MJK Murder Oddities

[Chava]

Well you know, I've always suspected that McCarthy might have killed Kelly himself and faked a Ripper murder. She owed him a hellova lot of backrent, and could well have had something on him. He was there. He could have gotten in and out quickly and quietly. But if he didn't do it, I very much doubt he knew who did. Unless he himself hired it done as a contract. Every so often some East End person seems to have poked his/her head over the parapet and said 'I know whodunnit'. But if they did, why didn't they tell someone? If McCarthy knew who killed Kelly--and he lived for a long time after the murders, why didn't he say who it was?

McCarthy is a very tempting suspect for me. and I can make a fairly good case. But I suspect the reality is the anonymous East End Working Man with a nice line in patter and a fast hand with a knife.

[claire]

Did I just understand you right??, are you suggesting this otherwise unseen, unknown, stealth-like nemesis of neglect has now arranged to have his next victim served to him on a platter so to speak by her pimp? (witness, witness, witness!!!).
Jack the Ripper has now given his identity and whereabouts to some backstreet landlord who can run straight to the peelers and hand him over ($$$$$) after her remains are seen to be served up for breakfast at sunrise?


I must have missunderstood you..

Well, you didn't misunderstand me, but it was only one possible scenario of how a punter, previously known to her or otherwise, might make their way into Miller's Court that night. Playing through my mind this morning was that whole thing about Fiona Kendall's assertion that the McCarthys *did* know who JtR was or, more specifically, who killed MJK. Why not this guy? Or the guy who followed him? Also, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Jack McC or one of his operatives dropped in to Mary that night ('oh, murder!'), and 'suggested' she might nip out even as far as the archway to get a bit of business.

You know, these are really just scenarios. But it's also possible that what you term 'this otherwise unseen, unknown, stealth-like nemesis of neglect' might be as mythical as your description is poetic.

[Chava]

I don't believe the cry of 'Oh murder! had anything to do with the Kelly killing, I have never thought that.

The reason why I think an attack from the side is beyond difficult is this: I can't see the killer attacking her while she's facing him. She's lying over by the wall, so if she's facing him she's on her left side. Even if he is left-handed, killing her quickly would not be an easy thing to do. She could struggle and thrash and attract attention. It's just not a cost-effective way of approaching her. If she is lying on her right side, facing the wall, it's easier. But not if you yourself are lying on your side as she is, because you need the upper-body strength to support yourself basically only on your lateral abs as you grab her and cut her. You need two hands free for that.

This is what Bagster Phillips says:

The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner.

If she is lying asleep, she's probably not lying straight. When people lie on their side, they tend to hunch their upper shoulder, and their lower arm has to go somewhere as well. Often you'll find they lie in a somewhat hunched position, and their lower arm covers their neck. Take notes next time you lie on your side in bed. I doubt you're presenting an easy target for a throat slash. Strangulation, yes. But the amount of blood spatter looks to me like there was no strangulation involved. However if she is lying on her side in bed, and he kneels on that bed beside/behind her and pulls her head back suddenly, he's got a clear shot at cutting her throat and he can hold himself steady while doing so. Also he now has the strength to easily direct the body immediately after the cut so that it's facing away from him and at the mattress.

[Ben]

Only one neighbour saw her with Mr Blotchy, and that was only because she happened to be returning to Miller's Court at the same time as he and Kelly

True, Gareth, but that was before Lewis and Prater returned. Had they both been there at 11:45pm, I'm sure they'd have heard the sozzled pair as they entered the room.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm more concerned about her returning home with a client and neither being detected, despite neighbours being either awake and close-by, or passing close to her door.

...neighbours, Ben? Only one neighbour saw her with Mr Blotchy, and that was only because she happened to be returning to Miller's Court at the same time as he and Kelly. If Mrs Cox hadn't enjoyed this particular coincidence, we'd never even have heard of Mr Blotchy.

[Ben]

I wouldn't say they were quite as patchy as all that, though, Gareth. Not ideal, by any stretch, but sufficient to provide reasonable indications. I'm not as bothered by the "going out after 1.00am" issue, and would agree that there aren't any compelling reaons to rule out the possibility of her venturing out afterwards. I'm more concerned about her returning home with a client and neither being detected, despite neighbours being either awake and close-by, or passing close to her door. It would necessitate an odd departure from her earlier behaviour when bringing Blotchy home.

Best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

But, Ben, those indications are based on witness coverage so patchy that they're little better than having had no witnesses there at all. You can't defend an argument that Kelly stayed indoors by citing the "non-observations" of such a threadbare collection of witnesses, who only popped in and out of Miller's Court three or four times, fleetingly, over a span of a few hours. It just can't be done.

[Ben]

I'd say there are indications that she didn't, Gareth (defensible ones, at that), but with many possibile scenarios available, I'm not closing any doors.

[Sam Flynn]

There's enough there, though, to establish tentative assumptions rather than iron-clad conclusions.

Tentative at best, I'd say, Ben. So tentative, in fact, that it would be indefensible to maintain that there's evidence that suggests Kelly didn't venture out after 1am.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth -As witnesses go, the Miller's Court saga wasn't all that under-furnished in that department in contrast to other murders, but I'd agree that there are gaps and uncertainties as one might expect. There's enough there, though, to establish tentative assumptions rather than iron-clad conclusions.

[Ben]

And yet if her killer lit the fire for light, then surely that fire must have run for something like an hour (the duration of the mutilation?), yet no-one reports a fire in her room.

Some of them referred to a "light" which could well have been that emitted by the fire. There's no reason to suppose that if was definitely the killer who started the fire anyway, or if he did, certainly no reason to suppose it was the roaring blaze of popular ripper-lore. Why would a fire announcing "someone's home" be a "red flag" anyway? Wouldn't they just assume it was Kelly? Hardly alarm-raising stuff.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Gareth - The crucial distinction here is that the killer was able to be as surreptitious as he wanted to.

I rather think the crucial point is that very few people noticed anything that night, Ben - even whilst Kelly was very much alive. That nobody noticed any goings-on after 1am can hardly be deemed all that significant, given that so few people noticed anything going on before that time.

[Wickerman]

And I've tended to disagree.
I'd say there were enough witnesses to arrive at a reasonably informed conclusion as to the likely degree of activity in #13.

And yet if her killer lit the fire for light, then surely that fire must have run for something like an hour (the duration of the mutilation?), yet no-one reports a fire in her room.
The very act of lighting a fire is like raising a red flag "someone's home!", an inexplicable thing for a stranger to do, especially one who does not wish to be interrupted, but not so inexplicable for someone who has been there before and is known to her neighbours, who's presence would not raise alarm.

[Ben]

I can't see how one can believe that, Ben, when one considers that Kelly was ripped apart that morning and - out of all the residents of Miller's Court - only two women and a cat seem to have heard anything.

Hi Gareth - The crucial distinction here is that the killer was able to be as surreptitious as he wanted to - within reason - once Kelly had been dispatched. He didn't have any control over Kelly's vocal antics before she was murdered, which, as we learn from Cox's evidence, were the very opposite of hush-hush. I can't see her suddenly changing behaviour between clients from loud, boozy and sing-songy to silent. Kelly may have stopped singing before cat-woman arrived on the scene; either she was too drunk or too tired or both.

He only had control over this variable if he had a reasonable degree of assurance that she was asleep at the time of the attack.

This view has more to do with upholding some tradition than being objective with the known evidence.

If you'd read the thread properly, WM, you might have noticed that I was specifically challenging the "traditional" view associated with Kelly's murder.

Breaking in while 'any number of occupants' were presumed to be sleeping is a risky endeavour. How did the intruder know there was only one occupant?

Probably by resorting to the same sort of prior surveillance that had proved successful with the likes of Ted Bundy, Dennis Rader, and, more recently, Robert Napper, whose trial is next month.

Again, you may also have noticed that I've already endorsed the view that the neighbours/witnesses potentially posed a problem, but that precise factor would have rendered intrusion far less susceptible to the attention of neighbours than if he'd chosen to advertise his presence in vocal fashion with a demonstrably vocal victim.

Breaking and entering is not the typical JtR modus operandii.

Nor was killing indoors.

You are perhaps unduly influenced by modern serial killers who can break into premises silently because modern homes have windows that open quietly

Hang on. Are you seriously suggesting that modern premises are easier to break into than single-room hovels in the Victorian East End? A mistake, surely? We don't even know if Kelly's door was locked at the time of the attack. It clearly wasn't when she returned home with the Blotchy client, and we know from Inspector Moore that East Enders were in the habit of not securing their doors properly.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Sam!

And that could indicate, that many witnesses were in a "oooh... I do not rememba... for sure..." -mood!

All the best
Jukka