Was Bond right about the cut linen?

[Fisherman]

Here´s something that was discussed peripherally some time back on another thread. I think it deserves a thread of it´s own, though, which is why I bring it back up again.

When Kelly was found, Dr Bond remarked that "the sheet to the right of the woman's head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack"...

The last time over, it was suggested that Bond would have been wrong, and that the cuts to the fabric were due to the knife travelling into it below her as a result of the fierce wielding of the blade. I don´t think this holds much water, though. The reasons are two:
1.We know that ”the face was gashed in all directions”, from the report Bond made about Kelly. To me, that implies that if the blade really travelled down into the bedlinen and the matress as the killer cut, then we should expect to find the fabric cut at both sides of the head. This, though, was not the case: it was cut only to the right of her (between head and partition wall, that is).
2.The cuts through the linen would not have been situated in immediate proximity to her head. If the linen was folded over her face, and thereafter lifted and replaced on the bed, then we should expect to find the cuts commencing in an area some way to the left of the head and extending perhaps some two or three decimetres further out towards the wall. There would be an uncut area of perhaps about a decimetre in length in the place where the linen travelled up from the bed as he stretched it over the face. I think that making the assumption that Bond checked his theory by placing the linen back over her face again to establish the connection is very reasonable.
Another theory that have been put forward have gone along the line that Mary Kelly herself pulled the linen over her face in a somewhat pathetic attempt to free herself of the sight of what was coming.
Interesting though such a suggestion is, I feel that there are two things speaking against that too:
1.If she had the time to realize that she was threatened at knife-point, then why did she not cry out? The single, nowadays-debated ”Oh, murder!” outcry seems very sparse in such a situation.
2.If she actually did pull the sheet over her face from the outset, then surely she was not obliging enough to keep the fabric stretched over her face as her assailant cut her? And a stretch to the linen would have been called for, since it is very awkward to cut otherwise.
I think that the most probable solution is that the killer was the one who did the stretching and the cutting, just like Bond suggests. I really can´t see any other working explanation to it. And, of course, to me, all of this suggests that the Kelly slaying was perpetrated by someone who had close bonds with her.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Bailey]

"To me, that implies that if the blade really travelled down into the bedlinen and the matress as the killer cut, then we should expect to find the fabric cut at both sides of the head. This, though, was not the case: it was cut only to the right of her (between head and partition wall, that is)."

If the killer was left-handed this would make sense. As a lefty, imaging cutting a face like that, you'd move the knife from your right to your left. So when cutting the side of the face closer to the wall, a stroke across the face, moving from right to left, would, if there was any downward angle in it, end in the blade very likely striking whatever surface you're cutting on.

If she was face up (and imaging the killer astride), this would be quite likely as the nose is the highest point and the sheet slopes down and away towards the bed. On the other side a left would effectively be cutting upwards and away from the bed.

Just a thought, no angle or agenda to push And of course if the killer was right-handed, the reverse would apply.

Cheers,
B.

[Fisherman]

Hi Bailey!

You may have misunderstood me here - what I tries to disprove was the notion that the linen was never over her face, as suggested earlier on the boards by, for example, Sam Flynn. When you write "the sheet slopes down and away towards the bed", I take it you are working from the presumption that it actually WAS over her face?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Bailey]

Hey Fish

No, I typo'ed there, it should have said "cheek" rather than "sheet." I was picturing Mary on top of the sheet, and the sheet on top of the bed, and the knife, held by a lefty, cutting from high and right (eg say nose level) down and to the left - as it would travel down the curve of the face - and then catching the sheet (and possibly the mattress below) as collateral damage at the end of the stroke. This could also possibly apply during throat cutting, I suppose, depending on the angle. Again, all this rests on MJK being on her back and the killer attacking from directly "in front" or astride her, thus reducing the likelihood of it having happened this way.

Like I said, just a thought that occurred to me, rather than an argument in favour of anyone else. It simply entered my head as a reason the sheet might be cut on one side of the head but not the other as per your point 1. So I guess therefore I am somewhat in support of your argument

As for the actual idea of the sheet being over the face - makes little sense to me to be honest. It may be that she chose to sleep that way, but that seems odd. And I find it unikely the killer pulled it over to hide what he was doing from himself! I'll maybe buy that it got pulled up in the struggle and slashed accidentally, but that assumes a struggle, which also seems doubtful for all the well argued reasons we know and love. Collateral damage to the sheet during some other part of the process works for me, but I wasn't there, so what do I know?

B.

[Fisherman]

Since this thread has not gained any speed yet, I will throw some more wood into the fire.
Like I have already mentioned, it has often been speculated that the much cut linen to Kellys right hand side was due to the knife travelling down into the fabric at the ends of the strokes to her face, and not to the notion that the killer covered Kellys face before he cut away at it.

Let me just point out that Bond reports that the sheet was much cut - but there is no mentioning that the palliasse was! And surely, to check for that would be the only thing that could conclusively show if the sheet was lying over the paliasse as it was cut - or not.
I suggest that this simple confirmation was assured, and that Bond therefore would have been perfectly right!

The best!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Where is this mysterious sheet that covered her face, then? Phillips doesn't mention it, and he was there before Bond. The only sheet Phillips mentions is that located at the corner of the bedstead nearest the partition, which was saturated in blood - and this sheet is under Kelly's body. Bond himself only mentions that one in the notes he made on the spot, whereas his theorising about a sheet having been over the face only appeared in hindsight.

[Fisherman]

Sam asks:

"Where is this mysterious sheet that covered her face, then?"

To the right of her, Sam, as Bond said. I do not think he made it up, or that he misremembered. I think that although she was lying on it, there would have been material enough to grab hold of and lift up over her face, cut, and let it drop back again. The pic does not allow us to see if it is lying loosely on the palliasse behind her head, but I think it would have done.

No, Sam, what we are missing is not the sheet - it is the corresponding cuts in the palliasse under it.

The best!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

"Where is this mysterious sheet that covered her face, then?"

To the right of her, Sam, as Bond said.

The sheet to her right is under her body, Fish. In fact, all of the sheets are. Phillips (who was first on the scene) only surmised that Kelly's head was in the top right-hand corner of the bed when killed - he makes no mention whatsoever of any sheet having been over her face at the time. That - or so it would appear - is quite possibly because there was no "over-sheet" there in the first place.

I think that although she was lying on it, there would have been material enough to grab hold of and lift up over her face, cut, and let it drop back again.

Why on earth would he do that? Oh, yes - I forgot - you believe that Kelly was killed by someone known to her... For info, I'm happy to entertain that possibility as well, except I'm not in the least convinced by Bond's theorising on the specific matter of the cut sheet.

[Fisherman]

There would have been no professional agreement of the sheet having been over her face, I´d think. Thus we should perhaps not expect any such statements from Phillips.
And I am not looking for any oversheet, Sam - I think that the undersheet was what he used. Kelly is lying close to the front edge of the bed, and she would have been moved there after having had her throat cut in the vicinity of the corner of the bed. It left a long stretch of the undersheet to the left of her, between head and wall. After that, he would have grabbed hold of the sheet in it´s left side, by the partition wall, and folded it over her face as he cut. Then he would fold it back down again, leaving the sheet cut, and the palliasse under it uncut - seemingly a riddle, but a riddle that Bond provides the solution to.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

After that, he would have grabbed hold of the sheet in it´s left side, by the partition wall, and folded it over her face as he cut. Then he would fold it back down again, leaving the sheet cut, and the paliasse under it uncut

Again - why on earth would he have done that? Did he do the same for every other part of Mary Kelly's body that he mangled to destruction? I doubt that a man capable of doing all that would have felt the need to hide the knife-cuts as he made them. He clearly didn't mind seeing the end result in all its g(l)ory after he'd finished slashing her features, so why the Red Indian "smoke signal" routine whilst he was inflicting the facial wounds?

seemingly a riddle, but a riddle that Bond provides the solution to.

...a riddle Bond created, you mean.

[perrymason]

Hi Fisherman,

I dont think we need to presume the sheets actually were over her face, or head, just that she perhaps had a linen sheet up over her left shoulder as she lay on her right side facing the partition wall, and when she is attacked from above and to her left, the twisting of her upper body to the threat brought the knife in contact with the sheet, and blood from her face and neck. Just raising a sheet covered left arm to block a slash might have been enough...it would be at face level.

When she is flipped over, to her left, she rolls over on most of that stained and cut sheet.

I believe what your looking for here is that she very likely was on her right side facing the wall, towards the upper right corner, either indicating her killer was being offered the spoon position to join her in bed, or sex from behind her. Since she is wearing the chemise, and perhaps a single stocking, this does'nt ring true to me as a sex gesture. We also know that at the time we assume we last hear from Mary, after she stops singing after 1am, the next sound that may be her is the cry at 3:45am. If she was inside the room all that time, I would think she must be assumed to have been sleeping for the greater part of that 2 hours. And since we know her room has been dark and quiet for perhaps that 2 hours when she gets her late visitor, I think its more likely that he was supposed to sleep with her, literally.

Mary could ONLY, and I cant stress this point enough, ...have been killed quietly because her guard was down, and she reacted slower than she was overpowered. If she had been able to kick, scream, shove a chair at him...I believe Elizabeth would have heard that, still being awake for some minutes after the "cry". She stated she could hear things moved about in Marys room. So the ONLY way a man could get into her room at almost 4am, to get close enough to her to kill her, while she is in bed undressed, is either a lover, or someone she is having sex with for money. Someone whom she might fall asleep on with her back turned towards them I believe fits the scenario we are left with.

The second option, is less viable because it seems pretty clear that she did'nt leave the room again, and therefore would likely have been sleeping. Since she did'nt need doss money, and she is likely passed out from too much booze last night, ..I think that leaves a lover as a primary suspect, because she doesnt need to take a client in at that point in the evening.

Cheers FM

[Fisherman]

No, Sam - I mean that Bond solved it, nothing else.

Why would the killer hide the face as he cut? Why would anyone cut out the heart of a woman and fillet her legs? We are clearly not dealing with rational driving forces only, are we? But in this case, such a force can be sensed. My suggestion is that the reason for it all was because Kelly was killed by Fleming, and that the deed was something he really never wanted to do - though in the end he felt he was compelled to.

Therefore, I suggest that he did not want to see her face as he cut it. It was due to the fact that her killer was a personal relation, a lover, something that may well also be implied by the venue and her overall appearance, undressed as if she had gone to bed, suggesting that she was perhaps not prostituting herself as she was killed.

Here´s a few things that deserve mentioning alongside the rest.

The oversheet-undersheet thing: If he had used an oversheet, then that would have been laid loosely on her face, and that means that he would have faced difficulties cutting through it, Fabric needs to be stretched if you need to cut into tissue under it, and that stretch was provided by Kellys own body when he used the undersheet, pulling it over the face.

Also, there is the question of WHEN her face was cut during the process. If the cuts in the linen was a biproduct of slashing at her face, then we must accept that both the neck-cutting and the face-slashing was performed as she was positioned up in the corner. It does not fit if she was lying as we see her in the pic, with her face perhaps some thirty centimetres from the foremost edge of the bed, does it?

To make Bonds suggestion a viable one, we need to move her far to the right on the bed before there is enough material free to her other side to lift up over the face. And that was where she was moved!

My suggestion is that he cut her neck in the top corner, and then he moved her to the middle to facilitate the mutilations he was planning. To have her lying far away in the corner would be a more awkward starting point.

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Michael!

Many points of agreement here - the focus being that the man who killed Kelly would more probably than not have been an aquintance of hers, and that she was probably having sleep, not sex, on her mind.

The best!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Fish,

I can't see why on earth the killer would have lifted the sheet up and towards him - or up and away from him, for that matter - in order to inflict the wounds. He was already in an awkward position to begin with, without having to fumble with the furniture trimmings as well.

My suggestion is that he cut her neck in the top corner, and then he moved her to the middle to facilitate the mutilations he was planning.

I agree, but where in all this the sheet-across-the-face episode happened is completely baffling; and why it should have happened even more so.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:
"I can't see why on earth the killer would have lifted the sheet up and towards him - or up and away from him, for that matter - in order to inflict the wounds. He was already in an awkward position to begin with, without having to fumble with the furniture trimmings as well."

Here´s my take on the practical matters, Sam:

He is in the bed as he cuts her in the top corner. The blood gushes out, hits the wall and drenches the bedlinen and palliasse in the corner. After that, he either gets up from the bed, onto his feet, and drags her in position for mutilating her, or he never leaves the bed, rolling her over to that mutilating position anyway. Then he probably straddles the body, and sitting on top of her he pulls the sheet over her face, tightening it with his right hand and cutting away with his left. The other way around is less of a probability, though not an impossibility - he may have arched his left arm over her, holding onto the linen with it and pressing it down on the side of her face closest to the forefront of the bed.
After he has cut the face, he folds the linen back down again, and moves further down the body, enabling him to get at the abdomen and her organs, as well as to cut away her breasts.
If this is a viable scenario, then we should prepare for accepting that for example the liver was put in place AFTER he had finished cutting.

Of course, if he was left-handed, he may have been able to carry out the evisceration bit standing by the side of the bed. But I would favour him being in bed with her most of the time as he cut.


The best,
Fisherman