MJK Murder Oddities

[Robert]

I suspect he was just trying to find somewhere dry out of the rain. Maybe a back entry into the shed.

[Wickerman]

The arterial spray hit the wall to the right of the bed. So as the killer must have been standing room-side of the bed there is no reason to suppose he would have been drenched in arterial spray.

Dr Phillips made some significant observations, the implications of which rarely get mentioned.

"....The mutilated remains of a woman were lying two- thirds over, towards the edge of the bedstead, nearest the door. Deceased had only an under- linen garment upon her, and by subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death, from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition previously mentioned. 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..."

Kelly's throat had been cut while she was laying close to the right-side of the bed, against the partition. Phillips then suggests the body was pulled two-thirds the way across to the left-side.
As Kelly was so far over to the right-side we must see this as suggestive that her killer was sharing the bed with her at the time of the attack. She was making room for someone else. Her throat was cut by the person laying beside her, not standing over her. After she was dead, then her body was pulled towards the left-side, easier to mutilate when you can reach your subject.
As Kelly was in her nightdress, and positioned over to the right-side, sharing her bed, shouldn't we be allowed to entertain the thought that her killer was also undressed?

Details such as these make this particular killing a significant departure from the previous so-called JtR killings. This killer had no reservations about being interrupted with Kelly, he was taking all the time he needed, we should perhaps contemplate "why?"

[Ben]

Hi WM,

Kelly's throat had been cut while she was laying close to the right-side of the bed, against the partition

I think it's more likely that her head and neck were simply tilted towards the partition by the killer to direct the bloodflow away from his garments when cutting the throat, as he had evidently done at previous murders. In which case, the killer needn't have been lying on the bed at any stage, especially not at the time of the throat. If the killer himself had been lying down squashed up besides Kelly in a single bed, the act of cutting her throat in that position would have been rendered very haphazard indeed.

After tilting her head towards the partition for the throat cut, I'd suggest instead that he simply let the body flop back into its supine position in the centre of the bed (where he found it) before commencing the mutilations, and that he would have done so standing over her as with the throat cut and initial attack. I see no evidence that her actual body was close to the partition at any stage.

Best regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi WM,
......If the killer himself had been lying down squashed up besides Kelly in a single bed, the act of cutting her throat in that position would have been rendered very haphazard indeed.

The angle of the photograph makes it difficult to give a size to the bed, but it had to be suitable for both Kelly and Barnett to share, so I wouldn't automatically assume the bed was a single.
Back in Victorian times there was a bed size between the Single (36" width), and the Double (54" width). The inbetween size was a Three-quarter bed, 48" width.
Cutting your victims throat on the far right corner of the bed makes no sense whatsoever if the killer is standing at the left-side, especially if the bed is 48" wide.

The pattern established with the murders of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes was one of a swift attack, possibly strangled (garotted?) from behind, layed out, and throat sliced by a killer on the right-side of the body.
The posture of Kelly's corpse is not consistent with the established pattern. Once the victim is rendered unconscious the killer can dominate the scene by laying the body out as is his preference. The differences are speaking volumes.

[Ben]

Cutting your victims throat on the far right corner of the bed makes no sense whatsoever if the killer is standing at the left-side, especially if the bed is 48" wide.

Absolutely, but I don't think the victim was at the far side of the bed when the throat was cut. She was probably lying relatively central the bed when her killer commenced the attack, and was simply repositioned after the initial incapacitation to direct arterial spray away from the killer and his clothes. Either that, or she was facing that direction anyway.

[Wickerman]

Absolutely, but I don't think the victim was at the far side of the bed when the throat was cut.....

The pool of blood directly under the right side of the bed tends to suggest her head was close to the edge of the bed at the moment her throat was cut.

......She was probably lying relatively central the bed when her killer commenced the attack, and was simply repositioned after the initial incapacitation to direct arterial spray away from himself and his clothes. Either that, or she was facing that direction anyway.

Kelly was only wearing a chemise. This must suggest she was killed while in bed with her assailant. Isn't it normal etiquette for the female to take the side next to the wall? This is where all the sheets were badly blood-stained, on the right-side against the partition. Phillips observed her body had been pulled across the bed after her throat was cut.

I understand your point about directing arterial spray, but you need not be at arms length to achieve this. The killer crouched over Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes and only needed to cut the side of her neck away from him.
Likewise then Kelly's killer could have crouched over her and still cut her throat on the 'away' side, whether in the center of the bed or not. He didn't need to position her body on the far side, unless, she was already there. And she would be already there if her killer was beside her when the attack began.

Her body was posed the wrong way round, and he had all the time in the world to position her the right way around. The way she was left might be consistent with a left-handed killer - just a suggestion..

[Ben]

Hi WM,

The pool of blood directly under the right side of the bed tends to suggest her head was close to the edge of the bed at the moment her throat was cut.

All it suggests is that the blood was directed that way, and that could have been acheived by a simple tilt of the neck and head in the desired direction, without the body or head needing to be right where the blood was found. In other words, if you have a head in the centre of the bed but facing the wall, you'll still end up with a contentration of blood on that wall and in that corner (and pooling beheath as it did in Kelly's case) simply on account of the blood spurting in that direction. There's evidence of similar behaviour at earlier murders, with Chapman's bloodflow from the neck being deflected onto the nearby fence and away from the killer. Grusome stuff, I'm sorry.

He didn't need to position her body on the far side, unless, she was already there.

Agreed 100%. He didn't need to position her body on the far side. She didn't need to be on the far side for the blood to have ended up where it did. He simply needed to direct the bloodflow away from him, and that wouldn't have necessitated moving the body itself to a different location. It just meant he had to tilt the head away from him.

[The Good Michael]

If she was facing the partition and her throat was cut there, and if she was then pulled across the bed to her left side of the bed, it can suggest aan also left-handed killer, as presumably, space was needed on the killer's left side.
It can also point to ambidexterity which is very, very rare with regards to blade use. Even the Florentine style of fencer favors one hand over another, no matter how practiced. This also could point to someone who wanted to see what he was doing, and moved the body closer to the light.

Cheers,

Mike

[Mitch Rowe]

Details such as these make this particular killing a significant departure from the previous so-called JtR killings. This killer had no reservations about being interrupted with Kelly, he was taking all the time he needed, we should perhaps contemplate "why?"

I dont see any significant departure between MJK and Annie Chapman. Compare Phillips report on AC and Bonds report on MJK. Notice we have someone literally opening up the belly area by cutting flaps of skin off. This indicates to me that JTR assumes he had time with both murders. Compare these two with injuries received by Eddowes. Maybe JTR didnt bother to move MJKs body to match ACs body because it might have made noise or just to hard to do that. In any case we have a person cutting flaps off belly and that is a significant departure from any other murder case I have ever studied.

[Sam Flynn]

The posture of Kelly's corpse is not consistent with the established pattern.

There was no established pattern in the victim's posture, WM - a comparison of the Chapman and Eddowes murders quickly confirms that to be the case. Eddowes' right leg was bent with the left leg extended - but this was not the case with Chapman, whose legs were drawn up with both feet resting on the ground. Chapman had one arm over her breast and one by her side, whilst both Eddowes' arms were splayed out, "swing-wing" style, away from the body. Eddowes' head was inclined towards her left shoulder, Chapman's to the right.

Once the victim is rendered unconscious the killer can dominate the scene by laying the body out as is his preference.

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?

[Sam Flynn]

The pool of blood directly under the right side of the bed tends to suggest her head was close to the edge of the bed at the moment her throat was cut.

I agree, WM. Furthermore, the undersheet between Kelly's legs is "rucked up" to a large extent, which might indicate that the body was dragged from the right side of the bed to the left at some point.

[Ben]

I think if the head was too close to the partition, the arterial spray would have deflected onto the killer. If you hold a water pistol in the middle of the bed and fire to the left, some of the water contained therein will undoubtedly hit the left side of the bed. The water pistol itself didn't need to be on the left side of the bed, and I'd apply the same principle to Kelly and the blood patterns.

Kelly was only wearing a chemise. This must suggest she was killed while in bed with her assailant.

Oh no, WM. Not at all. They were simply her nightclothes, and no indication that she was ever in bed with her assailant.

[Sam Flynn]

I think if the head was too close to the partition, the arterial spray would have deflected onto the killer.

If the right side of the neck were facing the partition (which it clearly was) and the killer was approaching from the left side of the bed (which he clearly must have, there being no room on the right), then a cut to the right side of the throat would have automatically directed the jets of blood away from him. As far as I can see, Ben, it's as simple as that. There's no reason to suppose that the head was "too close" to the partition either: a gap of a six to twelve inches would have been sufficient to prevent much "splashback".

[Sam Flynn]

If you hold a water pistol in the middle of the bed and fire to the left, some of the water contained therein will undoubtedly hit the left side of the bed. The water pistol itself didn't need to be on the left side of the bed, and I'd apply the same principle to Kelly and the blood patterns.

But the top right-hand corner of the mattress, and the floor beneath, was drenched with blood, Ben, which - coupled with the blood having struck the partition in a number of separate splashes - indicates that the greater bulk of the blood-loss occurred when the head and neck were positioned towards the upper right-hand quarter of the bed.

[Ben]

then a cut to the right side of the throat would have automatically directed the jets of blood away from him.

Absolutely, Gareth, and it may well have occured that way, at least at first "cut". I only suggested a "tilting" movement because we know the killer tended to go in for extensive throat cuts. But yes, if the cut commenced on the right side (as it would have done with the killer approaching from the left side of the bed), the blood would naturally spurt away from him and end up where it did.

Best regards,
Ben