Was Bond right about the cut linen?

[Sam Flynn]

if the killers reason to cover her face was not to have to look at her features as he cut, then he may well have removed the sheet from her face after his initial onslaught on her face, only to make the more specific cuts afterwards - by that time her features would have been gone, and it would be like cutting in a bowl of mince-meat

This game of "peek-a-boo" might make more sense if he hadn't hacked her to oblivion anyway. Anyone capable of filleting a woman's thighs and genitals, or turning her chest into a crimson xylophone doesn't strike me as the type to get queasy at the sight of a cut throat or a sliced eyebrow.

Speculation aside, it remains apparent from the MJK1 photograph that the only sheet near the top right-hand corner of the bed was, in fact, the undersheet.

[Fisherman]

Medical men, Sam,are not only interested in medical matters, though it is their speciality. They are highly educated men, more often than not displaying high intelligence and good gifts of problem-solving. They actually do not need to have any upholstering experience to understand that a knife that travels through a sheet but NOT through the fabric of the mattress under it means that they are looking at a sheet that lay elswhere when it was cut.
Actually, quite a lot of doctors equal any seamstress (in the true meaning of the word) when it comes to understanding what happens when you shove a needle through one material into another one laying under it.
Bonds suggestion is everything but a "tedious distraction" by the way - it belongs to that very small pile of evidence that actually could be used to argue a connection between Kelly and her killer. To call that tedious is to for some reason disregard something that may hold a very important key to understanding what happened in Millers Court.

The best
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"Speculation aside, it remains apparent from the MJK1 photograph that the only sheet near the top right-hand corner of the bed was, in fact, the undersheet."

Yes? And?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"This game of "peek-a-boo" might make more sense if he hadn't hacked her to oblivion anyway"

Are you suggesting that he must have rolled her entire body into a sheet to make Bonds suggestion viable? The facial features hold a somewhat different meaning to most people than does, for example, the calves, would you not say? And it is common knowledge that killers may need to dehumanize their victims before they can actually kill them. Of course, she would have been dead as he cut her face, but the dehumanization involved in denying her the facial features may well have been the door he needed to open before he could set about the annihilation of the rest of her body.
I see nothing tedious or uninteresting at all about this, Sam. I really don´t.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Sam writes:

"Speculation aside, it remains apparent from the MJK1 photograph that the only sheet near the top right-hand corner of the bed was, in fact, the undersheet."

Yes? And?

Bond speculates that the sheet was pulled over her face before the facial wounds were inflicted. If that were the undersheet, he'd have to have reached over the struggling Kelly, pulled the sheet out from the top right-hand corner and over her head with one hand, presumably restraining her with the other hand. Where and how, in the midst of all this cloth origami, does he get out his knife? At some point, he must have brought one or other of his hands free to do so - yet, whichever hand he frees (the one holding the cloth over her face or the one restraining her), it's almost inevitable that Kelly would have forced herself into a more upright position in an effort to defend herself. That being the case, the sheet is unlikely to have remained anywhere near her face for long - and certainly not long enough for the killer to have inflicted the throat wound(s) and to have started hacking at her features through the cloth.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam writes:

"This game of "peek-a-boo" might make more sense if he hadn't hacked her to oblivion anyway"

Are you suggesting that he must have rolled her entire body into a sheet to make Bonds suggestion viable?

No, Fish - I'm simply saying that a killer capable of flensing a human being from the breasts downwards isn't going to baulk at a cut face to the extent where he feels compelled to cover it up.

[Sam Flynn]

Bonds suggestion is everything but a "tedious distraction" by the way - it belongs to that very small pile of evidence that actually could be used to argue a connection between Kelly and her killer.

One could argue that, Fish, without resorting to the dubious premise that covering a face is in any way indicative of a connection between killer and victim.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:
"Bond speculates that the sheet was pulled over her face before the facial wounds were inflicted. If that were the undersheet, he'd have to have reached over the struggling Kelly, pulled the sheet out from the top right-hand corner and over her head with one hand, presumably restraining her with the other hand. Where and how, in the midst of all this cloth origami, does he get out his knife?"

This all, Sam, works from the presumption tat he first pulled the sheet, and then started cutting. My take on it is that he first cut her throat, and only thereafter pulled the sheet over her face and cut it. Thus no resistance from Kelly - she was very still and very dead as he started to cut her, I believe.

"I'm simply saying that a killer capable of flensing a human being from the breasts downwards isn't going to baulk at a cut face to the extent where he feels compelled to cover it up"

I once gain direct you to my words on the different importance of the face as opposed to any other features of the body. All the smiles and all the tears you have shared with someone, is something you have shared by a face-to-face dialogue.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"without resorting to the dubious premise that covering a face is in any way indicative of a connection between killer and victim"

Just how "dubious" is it, Sam? If he DID cover her face, what other alternative reasons can we come up with, but the one that he knew her? There would not spurt any blood from the face onto him.

Apart from him having a very bad relation with that sheet, I fail to see any alternatives. Perhaps you do, though?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

This all, Sam, works from the presumption tat he first pulled the sheet, and then started cutting. My take on it is that he first cut her throat, and only thereafter pulled the sheet over her face and cut it.

... but why does he then go on to make such a god-awful mess of the rest of her, without feeling the need to cover her up as he went along? Why, indeed, does he bother putting the bedsheet back down again?

[Sam Flynn]

Apart from him having a very bad relation with that sheet, I fail to see any alternatives. Perhaps you do, though?

I do, Fish - simply that Dr Thomas "Sherlock" Bond had a vivid imagination and took speculation too far. He did, after all, pen one of the earliest "profiles" of a killer. Full credit to Bond's efforts in this regard - not only for the "profile" itself, but also for giving us a little insight into his own psychology.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"I do, Fish - simply that Dr Thomas "Sherlock" Bond had a vivid imagination and took speculation too far. "

With all respect, Sam, that is no alternative explanation to why the killer would put the sheet over Kellys face if it was not to avoid seeing it as he cut away. And the "vivid imagination" of Bond´s is something that is of no interest at all if he did check the mattress for corresponding cuts - and I really think he did do just that.

"why does he then go on to make such a god-awful mess of the rest of her, without feeling the need to cover her up as he went along? Why, indeed, does he bother putting the bedsheet back down again?"

Once again, the facial features would be the ones most needed to cover if he had a problem to cut her that he needed to overcome. And once the face was cut beyond recognition, using the sheet as a cover, the problem of looking into her face would be a problem lost - for there was no longer any face to look at.

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

"I do, Fish - simply that Dr Thomas "Sherlock" Bond had a vivid imagination and took speculation too far. "

With all respect, Sam, that is no alternative explanation to why the killer would put the sheet over Kellys face if it was not to avoid seeing it as he cut away.

You seem to misunderstand me, Fish. I strongly believe that there was no sheet over her face - at any point - during her murder.

[Fisherman]

I don´t misunderstand you at all, Sam! I know fully well that this is your wiew of things. I merely pointed out that your answer was an answer to another question than the one I had put to you.
I am a little bit uncertain as to which part you identify as the hen and which you name the egg, though. It seems to me that you think that the act of putting the sheet over Kellys face would have been so strange a thing to do since he did not hesitate to turn her into such a mess as he did, that this means that Bond could not possibly have been right.
I read the evidence the other way around - Bonds words - to my mind - urge us to accept that the sheet was over her face as it got cut, and therefore I think it is to do things backwards to start with the suggestion that the Ripper would never have done such a thing as Bond suggested.

But misunderstand you, Sam, I do not - you leave little room for such things - and more.

The best,
Fisherman
(who is off to bed presently - I bid you a good night´s sleep, Sir!)

[Sam Flynn]

It seems to me that you think that the act of putting the sheet over Kellys face would have been so strange a thing to do since he did not hesitate to turn her into such a mess as he did, that this means that Bond could not possibly have been right.

Not at all, Fish. I think that Bond noticed knife-cuts in the blood-soaked undersheet at the top right-hand corner of the bed, and misinterpreted what he saw.