"Murder...!" cry

[Michael W Richards]

She is not asleep Michael.
Kelly brought her client back to her room.

Not once has she done that before, not at room 13, and Barnett has only been gone for a few days. There is NO record of Mary bringing anyone into the room other than Blotchy for a seranade over an hour long.

She is undressed because she was about to entertain her client. Had she been alone and simply going to sleep she would have kept her clothes on like the poor of her class normally did.

A woman wouldnt undress in her own room, a room in her own name? Wonder where you got that idea.

She is on the bed with her client, which is why she is nearest the wall. As the most popular method for safe-sex was 'rear entry', her client is behind her - that is when he attacked.

If she is nearest the wall and being entered from behind, then she is facing the partition wall, just like I said, and nothing like the image you provided. the notion that this was a client is your own presumption and again, contrary to the way she was and had been living.

The head of the bed was not against a wall, so we do not know where else any spray might have been found.

Wrong yet again. The spray on the partition was was assumed to be arterial spray from the throat cut.

To summarize, your suggestion that she brought a client in is without substantiation and contrary to the way she has lived in that room, your suggestion that arterial spray isnt easily located is incorrect, and your suggestion that people wouldnt undress when going to bed in their own private room is ludicrous.

[Robert]

Hi Jon

There is a Reynolds sketch which shows Kelly's shoes in front of the fireplace. If the artist had them in their original position (which may be a big if) you wonder why Kelly would place them in such a position that she'd be obliged to pad across a filthy floor in bare feet to reach them. Surely she'd have had them by her bed, ready to slip into - unless the fire was alight and the shoes needed to dry out from rain/puddles.

Again, you say that you think the killer burned Harvey's clothing, but why did he not burn Kelly's too - unless it was damp?

And if Kelly was cold after Mr A left, how would she be any warmer by donning damp clothing?

[Michael W Richards]

It seems generally accepted to speculate and guess what may have happened in any particular circumstance if the end result supports a Jack the Ripper killer. Its a ridiculous situation and an obstacle to any real truth being discovered.

The baseline for Mary Kelly is this....she was seen by a courtyard resident at 11:45 entering her room with someone, she is heard singing off and on in the room until after 1am, her room is dark and quiet by 1:30. She is found in the morning after 11am when the handyman came to collect rent and pushed aside her window covering.

There is no client pickup, there is no client brought to the room, there is no proof that anyone who says they saw Mary Kelly alive after 11:45 actually even knew her or would recognize her in the middle of the night, there is proof that someone who claimed to have known her and seen her with someone out after midnight is later discredited and there is physical proof that she was killed before Carrie Maxwells supposed sighting of her out of the room.

So you can create a pickup storyline that ignores all the above or you can try using just the trusted witnesses and just follow the physical evidence. Its not going to lead you to a killer who kills on the streets, and who only ventured as far as a backyard from the streets before.

[c.d.]

"So you can create a pickup storyline that ignores all the above or you can try using just the trusted witnesses and just follow the physical evidence. Its not going to lead you to a killer who kills on the streets, and who only ventured as far as a backyard from the streets before."

Hello Michael,

What would prevent a killer who had previously only killed on the streets from killing indoors? It's not like that violates the laws of physics.

And as for no record of Mary bringing a client back to her room, even if true, what prevents her from doing so once Barnett has left?

I think it is safe to say that Mary never engaged in prostitution until the first time she did so. So why are all the things that you bring up somehow written in stone?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

What have you got against Kelly trying to defend herself anyway?

I'm not so much against her defending herself, my point is the suggestion she did is not based on anything conclusive. And, even if she did, this killer did not attack his victims with a knife, so there wouldn't be any cuts, bruises maybe, but not cuts.
No mention of her fingernails being stressed (turgid) as in the case of Chapman, who is believed to have defended herself.
They were all unconscious when he pulled out the knife. So how could Kelly cut herself?

[Sam Flynn]

No mention of her fingernails being stressed (turgid) as in the case of Chapman, who is believed to have defended herself.

Invaluable as Dr Bond's report is, it's sadly not perfect. A major omission is that it doesn't even record the direction in which Kelly's throat was cut.

It does record, however, that Kelly sustained a nick to her thumb which, for reasons I've already outlined, makes more sense to me as a defensive wound sustained by Kelly than as a deliberate, or accidental, wound inflicted by the killer.

[Sam Flynn]

The second photo, the close-up of the pubes, looking towards the door, is clearly taken after the bed is moved away from the wall.

I don't at all agree that the bed was "clearly" moved away from the wall for the second photo but, even if it were, it was only by a small amount. Besides, as I've said, whatever happened prior to the second photo has no bearing on the disposition of the body/body-parts in the first photograph anyway, which would seem to have been arranged in pretty much the same way as described in Bond's notes.

[Wickerman]

Invaluable as Dr Bond's report is, it's sadly not perfect. A major omission is that it doesn't even record the direction in which Kelly's throat was cut.

Bond does mention that the throat was too lacerated to tell. When there are a series of cuts at the same location it is not always possible to determine which came first, or in which direction they were all made.

It does record, however, that Kelly sustained a nick to her thumb which, for reasons I've already outlined, makes more sense to me as a defensive wound sustained by Kelly than as a deliberate, or accidental, wound inflicted by the killer.

How could she cut the end of her thumb?
The palm of her hands maybe, or slashes across all her fingers, if she tried to grab the knife. But how on earth does she 'only' nick the end of her thumb in a panic defense against a knife?

And, assuming this killer pulled out a knife in front of her then why isn't she screaming enough to wake the street?
A simple faint "oh murder" is hardly sufficient to raise the alarm when he pulls out a knife?
We have been told how feisty she could be when drunk, and she was no weakling. Kelly was no shrinking violet by all accounts. I can't see her just sticking her thumb up to deflect the knife

[Wickerman]

To summarize, your suggestion that she brought a client in is without substantiation and contrary to the way she has lived in that room, your suggestion that arterial spray isnt easily located is incorrect, and your suggestion that people wouldnt undress when going to bed in their own private room is ludicrous.

Michael, when you make all your replies within a previous quote the return quote function does not work.

Regardless, Barnett said in his police statement that he left her on Tuesday (6th), for two reasons, the 2nd reason was due to her resorting to prostitution.
So you have no case to say she had never done this before.
Barnett is saying she had returned to her old ways three days before she was murdered.

[Sam Flynn]

How could she cut the end of her thumb?

By using her hand in a vain effort to defend herself against a knife?

In contrast, how was he likely to accidentally cut her thumb, given that it was such a small and somewhat inaccessible target?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

There is a Reynolds sketch which shows Kelly's shoes in front of the fireplace. If the artist had them in their original position (which may be a big if) you wonder why Kelly would place them in such a position that she'd be obliged to pad across a filthy floor in bare feet to reach them. Surely she'd have had them by her bed, ready to slip into - unless the fire was alight and the shoes needed to dry out from rain/puddles.

Again, you say that you think the killer burned Harvey's clothing, but why did he not burn Kelly's too - unless it was damp?

And if Kelly was cold after Mr A left, how would she be any warmer by donning damp clothing?

Robert.
If you enlarge that Reynolds sketch you will see the shoes are in the middle of the floor, some distance from the hearth.

[Wickerman]

Also, if that is a chair behind the table (on the right), and if those are her clothes hanging on the chair, then she doesn't seem to be drying them by a fire.

[Wickerman]

By using her hand in a vain effort to defend herself against a knife?

In contrast, how was he likely to accidentally cut her thumb, given that it was such a small and somewhat inaccessible target?

So if neither scenario explains the cut to her thumb, then there is no argument.

I would expect far more bruising, and or cuts on the palms of her hands if she is defending herself against a knife (which I don't think happened anyway).

All the other victims were subdued before the knife was used, given the bruising around her throat and her clenched fingers, I'd say Kelly was also subdued before the knife was use.
She never saw a knife.

[Robert]

They're nearer the fire than the bed, Jon.

Yes the clothes aren't too near the fire, but unless there was a fire guard it would seem sensible.

BTW, re your illustration : I think MJK might have got a tad suspicious when she saw that her client wasn't even going to remove his hat.

[Sam Flynn]

They're nearer the fire than the bed, Jon.

Yes the clothes aren't too near the fire, but unless there was a fire guard it would seem sensible.

And, let's face it, it was a very small room.