What the photos may tell of her last moments

[Chava]

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

Ben, forgive me, but that's awfully tenuous to be 'circumstantial evidence'.

[Ben]

In isolation it may be, Chava, but when taken in conjuction with the other details (discussed elsewhere), the similarities would more than qualify as circumstantial evidence.

[Roy Corduroy]

Call him Buckaroo

[Sam Flynn]

Call him Buckaroo

...glad that's caught on!

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"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."

And that, Ben, is what you have been doing all along - looking at the photograph and trying to assess distances and areas from ... looking.
That is a very scientific approach, I would say. Plus you think it entitles you to say that I am "wilfully misleading". That, Ben, is sooo low.

Now, why don´t you - for a change - present a diagram, a sketch - something, anything - that goes to show how you can allow yourself such accusations? Please remeber that what we need to see here is a credible explanation to how you can see the blood DIRECTLY BEHIND HER NECK. And remember that you from the outset, when I, before having measured it all, said that my guess was that 15-20 centimetres were hidden, stated that it would be much less than so.
Supply me with a credible explanation to why the laws of nature do not apply here, and prove to me how you can see what you claim you see. Begin by assessing how long a stretch of the bedding you can see in front of her head, then add the stretch you can see behind it, then add the two figures together - and explain what happened to the rest of the width of the bed.

After that, you better brush up on that foul mouth of yours. Call me a liar - which is the equivalent of "wilfully misleading" (and that without ANY substantiation) - and I will call your cards and hold you responsible for it, believe you me!

Evidence now, please. And babbling away about what you THINK you are seeing will NOT do!

Fisherman

[DVV]

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.

Hi Chava,
yes, that's my opinion, and there are several points to back it up (see the thread "alias Fleming and Hutch" initiated by Sam Flynn and Ben in 2006, if I'm correct.
But this same Sam Flynn will invectivate me for being off-thread, so I won't make this post too long!

Amitiés Chava,
David

[Ben]

Plus you think it entitles you to say that I am "wilfully misleading".

I apologise, Fisherman.

Consider that retracted.

I think you're being unintentionally misleading.

Please remeber that what we need to see here is a credible explanation to how you can see the blood DIRECTLY BEHIND HER NECK

But I don't need a diagram when I have photographic evidence of blood directly behind the neck, not 40 centimetres behind it.

And remember that you from the outset, when I, before having measured it all

But you didn't measure it. Because you had nothing to measure. Because you were looking at a photograph, and because you didn't have any given measurements to work with. What I find irksome is people's stubborn inability to cultivate an "agree to disagree" awareness, especially when I've made it perfectly clear that I disagree most profoundly with your methods of determining the distances involved.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Call him Buckaroo

Nah, Roy.

The correct term of address is "Cluedo", though I'd also accept "Mousetrap".

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Can I ask you guys what you actually are arguing about? That is, if you really have a clue yourselves.
I have tried to follow this thread for the last three or four pages and I am still no wiser now than before about what's going down here.

What the f*ck does it matter if blood is visible behind Kellys neck or not?
According to doctor Bond's post mortem report, there were splashes of blood on the wall where her neck was situated (or was situated at the time of the murder) and the right hand corner of the sheet underneath this spot was saturated with blood. In a direct line underneath there was a pool of blood on the floor.
That is all we know - period.
The only assumption we can make is that Kelly's neck at the time of the murder was where the blood splashes were found on the wall and not where it was as we see it on the photo, since her body was moved by the killer. Exactly at what height Kelly's neck and head was situated when she was killed is impossible to estimate from the photo since it is very difficult to make out any clear blood patterns, and to be frank I don't see if it's a matter of such immense importance.

If Thomas Bond hadn't already committed suicide in 1901 by throwing himself out of a bedroom window, he sure would have after reading this thread.
I would certainly know how he'd feel.

[Blackkat]

If Thomas Bond hadn't already committed suicide in 1901 by throwing himself out of a bedroom window, he sure would have after reading this thread.
I would certainly know how he'd feel.

Holy Crap! LMAO

[Roy Corduroy]

The correct term of address is "Cluedo"...

Aha, then he who searches for him is Inspector Cleudo.

[Fisherman]

Okay, Ben, here is the picture I promised - if it all works out technically.

It should all look very familiar to you, since it is a pic of a person lying in roughly the same position as Kelly did, and taken from approximately the same angle. The black object lying on the pillow behind the head of the boy is a sock. It lies at a distance of 33 centimeters from the back of his head. As you can see, that is the point furthest away from him that is obscured.
The area behind the boys neck is obscured to a distance of close to 20 centimetres. The object that you can see over his head and to a very little extent also behind his neck is exactly what I said would be able to hide without giving you a chance to see it - a tabloid newspaper folded double - in this case a copy of the paper where I work, Sydsvenskan. The paper holds traditional tabloid size, that is 40x29 centimetres.

As you can see by now, Ben, each and every word I have told you about the hidden area behind head and neck was completely true. Now, you may want to quibble about angles and such - as you have desperately been trying to up til now - and so I have a further surprise in store for you.
The bed in which the boy is lying is 44 centimetres high, measured from floor to the top of the matress. And that explains why the obscured area behind the head is NOT around 40 centimetres, as I spoke about. In fact, using the angle I suggested (and that angle is shown to be very close to corrrect by my photo which is taken from that eact angle, with the lens 160 centimetres over the floor and 3,6 metres from the wall behind the boy in the bed) the outcome with a 44 centimetre high bed should be exactly a hidden area of 32-33 centimetres behind the head and close to 20 behind the neck. It tallies, down to the last centimetre.

But how high was Kellys bed? It is quite easy to estimate roughly. Have a look at her lower left leg. It is lying completely parallel, more or less, to the forefront of the bed. Kelly was about 170 centimtres tall. The lower part of the leg of a woman of that length, measured from top of the knee to the footjoint is about 45 centimetres. In the picture on Casebook that Jane Coram used to show us how the left leg looked a number of posts back, I measured Kellys leg from top of the knee to footjoint, and came up with 65 millimetres on my computer. Thereafter I measured the height of the bed under that leg, and came up with AT LEAST 80 millimetres. That would hint at a height of Kellys bed coming close to 57 centimetres. And THAT means that the area hidden behind the head would exceed 40 centimetres, whereas it would end up at 30 centimetres plus behind the neck in the picture you have so far misunderstood completely. The doublefolded tabloid would disappear with ease behind her, Ben, and I could throw in a post-it sign saying "Do your homework next time over!" too. And there would be no need for you to get angered by it, Ben - for you would never see it. But then again, you are having a tough time seeing things at all, arent you?

Now, offer whatever you have to offer to prove me wrong, long as you dont just keep on saying "But I can see the blood directly behind the neck". You CAN NOT do so. It is impossible, and if you have not realized that by now, you never will. The blood you are seeing is a long way behind her.

You have now had a sketch sent over, that you ridiculed and "giggled" about, although it pointed out very clearly that there was no way I could be far off the mark, just as you have had a picture sent over that shows that my estimations are as correct as we can get, given the material we are working from.
Now it is up to you, Ben. You have been trying to laugh at this, and you have even resorted to some very strange antics, trying to drag my Scandinavian heritage into things, as if that would have anything at all to do with it. The only thing you have managed to reach so far is an asinine and stupid attitude that will be very detrimental to the picture of your credibility here on the boards.
You have been doing this before - babbling away with no substantiation at all because you "just know" things, only to be proven wrong after having prolonged the agony of it all to completely ridiculous lengths. It is high time for you to consider another attitude. I suggest you start that work right now, painful though it may be. In the end it will be everybodys gain if you succeed.

Fisherman

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/2520/leo1hz9.jpg

[Fisherman]

Glenn asks:

"Can I ask you guys what you actually are arguing about? That is, if you really have a clue yourselves."

Of course you can, Glenn. In fact, you already have. We are arguing about the unarguable. Ben is trying to convince the posters here that he can see through Kelly. And he does so to enable him to stay by his wiew that the linen behind her was bloodied all the way up to directly behind her neck. He is trying to prove that she could have bled out where she lay, and that she need not have been in the upper corner of the bed when she had her neck cut. It all gushed from the position where she is in the picture, he claims, and therefore the linen is bloodied all the way behind her. Says Ben, that is.

I say, just like you, that there is no way we can know how the linen behind her looked SINCE IT IS OUT OF SIGHT TO A VERY SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE. Therefore it could have been significantly less blood-stained than the stretch we CAN see, and therefore that lack of large amounts of blood may have helped Phillips to reach his decision that she MUST have been moved. He was sure of it, and reasonably, the condition of that area behind her would have been weighed in.

The best, Glenn!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

The pic comes out small, I´m afraid - but it is very easy to see the outline of the folded-up paper anyhow. It commences at the middle of the top of the boys head, and stretches to the borderline made up by the sock.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Fisherman,

That's a photograph of a boy sleeping on a bed.

And yes, I can tell from looking at that photograph that the sock could well be 30 centimetres or more away from the boy's head. You can even see a white patch of pillow between neck and sock. That doesn't correspond in the slightest to what we're seeing in the Kelly photograph. I'm talking about Kelly's neck and the blood immediately and directly behind it. That juxtaposition is emphatically too close to chalk it up to an issue of perspective and angles. It's virtually on her neck.

What we have is evident blood stainiing that isn't squashed up bang next to the partition as the silly fatuous myth dictates, but rather occupies a large portion of the whole right-hand side of the pillow. It doesn't matter if the killer may have moved her frame slightly to better facillitate the mutilations, but that doesn't mean she was pressed up to the partition.

Yes, there are other blood patches beyond this - about where your sock would have been - but they're not the ones I'm talking about.

It doesn't matter if you've measured the distances in that image before you took the photograph because, for all you know, they may not correspond to the measurements and distances in the Kelly photograph. It's alarming that you haven't yet grapsed this. I keep seeing these silly numbers that you've been desperately vomiting up, but they are absolutely meaningless in the absence of any knowledge as to the correct distance.

You're even talking about 57 centimetres, as though you can possibly ascertain such precise measurements from a 120-year-old photographs. That's both eccentric and laughable.

In fact, using the angle I suggested (and that angle is shown to be very close to corrrect by my photo which is taken from that eact angle, with the lens 160 centimetres over the floor and 3,6 metres from the wall behind the boy in the bed) the outcome with a 44 centimetre high bed should be exactly a hidden area of 32-33 centimetres behind the head and close to 20 behind the neck. It tallies, down to the last centimetre.

This is unsettlingly absurd.

"It tallies" - what does?

The distances in that room and your guesses as to the distances in the Kelly room? All that amounts to is "They tally because I say they do, and that proves I'm right and you're wrong". You say Kelly was about 170 centimetres tall, and then use it to judge the length of her legs - based on what? There are conflicting accounts as to her height. It's just embarrassingly desperate to witness you conjuring up a set of distances that are based entirely upon guesswork, and then claiming it proves your case. You've done this before; it's symptomatic of a desperate and immature attempt to get the last word, and you always end up getting your crayons and measuring tape or "wikipedia" to somehow claim you were right.

You're just guessing and assuming, and claiming that the boy-in-bed photograph proves your case because you've decided already that it's a dead match for the Kelly photograph.

That's just lunacy.

And then you start talking in terms of millimetres - millimetres!

You CAN NOT do so. It is impossible, and if you have not realized that by now, you never will. The blood you are seeing is a long way behind her.

That's irrefutably impossible. I can only assume that we're talking about different blood patches. Since you've been uploading photographs, can you pinpoint the blood patches you think I'm referring to, since it's becoming depressingly clear that we may be at cross purporses here.

And I didn't say anything disparaging about your Scandinavian heritage.