Left or right handed.

[Zena]

Wouldn't the door have to open from left to right, with the doorknob on the side closest to the window? Otherwise, no one would be able to reach the latch through the broken pane.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael,

I don't think it illogical and argumentative to provide an opinion. Isn't that what a forum is for?

Why are you so sure your version is the correct one? What are you basing it on? If you are using MJK1 a/o MJK3 as your evidence then you'd have to answer when the photo was taken and somehow prove that the furniture was not moved by any of the policmen, medical men or the cameraman. I think you'd find most believe at least some of the furniture has been moved around at some point. In fact, you even state its a fact that the eating table (as you call it) was moved. I know of no such fact, although it does seem likely.

I could be wrong Michael but I don't remember having any confirmation that the window was one that could lift up so that someone could even climb out. You mention locked windows but I don't remember hearing that before. You'd assume that if the window could lift up then it would probably be easier to lift the window up to unluck the door rather than reach through broken glass.

I have not heard that the door opened from right to left. Can you provide your source, I'd love to know more about that. I have for some reason always assumed it swung the other way.

Cheers
DRoy

I seem to have to defend known data often...not very encouraging.

The windows were locked and an example of where the door knob was, which explains how the door opens, can be found in some of the illustrations. Here is one.

[DRoy]

Im not sure why there is any discussion about his moving or not moving the nighttable, on which the entrails can be seen in the MJK3 photo and as reported in all the literature. There are no entrails or any kind of remains on the eating table, under the windows. That table is the one the door butted against, which only means that table was adjusted from its regular place...a possible reason for that I just mentioned....to get out the window.

To reiterate...the nighttable,..upon which entrails are seen and found, is where it would be everynight Mary stayed in that room..unless she tried variations of the furniture layout out of boredom at some point. There is no reason....at all...to suspect or suggest that table was moved....its illogical and argumentative, and not at all helpful.

We KNOW someone moved the eating table somewhat, and we know the room is found with locked windows and a locked door. So the killer went out 1 of 4 ways. He set the latch "off", which would mean the door would simply close and lock behind him. He left via the front window, moving the eating table in the process and used the broken upper pane to access the lock to lock it. He left the latch on, then went round to the window and reached in to engage the lock. Or....He locked it with the lost key.

The only evidence that could conceivably be used to prove any of those 4 options right now is the fact that her eating table was not in its usual place, and blocked the normal swing in of the door,...which swung in from right to left by the way.

Best regards

Michael,

I don't think it illogical and argumentative to provide an opinion. Isn't that what a forum is for?

Why are you so sure your version is the correct one? What are you basing it on? If you are using MJK1 a/o MJK3 as your evidence then you'd have to answer when the photo was taken and somehow prove that the furniture was not moved by any of the policmen, medical men or the cameraman. I think you'd find most believe at least some of the furniture has been moved around at some point. In fact, you even state its a fact that the eating table (as you call it) was moved. I know of no such fact, although it does seem likely.

I could be wrong Michael but I don't remember having any confirmation that the window was one that could lift up so that someone could even climb out. You mention locked windows but I don't remember hearing that before. You'd assume that if the window could lift up then it would probably be easier to lift the window up to unluck the door rather than reach through broken glass.

I have not heard that the door opened from right to left. Can you provide your source, I'd love to know more about that. I have for some reason always assumed it swung the other way.

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

The table that was struck by the door, as it opened, was the one by the bed.

If a table under the window had been struck by the door as it opened, it would not have opened, in fact it would not open to let the killer out either.

Therefore, as the door swung open it hit the table that stood by the bed, suggesting this table was not it its typical position.

Why the bed was placed a few feet from the passage wall is another mystery, unless the washstand stood behind the headboard.

.

I believe the door contacted the eating table Jon. The nighttable is apparently clear of where the door would swing by....opening from the inside, from left to right. Its why I believe coat hooks would be behind it as its sits open.

All the best

[Wickerman]

The table that was struck by the door, as it opened, was the one by the bed.

If a table under the window had been struck by the door as it opened, it would not have opened, in fact it would not open to let the killer out either.

Therefore, as the door swung open it hit the table that stood by the bed, suggesting this table was not it its typical position.

Why the bed was placed a few feet from the passage wall is another mystery, unless the washstand stood behind the headboard.

.

[Michael W Richards]

Im not sure why there is any discussion about his moving or not moving the nighttable, on which the entrails can be seen in the MJK3 photo and as reported in all the literature. There are no entrails or any kind of remains on the eating table, under the windows. That table is the one the door butted against, which only means that table was adjusted from its regular place...a possible reason for that I just mentioned....to get out the window.

To reiterate...the nighttable,..upon which entrails are seen and found, is where it would be everynight Mary stayed in that room..unless she tried variations of the furniture layout out of boredom at some point. There is no reason....at all...to suspect or suggest that table was moved....its illogical and argumentative, and not at all helpful.

We KNOW someone moved the eating table somewhat, and we know the room is found with locked windows and a locked door. So the killer went out 1 of 4 ways. He set the latch "off", which would mean the door would simply close and lock behind him. He left via the front window, moving the eating table in the process and used the broken upper pane to access the lock to lock it. He left the latch on, then went round to the window and reached in to engage the lock. Or....He locked it with the lost key.

The only evidence that could conceivably be used to prove any of those 4 options right now is the fact that her eating table was not in its usual place, and blocked the normal swing in of the door,...which swung in from right to left by the way.

Best regards

[DRoy]

Jon,

That was kind of my point.

If Barnett or Harvey could say that the furniture after the murder was in the same position as it always was previously then we know the killer didn't move them. If they however said the furniture had never before been moved around or never been in the position it was after the murder then the question becomes who moved it and why.

I would tend to agree that the position of the furniture was not normal and had been put in that position by the killer. I'm speculating but I'm not sold that the table was positioned specifically for the purpose of holding MJK's internal parts. I think the table became a "convenient" place to hold them.

So, left or right handed? I don't think the position of the furniture supports one over the other in the MJK murder at least.

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Folks,

To answer one of the questions you asked Rivkah, Marys floor was wood planks.

On the furniture issue, there were 2 tables in that room, one is a night table, and the second is the multipurpose table under and between the windows. Neither table would have been moved much generally speaking..we are talking about roughly a 10 x 10 foot space here.

It is the larger table under the windows that the door butts against when they enter the room Friday afternoon, and there is a good reason why that table may have been moved that night by the killer. If he didn't know that the spring latch could be set to lock the door behind him as he left, he may have slipped out one of the windows. If it was the one nearest the corner, where the hole for the keyless access is, there is another break higher up which may have allowed him to lock the window after he left...leaving a room with locked windows and door.

Best regards

[RivkahChaya]

Regarding blood volume: what was the floor of MJK's room made from? Was it wood? Was it stone? Was it some kind of concrete? If it was stone, did it have a soft clay mortar? In other words, would it soak up blood, or not?

By way of comparison, in a recent documentary, that was generally rather silly, on Lizzie Borden, the producers went to the Borden house, and Luminoled the floor boards underneath the area where Abby Borden had been killed. They glowed. There wasn't much surprising about it, as everyone knew that was where she'd been killed, and that Luminol can bring out blood more than 100 years later. The only real new information was that the blood had soaked all the way through the floor boards, and even into some of the joists. I have no idea whether or with what the boards were finished, or how they were cured. But I guess when you lose a huge volume of blood at once like that, it does coagulate, it just dries out.

So, depending on what the floor was made of, it may have absorbed some blood.

[Wickerman]

Whether furniture was heard being moved or not I don't believe is sufficient enough to say it hadn't been moved.

Cheers
DRoy

Not knowing when Mary's murder took place is a problem, if the movement of the furniture is associated with the murder, then all the furniture could have been moved before Prater returned at 1 o'clock.
In fact it could all have been over by then.

Or, after Prater went to sleep, between 1:30 and 3:30 am. she said she slept soundly, and had been drinking, so likely wouldn't hear any furniture being moved.

.

[DRoy]

Jon & Michael,

I mentioned this on the "coat" thread already but it could apply here also...we have to assume that the police would have asked those who had been in Mjk's room what the room normally was like, what's been added, what's missing, what's different, etc. The two obvious people would be Barnett and Harvey as they both had stayed there and were considered strong enough witnesses to testify at the inquest.

I understand MJK could have moved the furniture for any number of reasons at any time. Maybe MJK purposely positioned her bed there to keep strangers out? Maybe the table was close to the bed because Kelly thought it more comfortable to sit on the bed while eating at the table? I'm sure we could all come up with different reasons. I'm not sure the reason matters though if Barnett or Harvey could say "oh yeah, she always positioned the furniture like that at night". But surely the police would have asked if the furniture placement was normal or not.

Based on the fact the furniture placement doesn't seem to ever have been mentioned, I would assume that it was not at least a normal thing for the bed to be where it was after the murder. If the bed was not in the normal position then we may also assume other furniture was also moved especially considering the size of the room.

Whether furniture was heard being moved or not I don't believe is sufficient enough to say it hadn't been moved.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Since it is found in the place where we would imagine it was to begin with, why imagine it took a trip we have no evidence of? I believe the KISS principle here is that he used the table, not that he moved the table for his ease of use.

Hi Michael.

We do know the door struck the table as it was opened, suggesting the placement of the table was not its usual location, therefore someone in the room that night had moved it.

There were two tables, the second table was under one of the windows, perhaps this first table was normally under the other window?

Nevertheless, your scenario appears to assume the killer used the table while he was in the process of mutilating the body, for this we have no confirmation.
He could just as easily have picked up the table and placed it by the bed, then picked up a pile of flesh off the bed in both hands and dumped in on the table.

.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jon,

I can see that the reason you dont understand my objections is because you feel that the first cut could have been to the left side of her throat. In Bonds PM submission he does not speculate on which side of the throat the cut was made, but I believe that there is other opinion that suggests the right artery was cut first. Thats why my counter points.

As to the position of the nighttable, just how comfortable do you imagine this killer made himself while dissecting Mary, and how much noise do you imagine he was willing to make while doing so? Elizabeth Prater said she could hear when Mary moved about in her room...surely, moving tables and such would be risky.

Since it is found in the place where we would imagine it was to begin with, why imagine it took a trip we have no evidence of? I believe the KISS principle here is that he used the table, not that he moved the table for his ease of use.

Cheers Jon

[Wickerman]

Your suggestion of a riding bare-back-pull-the-head-back throat slit doesnt address the splashes on the wall to what would be made by the left side of Marys neck..

Hi Michael.
This objection I do not understand. Her head is up clear of the bed. The left side of her neck is closest to the partition.
If cutting the right side of her neck could have caused the blood spray, if on her back, then when laying face down, with head raised, cutting the left side will equally cause the spray.
I don't see your objection, all I'm suggesting is a complete opposite orientation.


Neither do I understand this..

Since she was cut from her right to her left side, that needs to be considered.

Bond specifically noted that it was not possible to determine the direction of the cuts across the throat.

Plus we have to have an idea on how mechanically he cut and placed the materials on the nighttable,...

We don't know where the nighttable was when he was in the room with her.
We only where the table was found on entering the room.

.

[Michael W Richards]

Jon,

Just to tag onto your last post, when we are assessing how the murder took place based on the known physical evidence and the probable physical interaction between murderer and victim, everything that is done needs to be considered.

Your suggestion of a riding bare-back-pull-the-head-back throat slit doesnt address the splashes on the wall to what would be made by the left side of Marys neck..I believe it was cut from the right hand side,... which with Mary lying on her right side facing the wall, or even on her back facing the ceiling..in either or both of those positions her right artery would be aimed at that wall, not her left. Since she was cut from her right to her left side, that needs to be considered.

Plus we have to have an idea on how mechanically he cut and placed the materials on the nighttable,... if he faced the bed from its left side, the only reasonable assumption, then a right handed cutter would have to be able to cut the inside of Marys left thigh from the bone, as well as almost sever her right arm.

There are a lot of reasons to suggest this man was left handed.

Best regards