the key

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[Heinrich]

....

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

You can say that again, claire.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

....
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.

[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]

....
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.