the key

[claire]

So are you saying she fell asleep with the sheet over her face, and the intruder proceded to slash at her covered head while she was still alive, asleep?

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

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"I am not sure I see your argument about the uncut matress. I do not see why it would be cut in this attack."

...and:

"Slashing her face will not lead to cuts in the matress. Slashing her throat might, but as there is no mention of cuts to the matress why mention it?"

...and:

"Then her body was pulled(?) more central on the matress where the mutilations began. If that was the sequence then it must have been the killer who placed the sheet over her face, unless the sheet was cut horizontally to accord with her cut throat, which we have no suggestion of."

I am not sure here, Jon, but it would seem we are of the same opinion - there were no cuts to the mattress since the cuts to the sheet were carried out after the murderer had covered her face with that sheet.

If the cuts to the sheet had been collateral damage, then the mattress below the sheet would ALSO have been cut.

...but Bond only speaks of a cut sheet, and no cut matress. And since he suggest that the cuts to the sheet were the result of the killer cutting through that sheet as it covered Kellys face, the reasonable deduction would be that Bond checked for corresponding cuts to the mattress, underneath the sheet - and found none.

That is how I see it, and that is why we hear nothing about any cuts to the mattress. And, of course, IF the killer covered Kellys face as he cut, then we must ask ourselves why. And a close connection inbetween killer and victim must be amongst the potential explanations, I feel.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Fisherman.

Eh, no, Jon. Nothing of the sorts, actually. Have a look at my post to Claire and you will see what I´m after!

It's Claire's response that had me puzzled, given the suggestion of defensive wounds to her hand/arms, and, given the likelyhood that her throat was cut before her face was slashed. I found Claire's response puzzling.

That said, I am not sure I see your argument about the uncut matress. I do not see why it would be cut in this attack.
Don't we have Bond's opinion(?) that she was lying over against the partition when her throat was cut?, given the massive loss of blood on this side of the bed.
Then her body was pulled(?) more central on the matress where the mutilations began. If that was the sequence then it must have been the killer who placed the sheet over her face, unless the sheet was cut horizontally to accord with her cut throat, which we have no suggestion of.
Slashing her face will not lead to cuts in the matress. Slashing her throat might, but as there is no mention of cuts to the matress why mention it?

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"...are you saying she fell asleep with the sheet over her face, and the intruder proceded to slash at her covered head while she was still alive, asleep?"

Eh, no, Jon. Nothing of the sorts, actually. Have a look at my post to Claire and you will see what I´m after!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Claire:

"I think this question is slightly to the side of the one that questions whether the bed was made, Fish. But I would say that it might have been very difficult for Bond to confirm his belief; it seems unlikely (impossible) that the sheet remained in place over her face for the whole attack, and the extent of damage to the face would have largely precluded matching sheet cut to wound."

Correct, Claire! But I am not saying that Bond would have checked the facial damage against the cuts in the sheet. Such a thing would not be possible to make much of, and nothing of it would be conclusive.

No, what I am suggesting is that EITHER Bond was correct, and the sheet rested over her face as the killer cut, in which case the cuts in the sheet were formed during this process, OR Bond was wrong, and the sheet was cut as it rested on the mattress.

I think you speak for the latter suggestion, yes?

Alright, then we must ask ourselves a couple of questions. The first one is why these cuts are placed in the top hand corner adjoining the partition wall.
Did the Ripper stab away at her face - and missed repeatedly, many, many of the cuts ending up at the left side of her head, in the space between her and the partition wall, whereas he did not mistakenly stab the sheet to the right of her head?

This, as you will realize, sounds like a very strange suggestion. Kelly was dead as he cut away at her face, and he had ample time to direct his cuts and slashes.

Furthermore, I think that Bond would have been able to decide whether the linen had probably been used to cover the face by a much simpler method than by comparing the linen cuts to the cuts in the face!

In Bonds report about it all, he writes that the top corner of the linen was much cut. Not a word about the mattress, though!
And of course, this would have been what made him make his suggestion - he reasonably must have taken a look at the state of the mattress - if it had been "much cut", just like the linen covering it, then that would constitute very useful evidence that both articles, linen and mattress, were cut simultaneously. If, on the other hand, there were NO cuts to the mattress, but only to the linen - which is the only article he speaks of as being cut! - then that would provide absolute proof that the linen had not been cut as it lay on the mattress!

After this, standing with a much cut linen and a mattress that did not have the corresponding cuts in your hands, you must ask yourself how the cuts had come about. And this is exactly what I think Bond did - he measured the distance from sheet corner to Mary Kellys face and found a reasonable correspondance, which made him suggest that the linen may have covered Marys face as the killer cut her.

It is everybody´s guess: Did Bond throw forward his suggestion without even checking the underlying mattress, making sure that the cuts hade not been added against it? If so, then it was just a totally unsubstantiated hunch on his behalf.

...or did he suggest what he did because the combination of an uncut mattress and a "much cut", bloodsoaked linen corner craved an explanation?

I opt, with very little doubt, for the latter suggestion!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"On Nichols you may be right that he killed her as she led him somewhere – i.e. before reaching any destination...
...I would say that the spot she was killed was ‘fairly’ safe for her business. It was very dark and there was a good view either way."

We can discuss this to hell freezes over, without anyone of us ever having to accept the other part´s view, I think. I will just say that I think that a very fair case can be made for Nichols having been slain in another place than one she would have opted for businessways. Her body was found almost under a window in New Cottage behind which a woman, sleeping very light normally (Emma Green) lived. These sleepwise shortcomings would reasonably not have been known to Nichols, but I still think that she would not have felt compelled to choose an obviously risky place in a risky street (Cross and Paul inform us that this was a useful passageway for cartmen) for doing business.

So you think, and I think, and never the twine shall meet, apparently! And like I say, I don´t in any way see that you cannot be correct - you can, of course. We know that the Ripper would have accompanied Chapman through that passageway of 29 Hanbury Street before he struck, and he seemingly took the walk down Church passage with Eddowes, so he was not disorganized or bold enough to jump at his chosen prey at first sight ...

... but my feeling remains that he was not the type of killer that would hang around, doing nothing, whilst Kelly took of her outer garments, put her boots away, lit the fire, undressed and crept to bed, snuggling up in the far corner, before he struck. It is just a feeling I have, just like you have a feeling that this DID occur.

"That Kelly wasn’t seen after Blotchy (except by Hutchinson perhaps and those strange morning sightings) is hardly good evidence that she did not re-emerge."

Nope - it is only evidence that either nobody saw her go out or that somebody DID see it - but chose not to tell the police or press about it. Therefore, we are once again left to guess. And my guess is that she called it a night, drunk or partially drunk and very unwilling to go out into the miserable weather. Most people in that situation would instead draw the curtains, light a fire, get undressed and go to bed, hoping that next day would offer new takings and better weather.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Harry.

....A victim alone,in a room that could be secured against interuption,at a time when interuption was least likely to occur,where sound if any,and there must have been little,would be passed off as normal occupant activity.Where departure was through a short dark passage to a street that could be monitred before entering.Whose exit,even if observed,would be from a rear view by court occupants......

Consider though, it is believed that McCarthy's shop sometimes closed as late as 3:00am. So until 3:00am there still may have been the possibility of being noticed while exiting the passage by anyone coming or going or loitering by McCarthy's, as indeed Mrs McCarthy claimed one instance did occur.
So, did the killer wait until after 3:00am on purpose?, or was this just a coincidence?

Regards, Jon S.

[Heinrich]

....Opportunity aplenty, and even more so if the killer was already acquainted with victim and location, and the circumstances existing..One drawback was a silent killing, this could never be presumed, and was a chance that had to be taken, and assessed at the time. ....

No one was more acquainted with the victim and her dwelling than Joseph Barnett, harry, who, without the need for a key, could make his own opportunity in the dead of night. By slitting her throat first, as Dr George Bagster Phillips, who examined the corpse at the scene, believed, and the mutilations performed post mortem, silence was guaranteed. Despite all the carnage, there was no sign of defensive wounds, leading us to believe there had been no commotion.

[harry]

I quite agree with Fisherman(that's odd)about Jack being an opportunist,and I think the Kelly killing reinforces that.A victim alone,in a room that could be secured against interuption,at a time when interuption was least likely to occur,where sound if any,and there must have been little,would be passed off as normal occupant activity.Where departure was through a short dark passage to a street that could be monitred before entering.Whose exit,even if observed,would be from a rear view by court occupants.Opportunity aplenty,and even more so if the killer was already aquainted with victim and location,and the circumstances existing..One drawback was a silent killing,this could never be presumed,and was a chance that had to be taken,and assessed at the time.Well it was.

[Wickerman]

..... Still, I'm very comfortable with the notion of its starting out over her; I'm quite sure she was in her bed for sleep when the killer attacked.

So are you saying she fell asleep with the sheet over her face, and the intruder proceded to slash at her covered head while she was still alive, asleep?

[curious]

There were several missing hours for Annie Chapman -- to me, she's a great mystery.

Try playing with the idea that she was killed earlier than usually stated (5.30pm).

If for a moment (just for argument) we say that Mrs Long was mistaken in her identification in Hanbury St (she saw someone else) and that Cadoche heard NOT the murder, but someone unknown dinging the body, we can then hypothesise that "Jack" struck in the hours of darkness.

This is much more in keeping with the times that Nichols and Eddowes died, and makes more sense.is less risky than committing a murder and mutilations in an enclosed yard, surrounded by windows in increasing daylight.

It also measn that Chapman does not have to be imagined traipsing around the streets for so long.

Just a thought.

Phil

From early on, for many reasons, I have considered it very likely that Annie died earlier than 5:30. Perhaps even earlier than 4:30. (I realize that's an unpopular theory here.)

What I'm trying to figure out is if she went to the house in Hanbury almost immediately after she was last seen.

She had sold her crochet work to Mrs. Richardson so she perhaps knew she could sleep in the hallway there.

If so, how and when did she meet "Jack"?

curious

[claire]

This - the question about the "much cut" bedlinen - is an interesting detail! These cuts were found in the bloodsoaked section of the sheet, covering the top hand corner of the mattress close to the partition wall.
We know that Bond suggested that the killer had covered Kellys face with the sheet as he cut her. And there would have been a very easy way for him to check whether this was a correct assumption or not. So the question is: DID he check?
I say he did! Why else would he claim something that could so easily be disproven?

I think this question is slightly to the side of the one that questions whether the bed was made, Fish. But I would say that it might have been very difficult for Bond to confirm his belief; it seems unlikely (impossible) that the sheet remained in place over her face for the whole attack, and the extent of damage to the face would have largely precluded matching sheet cut to wound. Still, I'm very comfortable with the notion of its starting out over her; I'm quite sure she was in her bed for sleep when the killer attacked.

As for the 'was Joe actually Fleming' question, clearly we don't know. But I think it's worth exhausting the Joe-as-Fleming scenario before we move on to a third Joe.

[Lechmere]

Yes that is my view

[Phil H]

On Nichols you may be right that he killed her as she led him somewhere – i.e. before reaching any destination. That raises the question as to where she was leading him – to Woods Buildings?

Of course, anything can be argued, but I see no reason to doubt that she was killed at the place to which she had led him - the stable gates. Like the other sites the doors would have provided an element of "give" when leaning against the, and the doors were slightly recessed. The street is known to have been relatively dark and that hour and anyone approaching would be seen (or heard) at a distance.

Phil

[Heinrich]

If one studies the photo of the lock in post 194, a couple of things become apparent. Firstly that type of lock, had two bolts.The small one,the self locking spring type,was operated by a handle on both inside and out side of the door. The handles or knobs were attached to a square bar which,when inserted through the square slot adjacent to the bolt, operated the bolt itself. Only a catch on the inside of the door, when set, could stop the handles from working. The large bolt could only be activated by a key.
When the key was lost,it is most probable that the large key operated bolt, was in the open position,and that opening and closing functions relied on the small spring loaded bolt.

Exactly, harry. It is for this reason I posted a picture of this type of latch which was common from Victorian times.

That is, if that type of lock was fitted to Kelly's door, but I do not think it was, nor do I think any kind of spring operated bolt was. As I wrote before,that lock on Kelly's door was most likely fitted many years before 1888, and there were numerous kinds of lever operated bolts of of that time.

It was a common type of latch and so there is no reason to disbelieve one such was on Mary Kelly's door, harry. We do not know when it was fitted but tenants came and went with regularity, not least for non-payment of rent, and McCarthy must have had many occasions for replacing locks for his "rents".

Nor do I attach any importance to the way the premises were entered, the police had the power to force entry, and this is what they did.

Actually, harry, the police did not break in the door but McCarthy did on their instruction. It is of some significance, in my opinion, that Joseph Barnett was used to entering the dwelling without a key and with ease.

It would help if it was known what type of lock was on Kelly's door. From photos and drawings it is hard to tell whether there was a handle or knob on the outside. If one was sure,it would explain many puzzles.

Quite so, harry. The common latch in the picture is the simplest explanation for explaining the testimony of several that they key had been lost and yet the door was locked (with the spring bolt). By lifting the latch, Mary Kelly and Joseph Barnett were able to enter at will while the casual visitor, as we have seen in the case of the Metropolitan Police, the landlord and his employee, were flummoxed.