What the photos may tell of her last moments

[Fisherman]

Hi again, Blues!

No I am not a follower of Bruce Paley - my killer is Joseph Fleming, Marys lover from Bethnal Green.

The best, Blues!
Fisherman

[CitizenX]

No I am not a follower of Bruce Paley - my killer is Joseph Fleming, Marys lover from Bethnal Green.

Hi Fish...

So is that Joe Fleming as the killer of Mary or Joe Fleming as JTR. I know it's a little off topic ....but i'm interested!!

Kevin

[CitizenX]

I tend to agree with Fisherman in that Mary's final position is completely posed by the killer. I've always had the opinion it was Jacks "thing" to pose the victim in way that would shock whoever discovered the body. It's within keeping with the positions of the previous victims (Nichols/Chapman/Eddowes) in fact she almost looks identical to the prone position of Kathy Eddowes (apart from the left hand). It has been said that he raised the victims legs and knelt between them because it was easier to access their abdomen. In Mary Kellys case however kneeling between her legs would obscure what little light was coming from the fire behind.

Kevin

[Fisherman]

Whoa, hold your horses, Kevin!

I can´t remember ever stating that there is any proof that the scene was staged - but I will readily admit that there are elements involved that would not contradict such an assumption, that mainly being the "cushion" made up of a breast, her kidneys and the uterus. The rest is a little bit more difficult to reach certainty about, but there is no denying that if Jack was looking for theatrical effect, what he came up with was a top notch scene ...

On your question whether I see Fleming as the killer of Mary or as the Ripper, the answer is that I think Fleming killed Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. My theory as to how and why is published in the latest issue of Ripperologist (No 97), should you feel like delving deeper into it!

All the best, Kevin!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Please stay on topic

Pretty please, folks - try and stick to the script. This is not a "suspects" thread.

[Fisherman]

Point taken, Sam. I was polite but wrong. Or whichever.

The best!
Fisherman

[CitizenX]

Whoa, hold your horses, Kevin!

I can´t remember ever stating that there is any proof that the scene was staged - but I will readily admit that there are elements involved that would not contradict such an assumption

Fisherman

Sorry I meant Michael (Perrymason) got a bit mixed with my references there!.

Kevin

[perrymason]

Howdy all,

So I stick true to thread premise, I think the photograph when combined with the narrative indicating just where the body cavity parts or flesh was left around her body and table, indicate that we are seeing Marys corpse and the initial impact of the total scene as being "staged" by her killer.

I mentioned on another thread he might have envisioned himself "creating" on a canvas of white linen.

I think the one incontrovertible thing we must see in that photograph, are the clearest signs of severe mental illness from a Canonical killer. Self indulgent, inquisitive, curious, lacking attention span, brutal-(face slashes), purposeful/meaningful-(placing a breast under her head), a desire to de-flesh bone, and the worst characteristic of all, considering the circumstances, ...a sense of humour, placing her arm back across her hollowed body, having her face the windows or door, her overall form looking "peaceful".

Ill bet he was certifiably mad enough to smile at his own cleverness when leaving...."Now that should give them some pause down at headquarters", he thinks to himself with a smirk as he releases the spring latch, and closes the door, locking it behind him.

The photo shows that killing Mary and taking an organ, her heart in this case, was not enough for this man.

Best regards all.

[Ben]

Click the pic, and there you are!

There what is, Fisherman?

That's just a pencil drawing of a few angles.

I just don't get it.

Yes, I accept your point that a certain areas are obscured, and yes, they could very well cover the total area you're envisaging (40 centimetres or whatever it was you suggested), but I'm talking about the blood directly behind the neck as seen in the photograph, and there certainly isn't a 40 centimetre gap between neck and blood.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I just don't get it."

I know, Ben - that is why I am trying to show you how it all works.

"Yes, I accept your point that a certain areas are obscured, and yes, they could very well cover the total area you're envisaging (40 centimetres or whatever it was you suggested), but I'm talking about the blood directly behind the neck as seen in the photograph, and there certainly isn't a 40 centimetre gap between neck and blood."

Now, ther´s some progress! We have left the "the-blood-is-directly-behind-her-neck-stadium" at last.

And you are to some extent correct, Ben: The neck, being not as high above the palliasse as the head, will offer an angle that makes us able to see the stretch behind her closer to the body than the head will. An approximate height of the neck would be somewhere around fifteen centimetres, and that would leave us with an obscured area of about 35 centimetres, if we accept my sadly offered pencil drawing with a few angles - that is if we use my suggestion of where the camera was. Incidentally, that height corresponds very well with how the surface of the bed is represented in the photo, and so it IS close to the mark.

Now, we may of course be speaking about 34 centimetres, or even 33. Then again it may be 37 centimetres. Thing is, the angles we are at liberty to use, taking into account the possible variations in height of the photographer and the fact that the motive displayed tells us that the camera was not close to the victim (if you compare the MJK3 you will see just how little of the width of the scene was taken in by the camera when the shot was taken from close distance), do not allow for any large changes in them measurements. And that is not me - it is the conditions provided as shown by my drawing.

At the end of the day, the area left unaccounted for behind neck and head is large enough to have accomodated a double-folded tabloid newspaper without our being able to see it! And that is large enough an area to question what amounts of blood were on the linen close to her head. The stretch we CAN see, and that is drenched in blood, could well be matched by an equally long stretch of which we can say nothing.

And speaking about saying nothing, that is what I will resort to for the next few hours - I am going shopping, to help Santa Claus out with his problems, and so I won´t respond to any posts for some time.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[DVV]

I'm sorry, I must have missed something in all those files and reports! Corroborative evidence for Hutchinson! And here's me thinking he emerged, gave his somewhat dodgy account, and vanished.

In other words, all we know about Mr Hutchinson we know from his own mouth. And if he came back to the VH 'early in the morning of November 9th' why was he hanging round Millers Court in the small hours? On a rainy night? In November?

I'll believe he fetched up at the VH on that night. I assume there are records of his being there. I see no reason to doubt that he knew the victim. I see no reason to doubt that he had hired her services over the years those times that she was on the game and he had some money. I see every reason to doubt his account of that night. If he was staying at the Victoria Home, why in hell was he hanging round Millers Court? He'd seen Kelly pick someone up. He had every reason to believe that she was going to spend some time with her punter. He had no money, and she had made it quite clear that it was money she needed. It was cold. It was raining.

Like I said. I don't believe a word of his account.

Hi Chava,
right, you missed something...
I was alluding to the fact that Hutch was an alias of Fleming, and there are serious evidences for this. For example, Hutch said he knew Kelly for years. Remember that Kelly didn't live in Spitalfields 3 years prior to her murder... So choose: believe Hutch or not in this respect, but if you believe him, then Hutch must have a curious gift to live around Kelly at different places and times...

Sorry all to be off-thread!
Amitiés,
David

[Jeff Leahy]

Pretty please, folks - try and stick to the script. This is not a "suspects" thread.

True Sam, and I dont beleive for a second that the police would not have checked on Barnet and Flemming..

Move on: But so often the question of the position of bodies is raised.

And while I agree that 'Jacks' purpose was an ends to a means..

Surely the final pose of the victims was 'as one' with the function and purpose of the MO as a whole?

Pirate

[Ben]

I know, Ben - that is why I am trying to show you how it all works.

You mean how to conjur up a load of guesses and assumptions and pass them off as an "exact science"?

Well thanks. Now I know.

Now, ther´s some progress! We have left the "the-blood-is-directly-behind-her-neck-stadium" at last.

Well, no, because the blood is directly behind her neck. I didn't say anything about a stadium.

An approximate height of the neck would be somewhere around fifteen centimetres, and that would leave us with an obscured area of about 35 centimetres, if we accept my sadly offered pencil drawing with a few angles

No, it wouldn't.

Because we don't accept your "sadly offered pencil drawing" (there's your first clue!)

Because your guesses as to the heights and angles could well be wrong, and probably are, based as they are on guesswork and pencil drawings. There is absolutely no possibility that an area of 35 centimetres could possibly exist between the neck and the nearest blood patch in the photograph. That's irrefutably impossible. Just look at the photograph. If you lie on a pillow, it will not remain rigid. It will "give" at the sides as the weight of the neck pushes into it, so it would count for little how tall a neck is.

And that is not me - it is the conditions provided as shown by my drawing.

Your drawings reflect nothing but eccentric and baseless guesswork, as you've acknowledged, so any fool will understand immediately that your assertion as to the "unaccounted for" space between the neck and the blood behind it is based on a woeful misappropiation of what you refer to, falsely, as "mathematics".

At the end of the day, the area left unaccounted for behind neck and head is large enough to have accomodated a double-folded tabloid newspaper without our being able to see it!

Wrong.

Demonstrably false.

Bogus.

Wilfully misleading.

There is virtually no space whatsoever between Kelly's neck and the nearest piece of blood. His 30-40 centimetre guess is utterly beyond the realms of possibility. But I can't wait for your response. I'm actually getting an erection at the prospect of another fight-til-page-5000 style debate. It's amazing, the power I have to hypnotize posters into obsessive attemps to get the last word; to dictate the amount of time Scandinavian ripper-enthusiasts spend on their computers.

[Chava]

David, I'll have to disagree with you. I don't see any evidence at all of the man Hutchinson being the man Flemming. Hutchinson may have said that he had known Kelly for a number of years. That is his account, and there is no corroborative evidence whatsoever to back him up. I'm not sure of your stance here. Do you think Hutchinson/Flemming killed Kelly? Do you also think this man was the Ripper?

Meilleurs amities
Chava.

[Ben]

Hutchinson may have said that he had known Kelly for a number of years.

He definitely said that he had known Kelly for three years, Chava. Fleming had apparently become acquainted with her at the same time, when she was living in Pennington Street, which was some considerable distance to the south of the murder locale. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that a man who lied about other stuff could easily have made up the "three year" detail too, but in which case, it's interesting that he chose to invent a number of years that just happened to correspond to those of another man who really had known Kelly for that long.

There's no "proof" that they're the same, but there is circumstantial evidence for the possibility of a match.

Best regards,
Ben