the key

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"Occams Razor would require us to take the simplest solution, which is that she intended her 'guest' to spend the night - but that simple solution raises a host of questions. Principally because we, over a century later, cannot possibly know every male who Kelly knew well enough to invite back to her bed for the night."

I very much concur with many of your deductions here, Jon. I also find that there seems to have been a consensus inbetween Kelly and her guest, and much speaks for a scenario where Kelly occupied the part of the bed nearest to the partition, leaving the other half to that guest.
After that, one can of course discuss what it would take for a bloke to qualify for this treatment, and how many men would potentially fit into the role - but the only certain thing such a discussion can lead to is that there would have been a collection of to Kelly very closely related men that at least did not end up on the bottom of the list - quite the contrary; MAYBE anybody could buy themselves a nightlong session in room 13 with Kelly completely undressed and the fire lit - but if she was more or less picky about things, then the likes of Barnett and Fleming would have been the safest bets.

The non-existant commotion also speaks for a scenario where the two were in the room from the beginning. Of course, a nightly intruder could have been successfully silent, but just like you lead on, it calls for some good faith that we do not have to spend with the man in the room from the outset.

About the cuts to the sheet, Claire writes:
"I was simply referring to the question of whether she was under, or on top of, the sheet when first attacked."

We can see that she is on top of the sheet in the photo, at least. And I find it hard to believe that she was first killed and cut to pieces with the sheet over her, after which the killer lifted her out of the bed, put the sheet in place, and arranged her on top of it afterwards. Surely, the best bet would be that she was always on top of it?

"Others are more concerned with this notion of her killer slashing her face with the sheet over it, since it permits reference to known cases where the murderer knows the victim."

And rightly so! The reference cases are there, as is Bonds suggestion and belief that this was what happened. I fail to see why the discussion would be in any way faulty or premature. Itīs another thing altogether that alternative explanations can - and should - be offered. Problem is, these alternative explanations really do not have a lot going for them; you mention that "it is possible (given that the sheet cuts could not have been matched to face wounds) that the sheet just got in the way of things--particularly if it was partially tangled beneath her--and could have been cut when he was cutting any other part of her upper body", but this predisposes that there would have been an area on her body where the knife travelled through her and into the sheet, making it "much cut". Furthermore, this would only have happened as an isolated occurrence and at one cutting spot only. Plus, there is no mentioning of the mattress being extensively cut at a restricted area, corresponding to the sheet cuts. To further elaborate, it would also predispose that the corner of the sheet was underneath her at some other space than where it was later found, that is to say over the corner of the mattress - where sheet corners are normally found. Are we to speculate that the sheet found itīs way to that intended spot only after having been cut through somewhere else in the bed?

Anything is possible, at least in a very wide definition. But when we find a corner of a sheet where most people would look for it, then why would we not accept that the best explanation is that it was there throughout? And when Bond suggests that it had been used to cover her face as her killer cut it, then the reasonable thing to suggest is that there were no corresponding cuts to the mattress underneath it in that corner. To my mind, it all points in the direction of us better giving related cases with a close connection between killer and victim some long, hard afterthought!

"I believe the issue had also arisen with regard to Bond's checking whether cuts on the sheet matched those on her face."

That would have been a very hard task. The textures of skin and fabric will react totally differently to a slash of a knife, leaving nothing conclusive to deduct from. And the more extensive the cutting, the lesser the chance of connecting things. Normally, more evidence is better than little, but not here - the confusion would be total. The one reasonably safe bet, I think, would be that the area which was "much cut" roughly corresponded sizewise to the area of Kellyīs face, and that the cuts to it were very many. If not, Bondīs suggestion would have been a strange one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
But more likely still is the premise that Kelly was attacked as she slept, and that the ensuing arterial spray towards the partition was merely a by-product of the cut commencing on the right-hand side of her throat and/or Kelly having "rolled over" to face the partition.

Which is all quite consistent with what I said, namely:
"someone else was on the bed with her prior to the attack."

There is certainly no evidence that she was right up "against" the partition.

Is this the best way you can think of to have a disagreement, is to change what people say?
I did not say "right up against" the partition, what I said was, "over against" the partition. That is on the side of the bed nearest the partition, not central, not nearest the door, but over against the partition.

Occams Razor is certainly welcome, but I don't see how it leaves us with the conclusion that she took her killer home as a guest for the night.

It's already been explained a thousand times, nightdress, clothes, no obvious displacements as in signs of violence, no rowdy banging, pushing, bumping against walls & fixtures. Prater, relatively speaking heard nothing until the 'claimed' scream. Hence, nothing consistent with a murderous attack from a burglar breaking in.
What we have is consistent with her being in a relaxed state with her killer. As much as we might not like it, there we are.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Or, he threw her backwards over the bed, any of which are more violent and noisy alternatives, therefore less likely than the first.

But more likely still is the premise that Kelly was attacked as she slept, and that the ensuing arterial spray towards the partition was merely a by-product of the cut commencing on the right-hand side of her throat and/or Kelly having "rolled over" to face the partition. There is certainly no evidence that she was right up "against" the partition. Occams Razor is certainly welcome, but I don't see how it leaves us with the conclusion that she took her killer home as a guest for the night.

Regards,
Ben

[Heinrich]

....
The point of the thread, the missing key, is a bit of a red herring. So long as we have Barnett's explanation that the key was lost, that makes any debate about the role of the key in her murder academic. Occams Razor would require us to take the simplest solution, which is that she intended her 'guest' to spend the night ....

An even simpler explanation is that the last person seen with Mary Kelly and who admitted being there on the night of the murder, Joseph Barnett, was already left alone with her in the dwelling. He could have murdered her before leaving to play cards later on or should he have returned during the night, he most certainly had the knowledge to enter without a key.

[Wickerman]

I don't think the blood-staining on the partition and top right-hand corner of the bed should be construed as evidence that Kelly had positioned herself right up against it to enable someone else to lie next to her.

I didn't say it was though did I, what I said was: ....."she was initially over against the partition when the attack commenced.", which seems a foregone conclusion.

In my opinion, one "likely" reason is that someone else was on the bed with her prior to the attack. Another, is that she was pushed backwards from standing with her assailant beside the bed, falling across the bed to a degree. Or, he threw her backwards over the bed, any of which are more violent and noisy alternatives, therefore less likely than the first.

Kelly did appear to have been undressed for sleep, her clothes folded or laid in a reasonably tidy fashion. Appearances are that there was no violent altercation before she ended up on the bed. There is nothing to suggest anything else but a consentual liason was intended at the outset.

The point of the thread, the missing key, is a bit of a red herring. So long as we have Barnett's explanation that the key was lost, that makes any debate about the role of the key in her murder academic. Occams Razor would require us to take the simplest solution, which is that she intended her 'guest' to spend the night - but that simple solution raises a host of questions. Principally because we, over a century later, cannot possibly know every male who Kelly knew well enough to invite back to her bed for the night.

Regards, Jon S.

[Heinrich]

....
The trouble is, as one educates ones self over the years, and as new evidence presents itself, the plausibility fades, although it can never be disregarded.

I am open to persuasion, Richard, although in the case of Mary Kelly's murder, Joseph Barnett's involvement is all over the place like none other's.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Heinrich,
Eight years ago your good self , and me, along with Lea Parry , would have argued endlessly about Barnett being the ''Number one suspect'', I actually started the thread...
The trouble is, as one educates ones self over the years, and as new evidence presents itself, the plausibility fades, although it can never be disregarded.
Barnett however is a mystery man , his movements after Millers court, are not clear, his overall character is not known, was he the poor soul as reflected by many, or was he a cunning maniac, a view held by the minimal.
I prefer the poor soul line, and believe he was just that, he had a kind heart, and most certainly did not kill his ex.
Try Fleming . or. how about the last person seen by a sworn witness at the inquest, ?
Regards Richard.

[Heinrich]

....
I'm not sure Harry would quite agree with that, Heinrich!

Give Harry time, Ben, and he might gradually overcome his reluctance to come to the right conclusion.

[Ben]

I don't think the blood-staining on the partition and top right-hand corner of the bed should be construed as evidence that Kelly had positioned herself right up against it to enable someone else to lie next to her. She could easily have been lying on her side facing the partition, or ended up nearer the corner during the brief struggle with her killer. If that were the case, it would obviously have been necessary for the killer to move her into a supine position afterwards. In any case, a cut commencing on the right side of the neck will ensure that any arterial spray will be concentrated in that direction.

and Joseph Barnett fits the evidence like none other.

I'm not sure Harry would quite agree with that, Heinrich!

All the best,
Ben

[Heinrich]

Heinrich,
The important fact, is that a key was not needed to gain admittance as you say. A point I have always made clear. The key was lost,and if we accept that, it is not worth talking of a key. The means of access is then, in my opinion, as stated by Fisherman, reaching through the window, being taken to the room by Kelly, or calling and being admitted by kelly. I reject the notion she forgot to set the catch and a prowler conveniently went trying doors and found her's unlocked. So certainly Barnett cannot be dismissed. So it's 2 to 1 that her killer knew her, and of her.
....

Quite so, harry, and Joseph Barnett fits the evidence like none other.

[Wickerman]

Heinrich,
The important fact,is that a key was not needed to gain admittance as you say.A point I have always made clear.The key was lost,and if we accept that,it is not worth talking of a key.The means of access is then,in my opinion,as stated by Fisherman,reaching through the window,being taken to the room by Kelly,or calling and being admitted by kelly.I reject the notion she forgot to set the catch and a prowler conveniently went trying doors and found her's unlocked.

Harry.
I tend to lean towards the suggestion that Kelly left the door unlocked when she went out, therefore avoiding the need for her to reach through the broken window, she had nothing worth stealing.
And, I don't think anyone gained access while she slept, she brought her killer inside with her, they were likely both in bed together given she was initially over against the partition when the attack commenced.

Jon,
Although as you point out,Mcarthy might have been in his shop,he does not seem to have been very vigilant.Hutchinson,or at least someone, was around loitering,and seems to have escaped Mcarthy's notice.

Not just McCarthy, any customers, like Prater who stopped to talk for a while, Lewis/Kennedy & Cox were in and out of the passage, Hutchinson? on watch, and Mrs McCarthy said that one of her customers (was it Lewis?) saw a "funny man" up the Court that morning.
However, after 3:00am, the shop closed, the comings & goings died down, less chance of any witnesses being about to hear or see anything.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

No--as I alluded to in a previous post. Echymosis applied only to the neck wounds, although it would be harder to detect when there was little or nothing left of the skin on the face. Regardless, I was simply referring to the question of whether she was under, or on top of, the sheet when first attacked..

Ok Claire, then I slightly misunderstood.

Given that both her forearms had extensive jagged wounds and the backs of her hands showed extravasation & abrasions, it would appear she put up quite a fight for her life, yet no-one heard her struggle, except for one(?) scream.
I think we would all agree that those wounds preclude the cuts to the face.

The appearance of bruising around the neck suggest an attempt at strangulation before the knife was used. If her forearms were cut in the struggle, as seems likely, then why would he put the knife down to strangle her? - he wouldn't.
So, perhaps the strangulation attempt came first, it failed (for whatever reason), at which point he pulled a knife where she continued to put up a determined struggle (why wasn't she screaming her head off?), and suffered cuts and bruises to her hand & arms.
At some point he must have knocked her out or stunned her long enough to cut her throat, after which the facial mutilations took place.

The critical assumption here, I think, is whether the cuts to the forearms were defensive wounds or made post-mortem. I think the interpretations of the cause of those wounds may alter any presumed sequence of events.
Regardless, the cuts to the face must have followed the laceration of her throat, therefore, the most likely scenario is that it was the killer who threw the bedsheet over her face, always assuming the cuts were made 'through' the sheet, which I'm not sure is a certainty at this point.

My reservation on this 'cuts through the sheet' suggestion is that her faced was so "gashed in all directions" (Bond), that the sheet would have been shredded beyond all use as evidence to where the sheet had been placed.

Regards, Jon S.

[harry]

Heinrich,
The important fact,is that a key was not needed to gain admittance as you say.A point I have always made clear.The key was lost,and if we accept that,it is not worth talking of a key.The means of access is then,in my opinion,as stated by Fisherman,reaching through the window,being taken to the room by Kelly,or calling and being admitted by kelly.I reject the notion she forgot to set the catch and a prowler conveniently went trying doors and found her's unlocked.So certainly Barnett cannot be dismissed.So it's 2 to 1 that her killer knew her,and of her.
Jon,
Although as you point out,Mcarthy might have been in his shop,he does not seem to have been very vigilant.Hutchinson,or at least someone, was around loitering,and seems to have escaped Mcarthy's notice.

[Heinrich]

....

Still, all of this is a long way off the matter of Joe's key

You can say that again, claire.

[claire]

Fish:
In general, I don't tend to think the sheet was underneath her. But I also think that it is possible (given that the sheet cuts could not have been matched to face wounds) that the sheet just got in the way of things--particularly if it was partially tangled beneath her--and could have been cut when he was cutting any other part of her upper body. I don't see it as a sort of Turin shroud, with a defined area for the face et cetera; I think it's possible it got moved about as he moved about her body mutilating.

I'm not saying that the sheet was not used to conceal her face, but I am saying that it's possible that it was not--or was not done entirely intentionally.

Still, all of this is a long way off the matter of Joe's key