MJK: Crime Scene Analysis

[HollyDolly]

MJK:Crime Scene Analysis

Ally your are right about spouses causing horrible mutilations to their spouses. Back in the 1990s or early 2000's,there was an article in the San Antonio Express News about a murder in the east coast,think it was New Hampshire or Massachuesett. This woman made her husband dinner.Well according to the article, he didn't like the way she had made his spagehetti,so he killed her,and then cut out her heart and lungs and then impaled them on a post in the yard for all to see. A neighbor called police, and he was arrested.
I don't recall if they executed him or not, but he is still in prison.
I'm sure he was mad at her for more than just his dinner,though people have killed for some of the stupidest reasons known to mankind.

Maybe Jack brought an apron or some sort of coat to cover his clothing while
engaged in his gruesome work.That was the bundle he was carrying,and could have burnt it in the fire.Mary Jane might have started a fire herself,if there was a chill in the air.
Does anyone know what the weather conditions were like the night she died?
Yes,dark clothing might not show blood stains,and no one would notice any.

[Tron]

I absolutely agree. He wasn't trying to light his way. I doubt he was trying to stay warm. He burnt that stuff for a reason and he burnt a lot of it. I assume he was burning material that could incriminate him, and I doubt that was Mary Kelly's hat and the other bits and bobs.

You are jumping to conclusions, careful. There is no evidence the killer actually started the fire, so it is possible MJK lit the fire. The facts do not contradict either theory. Instead of burning material, it would have been easier to remove it from the crime scene and dispose of it at a second location.

In your scenario it was premeditated murder so most likely the perpetrator could have brought a second set of clothes or prepared by other means. Dark clothes would not show blood stains and Luminol was not invented yet so he could not be convicted

For me, the shortest distance between two points is that whoever killed her knew that there was something in that room that led directly to him. And he burned it. There was a quantity of ashes in the grate along with the charred stuff. I think that whatever it was was in those ashes. Probably paper. And he burned the other stuff to hide it.

I would wager if there was an attempt made to burn/destroy something it may be the missing heart (but there is no proof for that). This would have strong symbolic meaning or it could be a symptom of mental illness. If he really wanted to burn paper, aside from the fact that I do not recall burned paper to be present, he would have simply burned the paper (burns better than cotton or whatever else the clothes were made of).

[paul emmett]

For me, the shortest distance between two points is that whoever killed her knew that there was something in that room that led directly to him. And he burned it. There was a quantity of ashes in the grate along with the charred stuff. I think that whatever it was was in those ashes. Probably paper. And he burned the other stuff to hide it.

Hi, Chava, All.

I certianly agree. Not heat; not light. Evidence. But isn't the one thing that has to be factored in here Harvey's clothes. How could they be considered evidence? Are they just to cover up the ashes? Naahh. Not Kelly's clothes, readily available, but Harvey's.

One other thing--about the time and intensity of the fire. The Physics Prof here says that to judge the heat of an extinguished fire back then, they would have used Newton's Law of Cooling, which related heat of ashes and time since fire to heat of fire. But if they miscalculated the time of the fire, if Abberline thought it had been earlier than it actually was, he would have then thought it was hotter than it actually was too.

[Chava]

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.

Hi Sox

I absolutely agree. He wasn't trying to light his way. I doubt he was trying to stay warm. He burnt that stuff for a reason and he burnt a lot of it. I assume he was burning material that could incriminate him, and I doubt that was Mary Kelly's hat and the other bits and bobs. He may well have been burning bloodstained pieces of his own clothing, but that stuff would not have burnt at all, it would have smoked and produced an unpleasant and possibly attention-attracting smell. However let's suppose that's what he burnt. Say his shirt. So he must walk through the streets shirtless on a cold November night. However he may be wearing a coat or jacket that will hide this fact. But said coat or jacket would hide the bloody shirt as well. Okay, but if he's stopped and searched, the police would see the blood. But if he's stopped and searched and they discover he's not wearing a shirt. And there are bloody remnants of a shirt in Kelly's grate, that's not helping him.

Okay. He came prepared. He has an extra shirt with him in his little parcel all ready to change into. But if that's the case, he intended to kill a woman in a situation where he knew he would be able to change. (And keeping your clean shirt clean in that charnel-house would have taken a miracle.)

For me, the shortest distance between two points is that whoever killed her knew that there was something in that room that led directly to him. And he burned it. There was a quantity of ashes in the grate along with the charred stuff. I think that whatever it was was in those ashes. Probably paper. And he burned the other stuff to hide it.

[Supe]

Sox,

If the solder were "still soft" then they would have caught Jack in the very act. Most likely there were traces of the remelted solder running down the sides of the kettle and the spout, also with traces, lying in close proximity.

And once again, the fire need not have been fierce to do this. So long as the kettle was empty, any fire would have done the trick in short order.

Don.

[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.

[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!)

[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...

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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]

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