What the photos may tell of her last moments

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

And you know that the blood you are speaking of comes from arterial splashing ... how??

Well, either arterial splashing or the resulting ooze.

The blood that is visible to you between head and partition wall is not all that many square inches, Ben.

I disagree. The blood I'm referring to you seems to cover a very hefty chunk of the right side of Kelly's pillow. I appreciate that the visual perspective may confuse matters, but we're not talking about a small area by any means.

Wouldnīt you say that this is somewhat dependent on the sixe of the bed and the ones who lay in it, Ben?

I would indeed, but I'd say it's reasonably clear from the photograph that we're dealing with a small bed that wouldn't comfortably accomodate two adult males.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben!

You write:
"I disagree. The blood I'm referring to you seems to cover ..."

Letīs leave the assumptions and what seems to be for a sec, Ben. I have been making that rough estimate I was talking about, to try and establish how big an area that is obscured by Kellys head, and I was somewhat amazed by the result. Of course, the measurements I am using are only approximate ones, but they wonīt be hopelessly off the mark.
Here are my suggestions:
The bed she lay on was about fifty centimetrs high. It was roughly 90 centimetres wide (meaning that I hold the same meaning as you do - it was not big for two people). Letīs assume that the photo was taken through the window, and that she was lying with her head about twenty-thirty centimetres from the edge of the bed. Letīs also assume that the lens was 160 centimetres over the floor - that seems to tally well with the angle of the shot.
A womans head measures about 20 centimetres in width from ear to ear. She was lying with her head on a propping made up by a breast, her uterus and kidneys, so I am assuming that the head did not sink down into the palliasse. The picture seems to strengthen that wiew.
Now, Ben, I made the assumption that a stretch of 15-20 centimetres would be obscured by the head, whereas you stated that it would be very much less. The fact of the matter is that if my mesaurements are correct, between 35 and 40 centimetres are out of wiew! In order to shrink that to 20 centimetres, you would have to get the lens up to more than two and a half metres in height!
It sounds astonishing, and there is of course no possibility to get an exact measure. But if you take a new look at the picture, she is actually quite close to the forefront of the bed. Her left knee is all the way out, whereas her head is some way in - but not much. And the stretch we can see behind her is not a long one, perhaps only twentyfive or thirty centimetres.
I myself feel that 40 centimetres may be a bit too hefty, but we are talking about a very significant piece of linen here, Ben, that is pretty obvious.
Given the fact that she is so close to the forefront of the bed with her head, and accepting that the bed may not have been smack up against the wall, we may also be looking at quite some stretch for the arterial spray to reach the wall, which it alledgedly struck in separate splashes.
All of this, I feel, has to be what Phillips saw. We have a hefty area of perhaps 30-35-40 centimetres unaccounted for, that may well have had very little blood on it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

All of this, I feel, has to be what Phillips saw. We have a hefty area of perhaps 30-35-40 centimetres

No, Fisherman.

We don't have an area of 30-40 centimetres.

Because you have no idea if those guesses of yours are reasonable or way out, just as I don't. What we can see in the photograph is blood directly behind Kelly's neck and head. Blood that continues in dark, saturated patches towards the wall. Blood that is irrefutably not concentrated towards the extreme right hand corner, but which covers most of the right side of the pillow.

There's absolutely no way that a 40-centimetre, bloodless, bone-dry gap existed between the region of the neck, and the blood that can be seen directly behind it. It doesn't matter how wide a woman's head is if we know from the photograph that there was saturated blood behind the neck (which certainly isn't 20 centimetres).

What you must not do in future is instruct me to "leave the assumptions and what seems to be for a sec" and then claim that "your assumptions and what seems to be" carry more weight, simply because you've got out your measuing tape. Without having any clue about the dimensions of the bed, your guess is as good as mine.

The fact of the matter is that if my mesaurements are correct, between 35 and 40 centimetres are out of wiew!

If there's an "if" involved, then it certainly isn't the "fact" of the matter, is it? What if your measurements a wrong? It wouldn't surprise me, considering that you didn't have anything to measure in the first place.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Easy, Ben! Letīs not wind each other up here! This is all perfectly simple, and easy enough to test. And the fact is, with the measures I worked from, we are left with up against 40 centimetres of space unaccounted for. It is mathematics, and mathematics care little about guesswork. Therefore I strongly reccomend that you do not discard it until you have checked it yourself.
Get a paper and a measuring tape and see what I am talking about. There is no way that I will be way off the mark in the assumptions that the bed was about 50 centimetres high, and that the camera lens would have stood at about 160 centimetres from the floor. And IF we are to change to, say 30 centimetres and 170 centimetres, we are left with not so very marked differences!

I told you before that with the given measures, it would take that the lens was at more than two and a half metres height if we were to loose only 20 centimetres. Similarly, you would have to move the camera to the middle of the room to reach the same result, and I think we both know that it was not that far in - it was probably at the window.
So believe me, when you say that you can see blood directly behind her head, you are simply wrong - and a lot wrong at that. And I can easily show why I can NOT be ludicruously off the mark, Ben:
Lets assume that the lens stood at 180 centimetres. That would mean that the photographer was about 190 centimetres and standing straight up.
Lets also assume that there was NO bed, and that Kelly was lying on the floor.
What does that do to the angle? Iīll tell you! I produces an angle that means that a full 30 centimetres is left out of sight. And THAT is something that is undisputable, given that the camera was by the window. It leaves out ANY possibility that I am using too short a photographer or too high a bed, does it not?
And so, reasonably, the hidden area is PLUS 30 centimetres, Ben, and that is NO uncertainty.

Now, whether that area was bone-dry or not is something neither of us can tell. But we CAN tell that it was there, left unaccounted for us by the pic!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

And hereīs a clincher, to dispell the notion of me being off the mark:

Assume that the bed WAS 50 centimetres, and assume that the photo was taken from window distance. Also assume that there is only a small area unaccounted for in the pic, as you suggest. Letīs make that area ten centimetres. Now, where would the lens have stood to leave only ten centimetres unaccounted for? It would have stood at an even six metres, Ben.

I think it is time to lay the issue to rest, Ben, I really do. Maths is an exact science.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

And the fact is, with the measures I worked from, we are left with up against 40 centimetres of space unaccounted for.

Depends where you're talking about. If you mean the area between the edge of her neck and the the juxtaposing blood saturation as seen in the photographs, then no, that is absolulety not 40 centimetres.

Get a paper and a measuring tape and see what I am talking about.

And measure what, Fisherman?

What am I supposed to be measuring?

It's a photograph, so there is nothing so measure. You can only guess, and your guesses may be wrong. Guesses don't wind me up, but when people start passing their assumptions and guesses off as "mathematics", that starts to rankle quite a lot.

Based on your assumption as to the angle of the photographs, you've alighted on 160 centimetres, which is an oddly precise estimatate (don't know why you Northern Europeans can't just settle on inches and make it easier and less annoying!), but it certainly isn't mathematics. It's just a guess, and the same is true of your assumption as to the height of the bed.

But then you refer to them as "given measurements" as though you'd establishmed a fact. The bottom line, which so nearly became obfuscated amid all this talk of lenses and "centimetres", is that photographic evidence demonstrates quite clearly that there was blood directly behind the neck - directly behind it, without there being a miraculously dry 40-centimetre chasm in that tiny space which you claim we can't see.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

And this is just truly hilarious...

Fisherman begins his post thus:

Assume that the bed WAS 50 centimetres, and assume that the photo was taken from window distance.

And ends it by reminding us that:

"Maths is an exact science".

Wonderful irony, but I'm afraid that'll be a D- at GCSE level.

[Fisherman]

Then what are we to award you in natural science, Ben?

I should have known that you were ready to fight even maths - thatīs exactly you: If the map and the reality differ, always use the map.

Hereīs what I want you to do, since you ask what you are to measure: Draw a floor line, 36 centimetres long, corresponding to the twelwe approximate feet of No 13 Millerīs court. Then draw a bed to the left, about 9 centimetres wide. Draw a round shape, representing a head, of 2 centimetres on top of the bed, about two or three centimetres from the right hand side of the bed. It is all in scale 1:100.
You are free to put Kelly on the floor, should you wish to, just as you are free to move the camera around in that room.
Donīt forget to check the angles you will have to use to make the unaccounted-for patch "tiny". And then, when your pants hit the floor, donīt blame me. You unbuttoned them yourself.

The very best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Remy.russell]

I'm so glad I have a strong stomach for those kinds of things. :|

I see a garder where someone saw blood, I think it just looks more like a garment than a mutilation.

[Remy.russell]

Frick! Wrong forum--sorry!!!

[perrymason]

Ben, Fisherman,

You two are doing what I did...which was wrong, we need to respect the thread premise specifically, so do you two really believe that the 40-50 centimeters is any real issue in the overall scheme of things? Im just as bad, but trying to quit..lol.

In the photograph, what are the essential elements that may have some impact on the investigation?

I believe one is the fact that she is partially dressed, the most obvious one. I believe that the scene is not one of someone "entertaining", but rather of someone late at night, tired, and not worried about her state of dress or undress due to the nature of the visitors relationship with her. I believe she was covered by a sheet at one time, and that the room was warm anyway, because I feel that Mary and Maria did laundry all afternoon using that fire for boiling water. Mary was paid a few coins by Maria, and there is laundry there that Maria admits to bringing. Thats why we see a tin bath under her bed, instead of it being pushed under so it doesnt show....like when "entertaining" someone she doesnt know well. For guests we toss the laundry in the closet, for lovers.. we just leave the underwear on the floor, or the stocking tossed on some bedding.

Cheers all.

[Blues]

Back to the earlier convo...

For some reason as I read through this thread, I am getting thrown back and forth between the picture conv. and the "What do you think happened in no. 13" conv. I apologize if this gets in the wrong one...



Anyway - I must take some exception to the remark that MJK was not a Ripper victim because of the sheer brutality of the murder...this somehow making it an act of a thwarted lover. Well, we have the case today of the Georgian anchorwoman...beaten and stabbed beyond recognition...not too much unlike the case of MJK. The man that did it - a complete stranger. Old Barnett, as far as I know, didn't have a "history of violence" with MJ. For him to graduate to this immediately while we have Jack gradually coming to this point is unreasonable to me. This kind of brutality is an act of extreme hatred for the victim and her kind. For someone to do this to a "loved one" would usually have to have some kind of precedent. Because of this and because MJK was seen with our 5 feet 6 inch friend (with his bag of tricks no less) makes me firmly believe that she was/is a Ripper victim. Just wanted toss that out there. Happy to hear otherwise though...

[Ben]

I should have known that you were ready to fight even maths - thatīs exactly you

To conjur up a set of measurements using complete assumption and guesswork and then calling it an "exact science" is just giggle-stiflingly preposterous, Fisherman.

[Ben]

Hi Blues,

I agree with you that Kelly was a "ripper" victim, but I wouldn't rule out any of the men involved with her on the basis that they didn't have a documented "history of violence". There's no mutual exclusivity, after all, between being a serial killer and knowing one of the victims.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi Michael!

Good to see you out and about! You ask:
"do you two really believe that the 40-50 centimeters is any real issue in the overall scheme of things?"

..and yes, Iīm afraid I do. If you have taken part of what has been discussed here, you will know that I am offering the possibility that Phillips grounded his assertion that she had been cut up in the corner and subsequentially moved on the fact that the corner was saturated with blood, whereas the part closest to her on her right hand side was probaly not. Ben is saying that he can see the blood all the way up to Kellys head. Therefore I am telling him that he cannot - it is impossible, and that is confirmed by the laws of nature that state that we cannot see through people. Maybe Ben considers Kelly a ghost, I donīt know - but I know he is wrong.

So, thatīs what it is all about, Mike! And of course, true to our traditions of truly entertaining pie throwing, we donīt settle it anywhere near a gentlemanly behaviour. Iīll be damned if I know why, but it always ends up this way when Iīm exchanging with Ben. That donīt stop me from telling you that I am a firm admirer of his knowledge and stamina - itīs his stubbornness I dislike. Heīll know that by now, since he will be reading this. Cheers, Ben!

The best,
Fisherman