and dark.

There is a reason for Marys partial clothing that uses only the known facts and accreditted witness testimony for support....she was in bed with Blotchy Face by 1:30am. Another possibility is that she let him out and went to bed alone.....but that requires an unseen trip while residents of the courtyard are still coming and going.

Any other explanation for her undressing later than 1:30am requires a trip out again, or her falling alseep dressed with Blotchy Face still in the room at around 1:30am.....and one has no trusted evidentiary support....the other is not plausible.

So what the photo tells us about her last moments is that she was killed by someone she allowed to see her in her state of undress. A client, or intimate friend.

Since there is not a single account of anyone stating, suggesting, inferring or hinting that Mary started to bring clients into her room after Joe had left, we are left with the probable answer.

Mary was killed by Blotchy Face after partially undressing, or someone she knew intimately who arrived on their own after everyone in the court and house was inside for the night, and likely after Blotchy himself had left.

Reducing the possible viable known suspects to perhaps 3 in total.

No evidence is present at that stage to suggest Jack the Ripper is her killer, its only after the damage done to her is known that The Phantom rears his head.

Only what is done to Mary resembles "Jack", how he gets her alone, or to her room, and inside it, and is allowed to stay without loud rebuffing and why he is with a woman half the age of prior victims are questions that are not answered by Jacks track record, or MO...because the cuts are the only element that is familiar here. And ever so familiar...in fact I believe he does all the actions cumulatively that we see done to the 4 prior victims...the acts that the press reported in detail anyway. Including the taking of a heart...though not attributed to more than a letter at that point.

The only original acts were the ones that were incomplete or pointless....the limb defleshing....and the placement or organs about and under the corpse. Neither act either relevant to killing a person or opening her abdomen, or strictly practical, like placing intestines out of the way.

Jack the Ripper used the knife to kill, after subduing the victim.....Kellys killer attacked her while awake with the knife first....and with only one exception, that of Kates facial damage and her inner thigh, ...he only cuts into the midsection of the body, from pelvis to breastbone.

Mary Kelly is cut from her knees to the top of her head.....and just emptied, not defiled surgically....like Annies murderer did.

So in conclusion.....because this was just establishing the premise, I think the photo reveals that Mary was almost certainly killed by a lover, not a stranger....and that means Strike One for Ripper theorists here. There is no connection known or assumed of killer and victim with any of the first four women added to the Whitechapel Murderers list, let alone one with such intimate underpinnings as Marys and her late night killers seemingly had.

Long winded I know...I am sorry, but I need to round out the problems before getting to why I think this works best, because there will be detractors.

Why would Jack the Ripper kill a lover when the whole of London was watching each other with narrowed eyes anyway? Why kill close to home now?

But if you suddenly find yourself standing over a dead woman that youve just killed in the Fall of 88, why not try and imitate Jack?

Best regards all.

[Ben]

Or, at least, please let's not argue about the merit or otherwise of modern doodles that purport to represent the scene, unless they are reasonably accurate to begin with

Sound advice, Gareth, and my apologies to you, Glenn, and other contributors and readers of this discussion for my part in allowing this rather desperate nonsense to continue. I became frustrated with Fisherman's obsessive gainsaying and hectoring prose. He's welcome to disagree with me, but his insistence upon inapplicable experiments and the misappropriatin of mathematics is unhelpful and alienating to other posters.

Best regards,
Ben

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

And the band plays on.

R.I.P. Thomas Bond.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam writes:
"at least, please let's not argue about the merit or otherwise of modern doodles that purport to represent the scene, unless they are reasonably accurate to begin with."

To me, that seems to imply that you are of the opinion that what I have offered -that would be the doodles you mention, I trust? - is NOT reasonably accurate, Sam, and you are most welcome to elaborate on it!

I wouldn't say that, Fish. It's just that I was conscious that the debate had become focused on your diagram, rather than the original photos, which were - after all - the reason I set up this thread.

God forbid I should get my crayons out

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:
"at least, please let's not argue about the merit or otherwise of modern doodles that purport to represent the scene, unless they are reasonably accurate to begin with."

To me, that seems to imply that you are of the opinion that what I have offered -that would be the doodles you mention, I trust? - is NOT reasonably accurate, Sam, and you are most welcome to elaborate on it! I would welcome any effort on your behalf to elucidate the whole business, since Ben seems totally unwilling to post any material that could go to strenghten the case that we can see all the way up to Kellys neck behind her.

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Chaps,

I don't know if anyone else is confused, but I am. MJK1(2) and MJK3 [namely, the photos that might tell us of Kelly's last moments] are challenging enough to interpret, without getting all muddled with debates about boys, socks and whatever else one may have put in a diagram.

Can we stick to the original photos, please? Or, at least, please let's not argue about the merit or otherwise of modern doodles that purport to represent the scene, unless they are reasonably accurate to begin with.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I have asked people if your comparison is fair. They are respected members of this board. They say no, it isn't fair."

Oooh, I missed that one! Respected UNNAMED members of these boards, I take it? Well, who cares, long as this respected group of knowledgeable experts can tell you to get a move on and produce a sketch or something along them lines that goes to prove that I am wrong. I welcome such initiatives!
And donīt forget, Ben - to get YOU right, we need an explantion to how you can see something in direct connection with Kellys neck, plus you originally rejected my sttement that there would be at least 15-20 centimeters hidden behind head and neck, saying that it would be very much less than so. Now that you have that panel behind you, come on and show me how!

"My stamina pisses and defactes over yours any day, as you've learned by now, and you'll be dead before me anyway."

Meaning that we are in a hurry here, Ben; proof, please? Alternative sketches, please. Either you or any of your illustruous friends?
And while you keep pissing, I will keep learning about the case - somehow I thought thatīs what it was all about.
Stamina, eh? Jerk!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Whoops, missed that one:

Directly behind her neck, though, we can not see, since it is and remains an impossibility to see through things of materia that will not allow light to pass through it.

"No, that's bogus."

What is it you are calling bogus here; the fact that we can not see what is there directly behind her neck or the fact that it is impossible to see through things made up of materia that will not allow light to pass by..?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

No babbling. No insults.

Substantiation. Figures. Angles. Heights. Distances. Comparisons.

The rest, Ben, you can stuff somewhere, since it is useless. Believe me, it IS almost impossible to see through a person. The "almost" is something I added because of the fact that all those who read your insightful posts in this errand will be perfectly able to see through you. Thatīs what emptyness does.

Oh,and the pillow thing has already been accounted for. Itīs in my earlier posts. I used pillows that let the boys head sink in deeper that Kellys head did, and therefore I would arguably have had a disadvantage there too. But I dont mind, like I say, I have COLOSSAL margins. So dont worry about the sagging pillow (that looks completely unsagging in MJK1). Take care of that sagging babbling of yours instead and turn it into:

Substantiation. Figures. Angles. Heights. Distances. Comparisons.

Til then,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Here's comes Billy-Long-Post again with unsuccessful debating fallacy number 2; trying to wear out the opposition to no avail with verbosity and prolixity.

Yes, you do. You need to demonstrate how they could possibly be wrong - but then again, you canīt, can you?

No I don't. You need to demonstrate that they must all be right. I'm under no obligation to prove a negative. I'm saying that if one of your conjured-up guesses is wrong, the whole "40 centimetre" theory is rendered bogus and nonsensical.

And that they are not, which is why my pic resembles the Kelly pic so closely

Again, this is all so wonderfull circular. Your belief that the "pic resembles the Kelly pic so closely" is based solely on a misplaced faith that all your guesses must correct, but if they're not correct, then your photo doesn't resemble it remotely closely. In fact, by insisting on measuring the unmeasurable in precise centimetres and millimetres, all your doing is making your guesswork even less likely to be correct.

Which is why I have done so. You should have noticed by now.

Not at all. You're delusional to think so.

No. Not because I say it is - because it is obvious to anybody who looks at the picture that the angles dont vary much enough to allow for any other conclusion than the one I have drawn - that there is a large area hidden behind her.

Not behind her neck there isn't. Pictorial evidence refutes that claim. That whole neck locality is ensconced in blood - on it, round it, and behind it - and it's just silly to posit the existence of a bloodless white patch midst the gore just because you want one to be there.

But I can assure you that there is no way that any estimation comes anywhere close to bringing that blood up close to her neck.

And I reject that assurance, based as it is on a demonstrably flawed approach, and an unjustifiable confidence in your own measurements which stand a good chance of being poor guesses. At the moment all we're getting is "I've proven my case because I say I have".

And if I say that the blood is at least twenty centimeters away or if I say that it is twelve inches away changes nothing. It still leaves you wrong.

No, it doesn't. It leaves you trying to mutate your guesses and assumptions into proven facts.

Have a look at the top of her right knee, Ben - what do you see directly behind it? The wall? Absolutely. And must that wall be DIRECTLY behind her knee?

That doesn't compare with the neck and juxtaposing pillow, does it? Speaking of which, the pillow counts for a great deal in terms of the region visible behind the neck. A pillow will naturally sag (to varying degrees depending on its fluffiness) when a neck and head rest upon it. As Kelly's head rests, the pillow will "give" and the thus allow the bits of pillow to the immediate left and right of the neck to bunch up. Unless that pillow was rock solid, your measurements clearly didn't account for this varied and is therefore flawed for yet another reason.

Why is that, considering the fact that it could be done in my picture, that represents the same motive from the same type of height and angle.

We don't know that.

We only have your assurance, which looks more worthless and desperate by the minute.

You could be a more than a foot out, for all we really know.

What are you raving about? If you have two objects in a photograph that are at the same distance from the lens, donīt you see that you can compare them sizewise?

That's if they really are the same distance from the lense. But if you're counting your millimetres on the basis of an assumption that Kelly must have been 170 centimetres tall, we're already in baseless no-evidence territory.

Finally, You are hinting at how you reached that superrior solution of yours. Im STILL anxiously awaiting it, Ben. Come on no, Bro - you can do it!

I have done so, in the post directly above yours. It's simple. It doesn't misappropriate mathematics to a fallacious degree, and it doesn't involve Swedish newspapers.

Moving the camera a centimetre closer to the bed would not change a millimetre of the hidden area.

I don't believe that for a second, but that wasn't my point. I believe your photograph to have been taken too close to the head of the bed to allow for an accurate comparison, which means that the area under contention was more likely to be concealed by the head.

Why is it, Ben, that you never will concede defeat?

Because I'd be lying to myself and others, and fuelling the ego of someone truly bereft of common sense in the process. I have asked people if your comparison is fair. They are respected members of this board. They say no, it isn't fair.

"I have effectivly proven that a double-folded tabloid could be fitted into the space behind a boy in a similar photo of a MUCH LOWER BED."

You haven't demonstrated that, and even if you had, it would count for nothing in the absence of any compelling reason to think your stab-in-dark guesses are accurate, or that your photo comparison is anything like applicable to the Kelly photograph.

Come on, Ben - call in the possy, amass the expertise, do the homework, draw the diagrams, take the pics and show me how I could be wrong - so far you have provided nothing but the arrogant assertion that you dont need to produce anything because youīre you.

I just do this:

Look here everyone:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1821

Blood on her neck. Blood round her neck. Blood behind ner neck. The blood we can see is absolutely not confined to the right-hand extremety of the bed.

No experiments, millimetres, newspapers, or boys on beds are required to demonstrate this.

Fisherman wants to posit the existance of a bloodless white piece of pillow between neck and blood to sure up one aspect of a theory he's currently mangling.

And I also put it to you that I will happily rub it in until you make a decent try do do something productive about it

Bring it on, you fatuous Swedish turd-for-brains.

My stamina pisses and defactes over yours any day, as you've learned by now, and you'll be dead before me anyway. So keep rubbing it in, and if you keep repearing the same tired, easily refutable nonsense, I'll just keep copying and pasting, enjoying Swedish meatballs in the process. How utterly disrespectful to to the readership of casebook to keep threatening to bombard the thread with your fecal nonsense.

Directly behind her neck, though, we can not see, since it is and remains an impossibility to see through things of materia that will not allow light to pass through it.

No, that's bogus.

The gap - if one even exists - between the neck and the nearest juxtaposing piece of blood is so negligible. The fact that you're desperate to lengthen the space and incorporate some unseen dry patch where none exists is only indicative of a desperation to sure up your nonsense I'm afraid.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

Look here everyone:
"Blood on her neck. Blood round her neck. Blood behind ner neck."

Letīs be pedagogic here:

1. The blood on the neck. That would have come about as the killer cut her.
2. The blood round her neck. That too would have come about as her killer cut her.
3. The blood behind her neck. It should be there, since it was reported by both Bond and Phillips. Directly behind her neck, though, we can not see, since it is and remains an impossibility to see through things of materia that will not allow light to pass through it. Which reminds me of your suggestion, Ben - no light passing through there, either.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I don't need to demonstrate that they were all wrong."

Yes, you do. You need to demonstrate how they could possibly be wrong - but then again, you canīt, can you?

"All it takes is for one of them to be wrong for your "exact science" to collapse like balsa wood."

No, Ben. What it takes is for one or more of them to be horrendeously wrong. And that they are not, which is why my pic resembles the Kelly pic so closely.

"If you're the one making the overconfident claim that the distance between the neck and nearest piece of blood is 30 centimetres, it's up to you to produce the goods and consolidate that claim"

Absolutely. Which is why I have done so. You should have noticed by now.

"then claiming that you get the same results in a photograph you took (which was in the same angle, position etc because you say it is..."

No. Not because I say it is - because it is obvious to anybody who looks at the picture that the angles dont vary much enough to allow for any other conclusion than the one I have drawn - that there is a large area hidden behind her.

"You can't speak of things being "roughly" or "approxmiately" the same, and then start flinging "millimetres" and "57 centimetres" about. You can only gauge a rough similarity, which means narrowing things down even to within ten centimetres is a bold claim that won't withstand scrutiny. We need to stop talking about centi-bloody-metres, and concentrate on feet and inches."

Would you prefer if I said "exactly", Ben? I would not, since what we are working from are estimations and nothing else. But I can assure you that there is no way that any estimation comes anywhere close to bringing that blood up close to her neck. And if I say that the blood is at least twenty centimeters away or if I say that it is twelve inches away changes nothing. It still leaves you wrong.
Have a look at the top of her right knee, Ben - what do you see directly behind it? The wall? Absolutely. And must that wall be DIRECTLY behind her knee? Or could that knee be a fair distance from the wall, in spite of the fact that the wall is what we see... ehrm... "directly behind it"?

" I don't think you could have fitted one in in the Kelly photograph."

Why is that, considering the fact that it could be done in my picture, that represents the same motive from the same type of height and angle. To dispell it all, you must prove that the Kelly pic is taken from a radically different height and angle. And once youīve done that, you must explain why it looks the same in the two pictures. It will be pedagogically difficult, believe me, Ben.

"Measuring objects in a PHOTOGRAPH in millimetres, Fish?
Great, makes loads of sense.
I'll photograph Everest and give that to you in millimetres."

What are you raving about? If you have two objects in a photograph that are at the same distance from the lens, donīt you see that you can compare them sizewise? What is it you canīt comprehend here, Ben. Wherein lies the difficulty? I will explain it all even more slowly if you need to. The rest of the boards will probably fall asleep, but for the sake of clarity I am willing to walk you through it, leading you by the hand and gently revealing the secrets of mathematics to you.

"Here's another fallacy "I've done the work so I win the argument". It depends on the quality of the work, and in this case, I find it sorely lacking."

Meaning that there would be another, better way to reach an understanding of how the scene can be transferred into a roughly measurable unit? Thatīs interesting, and whatīs more - it is EXACTLY the thing I have been asking for all day now. Finally, you are hinting at how you reached that superior solution of yours. Heureka! Im STILL anxiously awaiting it, Ben. Come on no, Bro - you can do it!

"The angle and position of your camera could be way off, for example. You could easily have been too far to the head of bed by a foot, let alone a centimetre."

Never flaunt your ignorance, Ben - and if you feel you have to, donīt set out by saying that your opponents posts make you giggle.
Moving the camera a centimetre closer to the bed would not change a millimetre of the hidden area. In fact, if you were to put the camera at exactly 160 centimetres over the veryforefront edge of the bed, it would still leave a ten centimeter hidden area behind the head. Move the camera one metre out in the room, using the same height, and more than twenty centimetres disappear behind the head.
Now, Ben, we KNOW that the camera was not positioned thus, since we can actually SEE the side of the bed facing the lens, canīt we? Plus we can SEE how much the lens could take in when shooting MJK3, canīt we? From that we can, beyond any reasonable doubt, conclude - as have all the ones who have studied and written about MJK1 - that the camera was standing a fair way away from the motive. In fact, Ben, the photographer would have tried to get as much as possible of the motive into the lens, and with the lens available to him - as shown by MJK3 - that means that he was standing as far away as he possibly could in that room.
If, Ben, he had virtually leant in over Kelly, donīt you think that you would have noticed such a thing? Donīt you think it would have somehow would have, shall we say ...differed? from the pic I posted, taken from the 160 centimetre height, angling down the lens against a 44 centimetre high bed, some three metres away?

Why is it, Ben, that you never will concede defeat? Why is it that you rave on about uncertain angles and measures, when I have COLOSSAL margins to use, that would STILL leave me with a very significant area unaccounted for behind her?

Ask anybody you know, Ben, if my comparison is fair. Take the two pictures to any photographic expert and ask the same. Ask anybody on these boards if they are willing to second your claim that the blood behind Kellys neck is DIRECTLY behind that neck, when I have effectivly proven that a double-folded tabloid could be fitted into the space behind a boy in a similar photo of a MUCH LOWER BED.

Come on, Ben - call in the possy, amass the expertise, do the homework, draw the diagrams, take the pics and show me how I could be wrong - so far you have provided nothing but the arrogant assertion that you dont need to produce anything because youīre you.

I put it to you that you have lost this issue by a mile - and a Swedish mile at that! And I also put it to you that I will happily rub it in until you make a decent try do do something productive about it. Your pathetic whining "heīs wrong, really he is - please, please believe me!" is not exactly the scientific approach that will dispell it either. I was expecting a little bit more than that.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Look here everyone:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1821

Blood on her neck. Blood round her neck. Blood behind ner neck. The blood we can see is absolutely not confined to the right-hand extremety of the bed.

No experiments, millimetres, newspapers, or boys on beds are required to demonstrate this.

[Ben]

I have - in vain - asked you to present how my estimations could possibly be all wrong.

I don't need to demonstrate that they were all wrong. All it takes is for one of them to be wrong for your "exact science" to collapse like balsa wood. If you're the one making the overconfident claim that the distance between the neck and nearest piece of blood is 30 centimetres, it's up to you to produce the goods and consolidate that claim, and simply guessing the distances involved and then claiming that you get the same results in a photograph you took (which was in the same angle, position etc because you say it is) doesn't cut the mustard on that score. To claim that you're proven correct and I'm proven wrong is just loopy and arrogant.

You can't speak of things being "roughly" or "approxmiately" the same, and then start flinging "millimetres" and "57 centimetres" about. You can only gauge a rough similarity, which means narrowing things down even to within ten centimetres is a bold claim that won't withstand scrutiny. We need to stop talking about centi-bloody-metres, and concentrate on feet and inches.

And not a millilitre of the blood you can see behind her neck is any closer that neck than 20-30 centimetres!

Well, I'll leave others to make their own assessments. There's blood on her beck, and there's blood on the patch of pillow directly juxtaposing the area of her neck. Gee, I wonder what could possibly exist between that virtually non-existent gap? A yawning 30-centimetre chasm of miraculously glistening white pillow, or more blood? I mean, wouldn't that be the most astonishing thing in the world considering the amount of blood everwhere else? Again, you don't have any measurements to work with. Rough comparisons don't entitle us to pronounce of the various distances with the precision you're trying to foist upon us. You're saying, in effect, that if A, then B, C, and D. But what if A's wrong?

How in the blazes do you think it would be possible to hide a newspaper there, if such was the case? How?

Simple. I don't think you could have fitted one in in the Kelly photograph.

Your argument seems to amount to "These are the correct measurements because I say they are, and this is a fair test/comparison because I say it is". This isn't the first time you've wheeled out members of your family to participate in unsuccessful "Let's try to get one over on Ben", but I'm sure they must be getting royally sick of it by now.

Such a thing SHOULD be measured in millimetres to make any sense!

Measuring objects in a photograph in millimetres, Fish?

Great, makes loads of sense.

I'll photograph Everest and give that to you in millimetres.

Up til now you have not presented ONE-SINGLE-SHRED of evidence to counter my carefully undertaken sketch and photo

Here's another fallacy "I've done the work so I win the argument". It depends on the quality of the work, and in this case, I find it sorely lacking.

How in the whole world did THAT come about...??

By you, conjuring up a load of distances that were completely guessed, and then trying to recreate the scene on the basis of those guesses and then claiming victory. The angle and position of your camera could be way off, for example. You could easily have been too far to the head of bed by a foot, let alone a centimetre. It's annoying to hear you keep stating that the comparison is a fair one because you say so.