MJK Murder Oddities

[Ben]

But the top right-hand corner of the mattress, and the floor beneath, was drenched with blood, Ben

But that would surely have resulted from the arterial spray being directed that away, Gareth, without the head and body needing to be there. If the force of the blood spraying in that direction was sufficient to strike the nearby wall, it was sufficient to pool on the floor beneath and saturate the bedding on the right side. If Kelly sensed her attacker, she may have turned towards the wall in blind instinct, but there's certainly no reason to suppose she had to be lying next to anyone when the attack commenced.

[Sam Flynn]

But that would surely have resulted from the arterial spray being directed that away, Gareth, without the head and body needing to be there.

It's not just about arterial spray, though - it's about the more flaccid jets and the "ooze" that follows them. If Kelly had been positioned centrally or to the left of the bed, that "secondary flow" would have been significant enough to have saturated the midline of the mattress, and not just the top right-hand corner. Remember, also, that the initial arterial jets don't come out as "bullets", but in a continuous arc. Such arcs would tend to sag in the middle due to gravity, falling short of the splash zone and soaking into the bed at any point between the corpse and the end of the jet.

Given that only the top right-hand corner of the bed and the floor beneath it are reported as having been soaked in blood, it's a fairly safe bet that this is where Kelly's head was positioned during and after the cut to the throat, and that it remained there at least until the blood flow had stopped sufficiently for the killer to proceed.

there's certainly no reason to suppose she had to be lying next to anyone when the attack commenced.

There certainly isn't, and on that we're agreed. She could equally have been sitting on the bed or angled across it, and cowering towards the top right corner.

[Ben]

If Kelly had been positioned centrally or to the left of the bed, that "secondary flow" would have been significant enough to have saturated the midline of the mattress, and not just the top right-hand corner.

True, but bear in mind that Phillips specified that "large" quantities of blood were concentrated in the top-right area, i.e. not precluding the possibility of "lesser ooze" ending up closer to the head in the centre of the bed (note the dark patches directly behind the neck in the photo). The majority of the aterial spray - the worst of it - had to end up somewhere, and generally speaking the options were right, left (onto the killer) or directly up into the air.

Thinking about it, there can't have been no blood at all between the saturated corner and the middle of the blood, especially if she was moved from the corner to the middle, as mooted earlier. It's a safer bet that Phillips was talking about the concentration of blood resulting from the initial cut. It wasn't as if there were many options on a small bed anyway, and the distance between the middle and the right parts of the bed must have been negligible indeed. Alternatively, if she was curled up in bed and facing the partition already, there was really no distance at all between head and wall.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

The majority of the aterial spray - the worst of it - had to end up somewhere, and generally speaking the options were right, left (onto the killer) or directly up into the air.

Right, and slightly upwards or directly downwards, depending on the angle of the head when the jets emerged. Short of a Linda Blair/Exorcist scenario, I can't see how the jets could have projected left and onto the killer under any circumstances, Ben, given the configuration of that room.

And, again, it's not just about arterial spray, but the subsequent "floppy" squirts and ooze after the stronger jets had died down. All that is mentioned is the top right-hand corner of the bed, and the floor beneath. We don't even have mention of blood being found beneath the body, as noted in other cases.

[Ben]

I can't see how the jets could have projected left and onto the killer under any circumstances, Ben, given the configuration of that room.

Agreed. I ought to clarify; when I referred to "options", I mentioned all physically possible scenarios. We know from crime scene evidence that the blood didn't spurt left.

All that is mentioned is the top right-hand corner of the bed, and the floor beneath.

I think he was talking about the largest concentration, Gareth. There can't have been no blood traces of any description elsewhere, and from pictorial evidence, it is possible to pinpoint obvious blood stains directly behind the neck area.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I think he was talking about the largest concentration, Gareth.

Indeed, Ben - however the largest concentration isn't just composed of the initial arterial jets, it's the ooze afterwards too. There seems to have been enough blood shed to have saturated the mattress at the top right corner, and to pool on the floor directly beneath it. This suggests strongly that the body was closer to the right hand side of the bed as the blood drained from the neck. If the body had been centrally placed on the bed, then there's little chance that the floor beneath the right-hand side of the bed would have seen much in the way of "pooling", unless there'd been a whopping great hole in the mattress.

[Ben]

I accept your point about the ensuing ooze, Gareth, but if, for the sake of argument, we assume that her head was relatively central to the bed, wouldn't the "initial arterial jets" have been more than sufficient to saturate the corner and pool on the floor underneath? I'd be very surprised if not. The evident bloodstaining on the pillow behind Kelly's neck would seem consistent with the sort of post-jet ooze you're talking about.

Best regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

......Why should we believe that the killer was "laying out" the body according to a "preference", rather than just moving parts of it in an ad hoc manner to allow the mutilations to take place?

The suggestion that Jack strangled his victims first is, I think, a reasonable conclusion (bruises & scratches around the neck, black blood in the heart and brain, etc. evident in some cases).
That he must have done this from behind is still debatable, but more likely than from the front.
What is very noticable in previous cases is that there has never been any noise or evidence of a struggle.
None of this is applicable to the Kelly murder.

It would have been very difficult to strangle Kelly from behind, the supposed defensive wounds (cuts?) on her arms and hand(s) strongly suggest she was not strangled, at least not successfully, and the scream of "Oh, Murder" is consistent with her struggling against her killer.
The complete destruction of her face, and of her genital area, and removal of her heart all would be consistent with her killer taking a very personal revenge on this victim. The fact the killer lingered in her room for what must have been over an hour also suggests that if anyone came knocking, knowing she was home, his voice would not raise any concern. It would have been hard to stay quiet in a room with a blazing fire - people on the brink of being destitute would not waste a good fire by going out in the rain. This killer knew the neighbors would expect Kelly to be home.
Some of the details of this crime are what we might expect if the killer, knew her, had been wronged by her, and that he had been in a intimate relationship with her. And that his presence at night would not cause alarm.
The fact that apparently no-one did come knocking, or peek through the broken window (unless this be the real source of the 'oh, murder' scream?), or shout for Mary while the fire was blazing, is one of those rare instances of good fortune for the killer.

I think the murder of Mary Kelly should be set apart from the rest of the Whitchapel murders, there's too many differences. It's almost as if someone killed her in a rage of passion, then tried to make it look like another Jack the Ripper killing, but as might be expected he went into overkill!

[perrymason]

Hi all,

If Kelly was attacked with her back to the killer, as it appears was his slitting position, and to account for the spray, she could have been on her right side, at the right side of the bed. That scenario would lead us to a left handed killer most likely. If her knees were drawn up, as many people do when in a semi fetal side sleeping position, then rolling her over on to her back would account for the change in her location...right side of the bed to middle....and could account for the left knee being splayed, as a result of the momentum caused by the flipping her onto her back.

Why she would be in bed with her back turned though, while someone else is in the room, is a loaded question.

The fact that this was indoors is not addressed by saying "well, this victim had her own room". Or by, "he was looking to move indoors for more cutting activity and his own safety."

It means that he killed a woman that had her own room in her own name.....a fact different from all the other alledged Ripper victims, that he may not have met her while soliciting outdoors, as she did not need doss money that night and we have no credible account of her going back out after 11:45am anyway...another deviation,... that he may have gone directly to a pre-determined location for his victim....something unproven with any others... so far, that he may have been left handed....another deviation, that he may have attacked while the victim was conscious, something that all other JtR victims were probably not due to the lack of struggle that was evident,...that he may have broken and entered to get at his victim, another action previously unseen by this killer,...and it means that Mary Kelly is the only alledged victim of his that required him to work with his back to the only exit....the door or the windows. In Bucks Row he has an open ended street, in the back of Hanbury he has fences and yards all around him, and he may have worked facing the hallway that offered access to the yard, in Berner St he would been able to see both the gate entrance and the yard entrance to the club, in Mitre Square there were 3 avenues of access,...but in Millers Court, he is literally cornered with his back turned.

Just some observations.

Cheers all.

[Dan Norder]

If Kelly was attacked with her back to the killer, as it appears was his slitting position

I can't recall anyone having ever argued that that was the case. Just based upon the wounds and the position of the bed that's about the most unlikely scenario that could be thought up, other than something patently absurd like that she was hanging from a trapeze from the ceiling.

[Chava]

I've been thinking about this stuff for ages. The conclusion I came to was that
- Kelly was lifted in the air probably by the hair, and then her throat was cut.

- The killer was almost certainly kneeling behind her when he did this. It would have been impossible to kill her if he was lying beside her. Her shoulders and arms protect her neck, and the killer doesn't have enough ability to move his own hands and arms sufficiently quickly to kill her without a struggle. He doesn't have the leverage in that position to lift her high enough to get at her neck.

- The killer directed her down towards the mattress which absorbs any arterial spray and any further blood loss.

- The killer was probably naked when he did this. His clothes somewhere on the other side of the room, maybe on top of Kelly's. That way he avoids getting blood on him.

And what concerns me about all this, is very simple: if he worked out this way to do a basically perfect murder without leaving any obvious trace on his person, why didn't he do this from the outset? And why didn't he do it again? His MO in the other murders is extremely similar. But they follow a distinct pattern, and this is another very distinct way of killing.

I'm not using this argument to say the Ripper didn't kill Kelly. For a long time I thought he did. Then I thought he didn't. Now I am really not sure at all one way or the other. But I can't believe a serial killer like the Ripper would just stop after this kill. So I'm hoping Chris Scott and the other archivists can come up with decent candidates who died not long after this. Because I cannot otherwise understand why the murders stopped.

By the way, much as I hate to admit it, I can see a punter like Mr Astrakhan from Hutchinson's statement picking up Kelly, suggesting he might stay the night, and asking for anal sex. Which will allow both punter and prostitute to undress completely, and puts the punter into the right position to kill the prostitute. He kneels behind her on the bed, she is face-down, he grabs her hair and pulls her up quickly and then kills her

[Dan Norder]

Hey Chava,

I don't understand why you don't think a side attack would work, or why Kelly couldn't have been backed into the corner trying to escape during the brief struggle with the killer on top of her. Either one would seem more practical and more similar to what killers actually do. Lifting her into the air by her hair just doesn't even sound feasible, especially if she were free to struggle at the time.

The only way being behind her when th throat was cut even would work, based upon the location of the wound and where the blood ended up, would have been if the killer was off the bed between it and the wall -- and our understanding of how the room was laid out doesn't suggest that there was sufficient space to do that. There's been an alternate theory that the head of the bed didn't touch the wall, which maybe could make the killer be able to be back there, but the headboard is so high that Kelly would have had to have been in a truly awkward position for a clean throat cut from behind in that scenario.

Maybe a drawing or diagram of what you are thinking happened would help.

Edited to add: If the scenario is anal sex with Mary's head face down and toward the headboard, the blood spatters ended up on the opposite side of her body as where the throat was cut (would have ended up on the table instead of the wall). If it's anal sex with her head to the foot of the bed, the blood spatter should be down more where her knee is in the photo, or else they were over the headboard somehow.

[Wickerman]

I've been thinking about this stuff for ages. The conclusion I came to was that
- Kelly was lifted in the air probably by the hair, and then her throat was cut.

- The killer was almost certainly kneeling behind her when he did this.

I just can't imagine how this was achieved.
Don't the apparent defensive wounds to the forearms suggest he attacked her from the front?, or would you suggest they are not defensive wounds?

It would have been impossible to kill her if he was lying beside her.

No, not at all.
I would picture them both in bed, perhaps they argue, he raises himself up over her, he threatens her, produces a knife to her throat, she moans "oh, murder" as she struggles & receives cuts to her arms, he slices her throat. He may have even punched her out then slit her throat. All the while she is on her side of the bed.

......and asking for anal sex. Which will allow both punter and prostitute to undress completely, and puts the punter into the right position to kill the prostitute. He kneels behind her on the bed, she is face-down, he grabs her hair and pulls her up quickly and then kills her

But then those wounds to her arms need explanation..

[claire]

And what concerns me about all this, is very simple: if he worked out this way to do a basically perfect murder without leaving any obvious trace on his person, why didn't he do this from the outset? And why didn't he do it again? His MO in the other murders is extremely similar. But they follow a distinct pattern, and this is another very distinct way of killing.

I don't think we can assume that there were no traces on his person, any more than we can assume that he had undressed or that sex, consenting or otherwise, had taken place. There's no reason to suppose that the killer needed the ruse of sex to make his first attack, or that he would allow MJK the luxury of calling out before he did so.

Further, I am not convinced that the previous killings, assuming we're prepared to specify a canon, follow a distinct pattern and that this, "therefore", is an anomaly. We're talking three, four, possibly five previous killings--even a qualitative analysis doesn't reliably demonstrate a clear pattern (although cut throats were sufficiently rare to make a case for including all instances as a group). Indeed, if we argue that Liz Stride is part of the canon, that in itself is a bloody good reason for his decision to go indoors if possible.

As a sort of aside, too, I've noticed this 'oh murder' reference creeping in again with regards to an assault. As discussed elsewhere somewhere here, it's worth remembering that 'oh murder' was, too, just a contemporary version of, 'oh sod it,' or, 'oh, for %$^&'s sake.' I don't think it's worth relying on it as evidence in the timing of events (apart from the possibility that MJK said it when someone knocked on her door for a bit of business way too late that night [or that Mr McC or one of his oppos brought some business round for her]).

I have nothing to offer with regards to the discussion of positioning (apart from saying that sex wasn't necessary to kill MJK in any position)--I'm sickly enjoying Gareth's references to floppy ooze, though (that came out wrong, didn't it).

[Wickerman]

.....any more than we can assume that he had undressed or that sex, consenting or otherwise, had taken place. There's no reason to suppose that the killer needed the ruse of sex to make his first attack, or that he would allow MJK the luxury of calling out before he did so.

What I find more difficult to envisage is Mary undressing on a cold and wet November night just to pose on her bed while Jack stands in the shadows in his top hat and cape...

.....
Further, I am not convinced that the previous killings, assuming we're prepared to specify a canon, follow a distinct pattern and that this, "therefore", is an anomaly. We're talking three, four, possibly five previous killings--even a qualitative analysis doesn't reliably demonstrate a clear pattern...

For a good quantitive analysis you do need more than three or four examples, generally speaking. This though is speaking from the point of view of the luxury of an 'after-the-fact' investigation.
If these crimes were current the authorities would be attempting to classify them ASAP, they could hardly tell the press "we have to wait for 10-12 more killings to do an analysis". So there is nothing wrong with getting on board ASAP, we are in effect putting ourselves in the mind-set of the contemporary police. And, in consequence, we are bound to jump to some wrong conclusions, just as they did.

.....
As a sort of aside, too, I've noticed this 'oh murder' reference creeping in again with regards to an assault. As discussed elsewhere somewhere here, it's worth remembering that 'oh murder' was, too, just a contemporary version of, 'oh sod it,' or, 'oh, for %$^&'s sake.'

Absolutely, I think we are all aware of this.
It may have been someone hoping to go out on the tiles again, but on opening the door and seeing the rain, they exclaim, "oh...muddur!!".

.....
I have nothing to offer with regards to the discussion of positioning (apart from saying that sex wasn't necessary to kill MJK in any position)

Sex was the entire premise for all the Whitechapel Murders, why do you think the killer(s) approached prostitutes?