MJK: Crime Scene Analysis

[Ally]

Hello,
Ben has just posted in the Mary Jane Kelly forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
While I accept Dan's point that none of us know for certain why Hutchinson was discredited, I think we can safely rule out the possibility that he was discarded purely on the grounds of uncertainty over Kelly's time of death. Even if the police suspected that Kelly may have encountered someone _after_ Mr. Astrakhan, they couldn't prove that was the case, and for that reason, they had every incentive to use Hutchinson in identity parades and so and on so forth *if* they believed his account.
The last sighting of Carrie Brown with a suspect occured - if I recall correctly - some time before the generally accepted time of the murder, but the police there didn't discard the evidence on the basis that the real killer _must_ have arrived later.
So Hutchinson's discrediting must have been prompted by other considerations.
Best regards,
Ben
***************
PerryMason has just posted in the Mary Jane Kelly forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of MJK Crime scene "analysis".
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Hi Ben,
Although being Devils Advocate, he might have been discreditted because they concluded Caroline Maxwell was actually correct, and it wasnt Mary Kelly in the bed when they opened the door.
So many different patterns one can weave into a rug, thats why we all make different rugs using the same materials.
Nite folks. My best Ben.
***************

Jez has just posted in the Mary Jane Kelly forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of MJK Crime scene "analysis".
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
---Quote (Originally by dannorder)---
And there's another claim made without real proof. All we know is that eventually the police at some point for some unknown reason decided not to use Hutchinson's description of the man he says he saw as a description of the killer. We don't know at all that they disregarded his story of having seen Mary Kelly -- the only piece of evidence making a clear statement one way or another says they *did* believe it -- all we know is that they stopped using it to try to find the murderer. This could be for as simple of a reason as not knowing the time of death for sure and not knowing if Kelly could have picked up another client later on in the night. The assumed time of death and this alleged sighting were hours apart, so they had little reason to depend on it when other witnesses were thought to have seen the killer with a victim within minutes of her death. It could also be that they took Hutchinson out to try to identify a suspect and that he picked someone out who provided an alibi, thus making his testimony about the man he saw worthless. It could be lots of things. You just dismiss him totally and provide no evidence of your own to replace it and expect your version of events to stick.
---End Quote---

This has to be about the best analysis I've read on these boards regarding the police reactions to Hutchinson's statement. Wonderful to see common sense prevail in this sea of hysteria.

ChavaG has just posted in the Mary Jane Kelly forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of MJK Crime scene "analysis".
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
*Ichabod*, you're right. For some reason my eye skipped over the 'there was no one in the court' bit! Given that, all we're left with is the man in the wideawake hat waiting or looking for someone.
Whether this is Hutchinson or not, Lewis did see a man in the mouth of the court, hanging round as if he had some kind of business with someone who was at present up there. If I didn't know better, I'd say that was pimp behaviour. Keeping an eye on the merchandise and being there to take your cut before the merchandise drank the profits. However there is no suggestion that Kelly had a pimp.
Which brings me to *Sox's* comment above. Whether Kelly was occasionally on the game to pay the rent (and if she was she wasn't very good at it, so much rent did she owe!) or she was a full-time prostitute, is a discussion which troubles me a great deal. Because it really doesn't matter what she was or wasn't at any other time of her life. On that night , if any part of Hutchinson's statement is to be believed, she was available for sixpence. She wasn't working out of a bordel. She wasn't taking her clients to a disorderly house. She was trying to earn some money and she was probably drinking some of what she earned because she was certainly in drink that night if she wasn't completely drunk. And none of this matters. She is not a more or less deserving victim than the others. They were all poor women on the streets trying to hustle up some money. She was in a better position than the others because she at least for the time being had a roof over her head. But she isn't morally superior to them. She isn't romantic. She's a murdered prostitute and unfortunately there have been far too many over the centuries.
***************

[Ally]

under the title of MJK Crime scene "analysis".
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
---Quote (Originally by ChristopherAS)---
My issue with a jealous lover theory for Mary Kelly's killer is that her attack is so gruesome that it fits more in my head with a psychotic serial killer who's "getting better", and add to that a killer who hadn't worked in a bit, than a jealous lover who has maybe never cut into more than an orange. The OJ crime scene looks like a jealous rage. MJK's crime scene is the work of a maniac. I don't think a jealous lover who snaps is going to be rational enough to stop and make it look like a JTR crime.
---End Quote---

This is probably one of the worst misconceptions that is floating around out there. There exists a number of cases where these kinds of extreme mutilatons have been performed by spouses who hadn't kill before. It is a mistake to believe that one serial killers are cpabale of this stuff.
In fact, the crimes that are personally related often can look even worse and moe bizarre than the works of any serial killer.
Former lietuenant Vernon J geberth of the NYPD also mentions in his crime manual as well as in articles several examples where he has investigated cases where it was first assumed that the crime was perpetrated by a sexual predator or serial killer because they 'looked the part', but in the end it was the spouse who did it. These crimes involved severe post mortem mutilations, eviscaration, signature elements like inserting of things into vaginas etc.
So please let's not take things for granted here about what we assume people are or are not capable of.

All the best
***************

jukka ruskeeahde has just posted in the Mary Jane Kelly forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of MJK Crime scene "analysis".
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Hello Glenn!

I'd like to add this thing to your thoughts;

some of these (maybe seemingly) family persons are sometimes also capable of turning the blame on the others.

One example being Jeff "Fatal Vision" McDonald. Who killed his pregnant wife, two daughters and got away with it for nine-tine years!

All the best
Jukka
***************

Fisherman has just posted in the Mary Jane Kelly forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of MJK Crime scene "analysis".
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Ben writes:
"My belief that Kelly ventured out chiefly centres around the fact that we have no reliable evidence of her venturing out again. To me, that means the simplest and most parsimonious explanation is that she didn't."
And much as you are entitled to that view, Ben, I think that it is reasonable to call it into question. For the evidence you are using here is in fact a lack of such. If three people jump off the roof of skyscrapers, and only one of them is witnessed doing so, it does not make the other two more alive afterwards.
And surely you can recognize simplicity in the statement that prostitutes more often than not take advantage of the night-life of the city by going out to find themselves punters, canīt you?
What you suggest is in no way an improbability, of course, and I am not saying that it should be in anyway ruled out. But I AM saying that if she was a prostitute along much the same lines as the other unfortunates of the court, then staying home would - on any given night - be a deviation from the normal behaviour of a streetwalker. I donīt see how this can be denied.
The best, Ben!
Fisherman
***************


jacks friend has just posted in the Mary Jane Kelly forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of MJK Crime scene "analysis".
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
It was raining. She'd been out. Wouldn't you want a bed especially when you have a client and you can take him there. Do the job and he leaves. except he doesn't. And Jack does what he does. Forget about the broken lock on the door ( of course she can get in). Barrett didn't do it. Hutchinson didn't do it. Carrotty blotchy didn't do it. She goes out after she gets rid off Blotchy face. It may be Jack she comes back with while Hutchinson is outside but who knows.Prater et al here the 'murder' call about 4 am. They were there. She was against the right side of the bed with the blood sprays to her right. She had defence wounds on her forearms so she tried to stop him. Poor creature. Imagine how terrified she must have been What had she ever done to deserve this. Jack did what he did and left.
Bye
***************

[Ally]

ChristopherAS has just posted in the Mary Jane Kelly forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of MJK Crime scene "analysis".
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
I skipped a couple of pages so I hope I am not repeating anything already said...
My issue with a jealous lover theory for Mary Kelly's killer is that her attack is so gruesome that it fits more in my head with a psychotic serial killer who's "getting better", and add to that a killer who hadn't worked in a bit, than a jealous lover who has maybe never cut into more than an orange. The OJ crime scene looks like a jealous rage. MJK's crime scene is the work of a maniac. I don't think a jealous lover who snaps is going to be rational enough to stop and make it look like a JTR crime. And as someone else said earlier, she probably could have been disposed of easily enough. And faking a JTR crime would mean more cops and attention than any other senario. Was that really the best way? MJK may have had drama in her life but from the jealous lover's point of view it doesn't add up for me.

There's hesitation here about when she could have picked Jack up, if she would have brought him to her room, if she stayed in, and so on... In my head what would fit all the details is Jack taking notice of her earlier (maybe even approaching her and getting rejected), following her to her room, and waiting in the dark for her to fall asleep (which would have been easy to know if she kept singing), then letting himself in, the cry of "murder" and so on...
***************

[Chava]

One thing I've never seen is any reference to Mary Jane having a pimp. Neither it seems did any of the others--which I would expect. But they all seem to have been able to carry on their business completely unharrassed by the gangs that we know preyed on the tarts in the area or by anyone else. Nicholls, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes would probably not hold much appeal for a predatory pimp. But Mary Jane Kelly would. She had her own piece of pavement after all. Not that I'm suggesting she was killed by a pimp. But that man in the court is exhibiting what could be called pimp behaviour...

[Dan Norder]

While I accept Dan's point that none of us know for certain why Hutchinson was discredited, I think we can safely rule out the possibility that he was discarded purely on the grounds of uncertainty over Kelly's time of death. Even if the police suspected that Kelly may have encountered someone _after_ Mr. Astrakhan, they couldn't prove that was the case, and for that reason, they had every incentive to use Hutchinson in identity parades and so and on so forth *if* they believed his account.

You've got the concept of proof exactly backwards here. Nobody would need to prove that Kelly had seen someone after Astrakhan Man, because to convict someone of a crime you have to prove someone was the culprit beyond a reasonable doubt. Without proof that the sighting was relevant to finding the killer it served no legal purpose. Compare that to Lawende or Long where the timing was believed to have been so close to the killings that there would be every reason to think the man seen with the victim minutes before the murder happened had to have been the killer.

The last sighting of Carrie Brown with a suspect occured - if I recall correctly - some time before the generally accepted time of the murder, but the police there didn't discard the evidence on the basis that the real killer _must_ have arrived later.

The major difference between the two cases is that Carrie Brown was not in a private room with its own private access. She went with a man to a room in a lodging house, and the people who provided a witness description of a suspect saw her go in with the man and never come back out again. She simply did not have the option of leaving unnoticed and returning unnoticed with someone else later. Mary Kelly did.

[Ben]

Hi Dan,

I’m not suggesting that anyone would need to “prove” that Kelly had or had not encountered someone after Astrakhan man. There was no proof that Lawende’s or Long’s man was the killer either, or the man in Carrie Brown’s company for that matter. The salient point, at least in relation to the issue of witness discrediting, is that nobody could prove that Astrakhan man - the assumed last man to be seen with Kelly - wasn’t her killer.

Even if they suspected that Kelly may have ventured out again and bumped into her real non-Astrakhan wearing killer, that was no reason to discard Hutchinson’s evidence or fail to use him identity parades etc unless they didn’t believe him, in which case a failure to use his evidence at any stage thereafter would make infinitely more sense. Discarding the evidence purely on the assumption that the real killer arrived post-Astrakhan wouldn't have made any sense.

Hi Fisherman,

“But I AM saying that if she was a prostitute along much the same lines as the other unfortunates of the court, then staying home would - on any given night - be a deviation from the normal behaviour of a streetwalker.”

Possibly, but then Mary Cox was venturing out at intervals and apparently servicing her clients where she found them, rather than bringing them home. Makes more sense, really; more chance or getting through more clients at a faster rate, rather than having to keep to-ing and fro-ing.

All the best,
Ben

[Dan Norder]

There was no proof that Lawende’s or Long’s man was the killer either, or the man in Carrie Brown’s company for that matter.

Well, those may not have mathematical level proof (few things in life do), but they all had extremely good reasons for thinking so -- and not just reasons that might convince someone on a message board plumping for a specific suspect, but reasons that would stand up in court, which was what they were after.

The salient point, at least in relation to the issue of witness discrediting, is that nobody could prove that Astrakhan man - the assumed last man to be seen with Kelly - wasn’t her killer.

No offense, Ben, but you are just going around in circles here. First off someone could have proven it if Hutchinson found the man when police brought him out later to look for him and he that man was proven to be not responsible, which is plausible. Second off, as already mentioned, legal proof is NOT "prove he didn't do it" but "prove he did". Without a reliable time of death and solid testimony linking the Astrakhan man to it, all the witness description gives is a weak maybe... and in combination with events that happened later that maybe could have gotten even weaker for plenty of reasons other than thinking Hutchinson lied.

Discarding the evidence purely on the assumption that the real killer arrived post-Astrakhan wouldn't have made any sense.

Maybe not to you, but to police, lawyers, judges and juries it makes all the sense in the world, and that's what's important here. And it's not assuming the killer did come along later, it's merely being open to the very real possibility that it could have happened. All Astrakhan Man would need is a reasonable doubt. Even not knowing who he was (and perhaps the police did find out later) there's already a very plausible reason to doubt he had anything to do with it: she could have been killed hours later, and if previous witness testimony is correct she had gone through at least two clients over the space of a few hours and could have been expected to keep that same rate up.

[Ben]

Maybe not to you, but to police, lawyers, judges and juries it makes all the sense in the world, and that's what's important here

I honestly don't think so, Dan. I don't know of any lawyer, judge or policeman who would endorse the dismissal of evidence purely on the assumption that the witness in question might not have seen the killer.

If they genuinely believed that Hutchinson had seen a man enter the Court with Kelly and genuinely believed that his elaborate description was authentic, it follows that Astrakhan was the last man seen with the victim, which naturally made him a suspect whose physical particulars merited circulation. They'd have to, if only to "eliminate him from further inquiries". It would have been encumbent upon the police to follow up that eyewitness evidence and use Hutchinson in eyewitness identity parades, not because they could prove him the killer, but because they couldn't rule out the possibility that he was. If they were to discard his evidence despite still believing him, all they'd be doing is ignoring potentially vital evidence.

We have evidence that the description was circulated initially before dropping off the map very shortly afterwards. They wouldn't have bothered with that at all if they had simply assumed from the outset that Astrakhan was not involved.

I'm all for being open-minded to alternative possbilties, but I'm not sure how it could have been "proven" than Astrakhan man wasn't responsible. If Hutchinson told the truth, and the man was still in the room at 3:00am, that wouldn't leave him much time to procure a decent alibi and elimanate the possibility of his guilt.

All the best,
Ben

[Dan Norder]

The Google cache Robert turned up had only the very earliest posts, but I thought I'd put them up anyway:

.

.
Chicaner
9th February 2008, 09:44 PM
Oh me, oh my. So much to go through, so little to go on. Perhaps this has been discussed before but I would like to know what you all think about the crime scene in MJK's flat.

I am going to pose some questions that I dont' even know if we can answer (or if you all feel comfortable speculating on), but I would like to discuss them in anyone's interested.

1. MK and the case of the "Missing Heart".
2. The breast made up to look like a face?
3. The breast and uterus underneath her head
4. What does the placement of the organs around her mean, if anything?
5. Was he planning on skinning her pelvis and legs completely but ran out of time?
6. Did the coroner/ME's back then know about the other organs that were not mentioned? (Pancreas, gallbladder)
7. Facial mutilations, madness or purposeful?
8. How did he manage not to track blood all over the floor with his feet?

It just seems incredibly odd to me that he would cut out her intestines and leave the stomach (pretty much) untouched. I also know from anatomy that when he was cutting out flesh the intestines would have to come out before any other organs, so "perhaps" (oh god, here I go) when he took an organ out he just placed it somewhere? Possibly works for everything except the organs underneath her head.

I would assume (another folly of mine), that with the liver came the gallbladder, and possibly the pancreas, of course he might have thought it just a bit of fat and discarded it with other fleshy materials. (??)

Her face was hacked to bits, pretty much. But from the photograph you can still make out the lips and an eye for definate, even though it looks as if the nose, lips, and chin have slid towards the mattress about an inch or two. Why would he go to all the trouble of making her unrecognizable and then leave her eyes alone? Picturing it in my mind (please don't kill me for that) slashing a face up but having to be very careful to miss and not nick the eyes means taking a little more time and is not madness but cunning purpose.

The blood all over the place, yet he tracked not a single drop..I'm going to assume that he used no "dropcloth", am I trying to make it more of a bloody gory mess than what it was? Was most of the blood contained to the bed and directly underneath without splattering on the floor beside the bed? Or is this where the "MJK's body on other side of bed" comes into play?

I look forward to hearing from others that maybe have a better explanation than what I do. The above statements are just my observations and opinions, I am not a medical doctor or crime scene analyst by any means. Then again, it's easier to play armchair psychologist/analyst for this case because you're looking back.

.

.
Sam Flynn
9th February 2008, 10:54 PM
I am going to pose some questions that I dont' even know if we can answer (or if you all feel comfortable speculating on), but I would like to discuss them in anyone's interested.Blimey! For a first attempt you haven't half started with a compendium of a question, Chicaner! This discussion could go anywhere - and probably will

I'll answer a few if I can:

2. The breast made up to look like a face?

We can eliminate this one straight away as a Ripperological myth. It just didn't happen - one breast was under Mary's head, the other by her right foot, and they weren't arranged to look like a face. The myth appears to have appeared out of nowhere in modern texts by Hickey (1991) and Ressler (1997) and there is, to my knowledge, no contemporary 19th Century source for this story.

3. The breast and uterus underneath her head

Correct, together with the kidneys. Some have speculated that they were put there to "prop up" the head, and that's possible.

4. What does the placement of the organs around her mean, if anything?

Apart (possibly) from those found under her head, the organs were placed where one might expect they may have been placed by someone cutting them out and putting them out of the way so that further evisceration could continue unhindered.

5. Was he planning on skinning her pelvis and legs completely but ran out of time?

Quite possibly - but it's not inconceivable that the killer had simply had enough.

6. Did the coroner/ME's back then know about the other organs that were not mentioned? (Pancreas, gallbladder)

Yes, they did. Bond's omission might not be that significant, however - it would have been if he'd stated that that the gall-bladder, pancreas etc were actually missing.

7. Facial mutilations, madness or purposeful?

Purposeful - but probably only in the sense that the killer felt like mutilating the face. Others will read symbolism into it, some will even see patterns - but I see neither need nor evidence for either.

8. How did he manage not to track blood all over the floor with his feet?

He walked on his hands Seriously - most of the blood was shed into the mattress or pooled onto the floor below the upper right-hand corner of the bed.

It just seems incredibly odd to me that he would cut out her intestines and leave the stomach (pretty much) untouched.

He didn't. The autopsy mentions that a portion of the stomach was attached to the intestines - which means that a portion of the stomach wasn't attached. By extension, this means that the stomach was almost certainly cut through by Mary's killer.

.

.
dannorder
10th February 2008, 01:17 AM
The myth appears to have appeared out of nowhere in modern texts by Hickey (1991) and Ressler (1997)

I swear I heard some variation of this sometime before 1991 -- but that it wasn't necessarily using the breast but just innards in general. It stands as one of the earliest known "facts" I thought I knew about the case before I developed a serious interest in it. One of these years I'll track down where it came from, I swear.

.

.
Sam Flynn
10th February 2008, 01:25 AM
I swear I heard some variation of this sometime before 1991.It's bugging me too, Dan - and I've a funny feeling you're right.

.

.
Chicaner
10th February 2008, 07:33 AM
Apart (possibly) from those found under her head, the organs were placed where one might expect they may have been placed by someone cutting them out and putting them out of the way so that further evisceration could continue unhindered.

Ok, good that was what I was thinking, yea, I get one right out of a million pieces of evidence re:JtR!! LOL

7. Facial mutilations, madness or purposeful?

Purposeful - but probably only in the sense that the killer felt like mutilating the face. Others will read symbolism into it, some will even see patterns - but I see neither need nor evidence for either.

Maybe he had heard a childhood story and he was testing out his own theory...he thought her face was a mask, so he was trying to unmask her..."And I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for you meddling kids and your dog!"

Thanks so much for responding guys, it's certainly helpful to know what else I need to start reading and doing...that being everything. hehehe

.

.
IchabodCrane
10th February 2008, 09:01 AM
The killer was wearing Mary's face as a mask. He also put on her clothes and burnt his own. Then he threw up in front of Miller's court. That's why Mrs. Maxwell thought she was talking to Mary at 8am.

.

.
jukka ruskeeahde
10th February 2008, 01:34 PM
Hello IchabodCrane!

A foremother of Leatherface?!

Yack!

All right, now seriously; I find it possible, that the face of MJK meant something more than the ones of the others; a woman in Saucy Jacky's past, that had a resemblance for MJK, etc.

No, not Maybrick. Since JtR didn't use the 20th century ink...

All the best
Jukka

.

.
mcebe
10th February 2008, 01:47 PM
Is it possible that the killer positioned the "organs" under the victims head, thus propping it up towards the direction of the fire to see what "they" were doing??

If the body was laid during mutilation the head was farthest from the fire and would not have been all that visible.

Of course one could argue that the killer just hacked away regardless!!

Mike

.

.
paul emmett
10th February 2008, 07:25 PM
Hello.

I think that the kidney beneath her head that Sam notes is important, because of a point I originally heard from Sox; with Eddowes, Jack took the kidney and uterus; with Kelly, he still kept them together. Also a breast at head and foot seems meaningful to me--symbolic if you would--but I ain't going there this morning.

Finally, Chicaner, you and I suggested on another thread that taking her heart plays upon an old cliche', which I feel , like the mutilated face, makes it more likely that her killer "knew" her.

.

.
Leather_Apron
10th February 2008, 08:59 PM
Is it possible that the killer positioned the "organs" under the victims head, thus propping it up towards the direction of the fire to see what "they" were doing??

If the body was laid during mutilation the head was farthest from the fire and would not have been all that visible.

Of course one could argue that the killer just hacked away regardless!!

Mike

I think thats plausable.
The eyes remained untouched so I would surmise the killer wasnt cutting the face in the shadows.

.

.
Sam Flynn
10th February 2008, 10:05 PM
The eyes remained untouched.
I'm not sure that we know that, LA - it's not recorded officially that they were. For all we know Mary's eyelids could have been cut like Kate's and it still wouldn't have stopped Barnett from recognising them by their colour, the length of the lashes etc. Besides, the eyes are recessed into the skull and thus somewhat shielded from a blade skating over the features.

[Sox]

We have evidence that the description was circulated initially before dropping off the map very shortly afterwards. They wouldn't have bothered with that at all if they had simply assumed from the outset that Astrakhan was not involved.

This part interests me. Can you point me in the direction of when, in 1888, they stopped using the description Hutchinson gave?

[Sox]

One thing I've never seen is any reference to Mary Jane having a pimp. Neither it seems did any of the others--which I would expect. But they all seem to have been able to carry on their business completely unharrassed by the gangs that we know preyed on the tarts in the area or by anyone else. Nicholls, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes would probably not hold much appeal for a predatory pimp. But Mary Jane Kelly would. She had her own piece of pavement after all. Not that I'm suggesting she was killed by a pimp. But that man in the court is exhibiting what could be called pimp behaviour...

Hello Chava

They did not have pimps because they were not common prostitutes. Out of them all, it is a likliehood only for Mary Kelly who seems to have taken to prostitution full time. Joe Barnett very much fits the bill in that it was quite common for women of this class to take up with a 'flashman', 'magsman' or even be under the protection of a policeman on the take. Not exactly a pimp, but someone who would be there in times of trouble, the sort of relationship you see with Sykes & Nancy in Oliver Twist.

[perrymason]

Hello all,

Im sure Ill have the support of some here when I say.......with respect to Mary Kellys crime scene .....it is believed that Mary Kelly was attacked while in her bed, making her attire completely appropriate. What is odd though is that one of Marys stockings is still on her leg...the other on the bedding at the foot of the bed.

Which leaves us with the question, was she in the act of undressing when he attacks...and if so why are the arterial splatters on the partition wall and the cuts in the upper right corner of the sheets, leading one medico to suggest she was killed while lying down, in the upper right hand corner, with perhaps her face covered by a sheet. She may even have been facing that wall, as if on her right side.

I think if she is killed when in bed, on her right side, facing the wall, and her killer is in the room while she is in that position, its not too imaginative to theorize that her killer slipped into bed behind her, spoon style...and attacked as she dozed off. Nor is it to speculate how well she may have known her visitor by that pose, with her back to him, trying to get back to sleep.

In the "while shes undressing proposition", she would be sitting on the bed, after placing her outer clothes on the chair, and she would raise a leg and roll down a stocking. That position is inconsistent with the opinion on how she was reclining on the bed when attacked. But it does explain the single stocking being removed.

Any explanations?

My best regards all.

[Chava]

Perry, I think it's possible that she was drunk when she got undressed and tumbled into bed with one stocking still on. Either that, or...theory coming...wait for it...she was interrupted by someone coming to the door as she was undressing. She'd rolled one stocking off and laid it down. Ding Dong!...Tiptoes to door with one stocking on and one off. Hallo (fill in suspect here) I was just going to bed. Passionately (fill in suspect here) throws her on the bed and makes love to her. Drowsily she turns over to sleep. And then...

[Chava]

...er...to get back to the crime scene...

I was just having a little read of The Star and came across its account of the fire in MJK's room. Now The Star is not particularly reliable. But the fire was well-documented and clearly seems to have existed. I was interested to read how fierce and hot it was. Because I suspect that MJK's grate wasn't really made for 'fierce' fires. It would have been a coal-fire grate and so rather small. I speak from experience. The Victorian house I presently live in has a coal fire grate in the living room. We can burn man-made (small) firelogs on it. But we have been warned not to burn anything large or unwieldy, because that would cause all sorts of problems and might set fire to the house! However a quantity of stuff was burned on that grate, and I can't help but wonder why. The material would have charred and smoked rather than burn properly. The fire would have needed a fair amount of tending and watching to make sure sparks didn't fly and set the whole room up. So I have this vision now of Kelly's killer spending time doing his nasty stuff, meanwhile, every few minutes, getting up in a housewifely way to poke the fire and make sure it's not getting out of hand etc etc etc. Now he could have set and lit that fire after he'd finished. And warmed his hands at it while gloating at his work. But if he was going to do that, there was other stuff in the room that would have been easier and warmer to burn. So what was going on? And what, in that quantity of ashes, did he not want us to see?

(Those of us who think that Kelly had a prior existing relationship with her killer, by all means jump in here!)

[Sox]

Hello Chava

My problem with such a 'fierce' fire, is that in a heated room the effects of rigor should have been hastened which would mean either, the fire was not lit after she was dead, or that she died later than we think. It has been pointed out many times, that burning clothes smoulder, as opposed to flare, so it is difficult to believe the killer burned them for light. Also you have the candle that Kelly bought from McCarthy, still standing on the table.

By the time the Police entered No13 the solder on the spout of the kettle should have cooled & hardened. Abberline seems to be under the impression that the solder on the spout had been melted that morning, the only way he could have made such an assumption was if the solder was still soft which, again, points to someone being in that room later than we think.