What the photos may tell of her last moments

[Fisherman]

Hi Blues!

The Kelly killing WAS the work of a lover if I have got it right. The other killings were perpetrated by the very same man - but for a different reason altogether!

The best!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

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

Keep giggling while you have the time, Ben. You are wrong and I suspect you know it. When I find the time I will post a sketch showing exactly why.

Incidentally, I am not saying that I am exact science myself (I just come close...) - thatīs just you dabbling with the cards, Ben-style. What I am saying is that I am taking advantage of an exact science to prove you worthy of a giggle or two yourself, Ben. There is a difference, actually.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Ben is saying that he can see the blood all the way up to Kellys head.

Nope, Fish.

Ben isn't.

Ben's underlining the rather crucial fact that heavy blood staining is visible in the region behind Kelly's neck, with more beyond it towards the partition. Since the blood in question unquestionably occupies a large portion of the right hand side of the pillow (not a tiny extremety in the corner), and was unquestionably close to Mary's neck region as it resided in the middle of the bed, I don't see how it can be argued that Kelly's entire frame must have been right up agsinst the partition.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

You are wrong and I suspect you know it.

Oh, here we go.

I can always rely on my detractors to resort to this style of argument when things get patently desperate. The classic; "I've won the argument because I say so, and my opponent knows it" mantra.

You decided what the various measurements were on the basis of pure guesswork and assumption, and then tried to pass them off as "given measurements" and an "exact science", and when I challenged it, I get called stubborn.

[Blues]

I'm hip Ben...

I get ya - Barnett knows her AND is Jack? I can dig that. I can also dig that he was killing to get her off the streets - consequently, when she's dead, why continue? Do we have any history on him (without me doing any work of course) after the MJK killing until his death? I'd like to know how he wrapped up after something so heinous. I also see potential in Barnett being the "I know more about the murders than you" guy at the market as well. But - if Barnett was a well known visitor of Kelly, why wouldn't any of the "witnesses" have said "I saw her with Joe, as usual, that night."? I am assuming he was at least somewhat known around the area and other locals would have seen him on the streets and recognized him...as the ladies are in the low 5 feet range, were most men in the 5'5 to 5'8 range in this time period as well? At 5'7, I am feeling mighty mighty about now

Thanks for the thinking/thoughts.

[Blues]

Fisherman...

I am with you for many of the same reasons as I laid out to Ben...I read your post soon after...So you are a fan of Paley's theory as well? Maybe you can help me with some of the questions I asked of Ben? I should just pick up the book and get some learnin' into me knoggin'. Heaven forbid!

Thanks!

Blues

[perrymason]

Hi Guys, nice to see you too Fisherman...

I think if Marys head was at the upper right corner, facing the wall, not pressed against it, we have a viable starting point. With her back turned, and I wouldnt be surprised if she had her legs tucked into her a bit...spooning alone, as it were.

If you look at her position in MJK1, all the killer had to do after slashing at her in the upper right portion of the bed, is grab her left arm and roll her back over onto her back,...she would end up roughly in the middle of the bed, and perhaps her legs would bow open and save him the trouble of having to do it.

That she was killed on the right side of the bed is without question, and that alone can dictate the nature of her visitor, which is the key here.

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

Not a Barnett thread...

I get ya - Barnett knows her AND is Jack? I can dig that. I can also dig that he was killing to get her off the streets - consequently, when she's dead, why continue? Do we have any history on him

If there is, it'll be on Barnett-related threads, Blues. (Look under "Suspects" and "Witnesses" - he's classed as both!)

This thread's about the photographs of the Kelly crime scene, so let's not get into Barnett territory here!

[Blues]

sorry about that...

As I explained in my first post - for some reason I was ( and still am it seems ) getting tossed between the two threads for an unknown reason. Anyway - enough Barnett talk then...Can you point out the "bottle" to me in the photo? I have yet to "see" it. Some accounts say the room was dark during the early morning hours...I've also read/heard that there was a blazing fire. If dark - Jack mutilated for the pure feel of the flesh, digging about and would have - just by merely holding the flesh he was cutting away - been stained quite extensively. I just don't see this kind of mutilation being done in the dark...it'd be hell in dim light as well. Was the uterus damaged so that it wasn't keepable? From the looks of MJ's hands, she seems to be quite slim...her ribcage doesn't speak of a stout woman either...I agree with an earlier poster that her breasts (if ample) may have given her a stout appearance. I have come across that in my days. All in all, the more I speak of the photo, the mutilations et al, the more I seem to think that the person felt comfortable and "safe" in this room...knew where things were and didn't seem too rushed. Sorry to digress again, but did JB have room mates at the time of the murder? He either slipped off a layer of clothing and burned the top layer before leaving or covered it well with his jacket. I am officially rambling now. Again, sorry for the thread confusion and thanks for the conversation.

Blues

[perrymason]

Hi Blues,

Well see if we can deal with these and get back onto the photos

Can you point out the "bottle" to me in the photo? I have yet to "see" it.

There are things that some see and some dont, and we dont know which parties are wrong.

Some accounts say the room was dark during the early morning hours...I've also read/heard that there was a blazing fire. If dark - Jack mutilated for the pure feel of the flesh, digging about and would have - just by merely holding the flesh he was cutting away - been stained quite extensively. I just don't see this kind of mutilation being done in the dark...it'd be hell in dim light as well.

Id agree with that, but I think all we have is a single bit of candle and the fire,...it was suggested by Fred Abberline no less that the fire was hot enough to melt a the kettle spout...I dont know if that translates to very much light necessarily.

Was the uterus damaged so that it wasn't keepable?

Good question.....and no, it was perfectly intact, cleanly excised, and left behind.

From the looks of MJ's hands, she seems to be quite slim...her ribcage doesn't speak of a stout woman either...I agree with an earlier poster that her breasts (if ample) may have given her a stout appearance.

Since her limbs themselves dont match a description of stout, I do think we are talking about a woman who was buxom and perhaps thick in the waist.

All in all, the more I speak of the photo, the mutilations et al, the more I seem to think that the person felt comfortable and "safe" in this room...knew where things were and didn't seem too rushed.

I agree that the photo doesnt portray what happened at all, just the result, and I think her pose is intended to mock her wounds, If you follow me. I believe the killer posed her "naturally", as if reclining provocatively on a day bed...when we know the savagery that went on in there. I personally think this murder is one of the bunch back in 88/89 that in some ways does smack of an artist creating a scene...except his canvas was the bed.

Blues

Ill leave the JB issue for another thread, but some good ideas in there Blues.

Best regards

[Chava]

You mean like this:

http://web.utk.edu/~glenn/Goya_Naked.gif

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

Since the talks about her body structure seems to be going on in this thread too;

Maybe she was "just" buxom, while entering the East End. When she started drinking heavily, she became stout...

Then, to talk about the real issue of this thread; like perrymason stated earlier, she could have taken her left hand on front of her face, maybe to avoid slashes. I hope everyone realises, that the following presumption is a light one; in that case she could have been a lefty...

But in that case, what was the role of the right arm, that was nearly cut off the body? Could she have hit JtR somewhere, maybe to the temple, causing rage of some kind?

And now for a presumption, that I have already presented on another thread: the left hand could have been placed there simply, because JtR cut her face last!

Oh-oh, a much longer post than intended...

All the best
Jukka

[The Good Michael]

From the looks of MJ's hands, she seems to be quite slim...her ribcage doesn't speak of a stout woman either...I agree with an earlier poster that her breasts (if ample) may have given her a stout appearance.

Many people who are stout don't have pudgy hands. I suppose It is possible that those who have described her as stout were liars. Yet, how realistic is that? "Stout" was not a negative word back then. It meant that someone was well-nourished looking, and that was a good thing. Let's keep the romance out of this, please. Nothing can be garnered from the photograph that can negate MJK's stoutness. In fact, if one is to believe that most of what's on the table is flesh, the opposite is more likely.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben!

This is what I have been speaking about. I do hope that everything works out with the downloading of my pic. If you take a closer look you will see that I have provided four different angles, rendering obscured vision fields of 10, 20, 30 and 40 centimetres, respectively.
Thing is, the only credible angle is the one that produces an obscured area of 40 centimetres. The other angles produce impossibilities, the 30 centimetre one craving a photographer of nearly two and a half metres.
So, irrespective of the fact that we cannot reach any exact measurements, we CAN reach more than enough exactitude to establish that a very substantial area is hidden from our sight behind Kellys head.

And this is where what I have said about exact sciences applies, Ben. You are welcome to challenge my wiews on things, of course, but the fact that a very substantial area is out of sight is actually proven quite unchallengable.

A look at the ribcage of Kelly will further show what I mean. A female ribcage is not too deep, especially not if the breasts on it are cut away. We may be speaking of some 30 centimetres or so. But that is enough to obscure the back of the bed totally from our wiew in MJK1! And of course, the same laws apply to the head - it will obscure a lot of ground.

Incidentally, what can be hinted at by these things is that the bed probably was a bit wider than 90 centimetres, as implied by the fact that the 40 cm angle almost covers all the bed in my drawing. In the pic, we can clearly see that a part of it is visible behind her head (the part that was blood-saturated), and so we may have to allow for the bed being around perhaps 105-110 centimetres.

Click the pic, and there you are!

All the best!
Fisherman

[IMG][/IMG]

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Good Michael!

I have already told my view of the buxom/stout issue in my previous post, so in that sense nothing more to add.

But... thinking about MJK being almost as tall as an average man of the time 5'7"(=170,28 in centimeters), being naturally buxom might have made her look like even more stout than she was... maybe... Does this make any sense at all?!

All the best
Jukka