What the photos may tell of her last moments

[Jeff Leahy]

4:00 AM: Elizabeth Prater is awakened by her pet kitten "Diddles" walking on her neck. She hears a faint cry of "Oh, murder!" but, as the cry of murder is common in the district, she pays no attention to it. Sarah Lewis, who is staying with friends in Miller's Court, also hears the cry.

Perhaps Diddles has the answer after all? Mary was asleep

[Ben]

A previous client (with a mind to murder her) would remember that, knowing he could sneak in any time, now that Barnett was gone. What's so strange about her being partially dressed? Either she was too drunk and tired to finish undressing, or the killer took the opportunity to overpower her while she was distracted by undressing

Excellent point, Joan.

There's nothing remotely strange about her being partially undressed, if that was truly the case, not that I'm remotely convinced that she was wearing any sort of stocking or garter in the photographs. If she did have one one at the time of her murder, it could easily have been due to her partially addressing thanks to inebriation and tiredness. A previous client would indeed know how to gain entry on subsequent occasions, especially if Kelly was not in the habit of securing her door properly at night.

Okay. But is there a history of her having punters stay over? Seems to me that, as a casual working girl sharing her room with other women, having Barnett in and out and cross about others staying there, and having other means of making a bit of money, having 'overnighters' would be quite unusual.

Good observations from Claire there, too. Significantly, we don't know if the Blotchy man was a client or a drinking buddy.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

November nights in London are pretty chilly and if Mary had gone to bed alone around 1 or 2 AM then surely she would have used it.

Agreed, but no reason to suppose she didn't, Stephen. The killer could easily have rolled back any covers himself to facillitate the mutilations. Either that or she was simply to sloshes to "cover" herself.

The picture indicates to me one obvious point, that is, the bedroll was not in use when Mary was killed, which suggests that she was unlikely to be ready to get into bed when attacked, at least for sleeping.Which could reject the intruder theory

Absolutely not, Richard, for the absolutely crucial reasons outlined above. This was a crime scene, and the perpetrator could have done anything he wanted with the existing material, which could have included "rolling" any oversheets away to render the task of mutilation more simple...and probably did.

Cheers,
Ben

[jerryd]

Sam,

Possibly the opposite was taking place...meaning maybe Mary was getting dressed, not un-dressed. She has one sock on and was reaching for the other when she was brutally attacked.

[Pippin Joan]

I had a thought about Mary Kelly's long singing binge. I imagined her sitting in her room, singing interminably about the fabled violets on the fictional mother's imaginary grave, with Jack sitting there smiling and applauding her, all the while thinking, "She'll be out like a light soon..." Like a mother listening to a tired baby cry until it knocks off to sleep. Then the fun starts. I've always thought the singing must have been on her own, because someone certainly wouldn't sing for so long with someone there. But not necessarily.

[claire]

Sam,

Possibly the opposite was taking place...meaning maybe Mary was getting dressed, not un-dressed. She has one sock on and was reaching for the other when she was brutally attacked.

I like this suggestion. I remain unconvinced about this blooming sock on the supposed bedroll, but it is, of course, entirely possible that she had serviced Blotchy, thought about going out for another punter or a drink, and was either attacked at that point or passed out.

Also, with regards to this bedroll...we're not sure that it was freezing that night. It was raining, so there was cloud cover; the fire was certainly lit at some point, half-drunk she wouldn't have felt the cold as much.

It seems to me that, with the due respect to the esteemed posters who have spent much longer than I scrutinising the photo, there are two little things upon which the arguments about her undressing for a customer hinge. Firstly, this blinking sock. We don't know that it is a sock. It might seem tempting to assume it, but we just don't know. I'm not even sure there is an 'it' to identify: looks to me just like part of the overall fabric. Secondly, the use of the phrase 'bedroll' rather than just 'bedding' implies that Mary rolled it out and back again, routinely. Alternatively, though, this bedding might have usually been thrown over the bed, and it could have been pushed back to lean on whilst sitting on the bed for her sing-song, or moved by the killer.

This whole striptease thing, while I'm having an early morning rant...it's not an impossibility, of course. But I can't help thinking that it might be romanticising things just a little. This wasn't the Raymond Revuebar. If, as Sam suggested early on, this alleged sock (that has now become a silk stocking; good grief!) indicates a playful and sexy mood on Mary's behalf, this was not, absolutely not, for a punter. If she ever did a striptease (tried to look up the history of striptease, but Qatar has a block on websites even mentioning it), it would have been playful for a lover, routine for a punter.

Sorry, fellows. I just don't see what you're seeing. Might be a gender thing.

[Fisherman]

Claire writes:

"Sorry, fellows. I just don't see what you're seeing. Might be a gender thing."

Nope, Claire, that it is not - I´m with you here, all the way.

I am in no way convinced that we are looking at a sock. And if we are, I would like to know why it did not end up where it would logically be: together with the rest of her clothes. Draping it over the bedroll would be a strange thing to do.

And just like Claire, I too feel that the scene speaks not of servicing punters - to me it tells a tale of having finished the days measure of prositution, and having gone to bed; business closed. If she accepted somebodys suggestion to share her bed after that, then it would be a lover.

Which, of course, also would explain why her head was in the upper left corner of the bed when she was cut. It was not because she had fled up into the corner, it was because she was first into the bed, thereafter snuggling up on that side to give room to the man who was allowed to share the bed with her.

That, of course, is something that the picture does not tell us - it is just what I believe to be the likeliest conclusion to draw from what we CAN see.

The best!
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

Just a couple of quick observations. Although I'm largely in agreement with Fisherman.

Firstly I place time of death at 4 am.

I think its unlikely Blotchy face is a friend or drinking partner or it seems logical someone would recognise him or come forward.

If Botchy is Jack, and he seems the most likely conclusion, then there is a long and curious time interval between the time Mary stops singing and the cry of 'Oh Murder'.....Does Botchy just sit watching Mary sleep for over an hour? It doesnt bother him his other victims are wide awake, if a little drunk, at the other attacks. Why the pause? surely Blotchy woulnt sleep a little, then awake? He attacks while fully fueled up.

Of course there are two other possibilities, as has been pionted out almost any one could have let themselves in? but why was Mary sleeping to one side and not centre? or the other possibility is to reconsider Hutchinson's evidence.

My main problem is the length of time between Mary stopping singing and the cry of 'Oh Murder' does Blotchy just sit there playing with the firer?

As always nothing quite seems to make any sense.

Pirate

[claire]

Pirate raises something that has reappeared many times on this and similar threads...this whole business of Mary being over to the side of the bed... 'why was Mary sleeping to one side and not centre?' She'd been living with Barnett for a while, no? And others before that? And doubtless shared her bed with the other ladies who came to stay? Don't know about anyone else, but whenever my husband's away, I still sleep on one side of the bed. It takes a fair old while to start sleeping in the middle. (By contrast, my husband sleeps in the middle of the bed regardless of where I might be, which probably explains why I'm so accustomed to the edge!) I reckon Mary slept on one side by custom, and I imagine that, like most lone sleepers, she'd pick the side furthest from the door or window.

[Ben]

If Botchy is Jack, and he seems the most likely conclusion, then there is a long and curious time interval between the time Mary stops singing and the cry of 'Oh Murder'

I've often considered the possibility that "Blotchy" may on a reconnaissance mission of sorts, PJ; casing the joint out with a view to returning and attacking later. Certainly, his physical particulars are in broad agreement with a suspect later seen near the crime scene (and the attacker of Ada Wilson, for what it's worth).

but why was Mary sleeping to one side and not centre?

I personally don't think she was. If the throat cut commenced on her right side, the blood would naturally flow out to the right, and with significant force. She didn't need to be physically positioned near the partition for that to happen. Even if she did end up in that corner, it may hint more at a cowering act - to get as far away from her attacker as possible - rather than the presence of a client. It could also have been an aspect of previous routine, as Claire suggests.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"if she did end up in that corner, it may hint more at a cowering act - to get as far away from her attacker as possible - rather than the presence of a client."

This is something that has often been suggested. I think that the drawback of it all is that we do not have any reports of Kelly screaming her head off, and I would have expected that. The "Oh, murder" outcry is not enough to keep me happy with such a scenario, not at all.

And once more, we do not need to have her crawling about in the bed, if she simply crept up into that corner by her own free will, in order to make space for a man who followed her into that bed. That would put him very close to her, with a better chance of taking her by surprise - perhaps only allowing her to cry out "Oh, murder" and throwing her arm up in defense before it was all too late?

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

This is something that has often been suggested. I think that the drawback of it all is that we do not have any reports of Kelly screaming her head off, and I would have expected that.

If she had time to scream her head off, I'd say she would also have had time to bolt out of bed or go to greater lengths to fend off her attacker. If she was startled from a deep and drunken stupour, however, I'd expect the brief emanation and minimal movement that apparently occured. So no, I wouldn't say the photographic and "ear-witness" evidence is imcompatible with a cowering movement towards the partition.

I can't rule out your scenario either, but again, I don't see any compelling evidence that she was in the corner. I think that's just where the blood-spurts ended up.

Best regards,
Ben

[Chava]

I still think it's impossible for her to be killed by a man lying in bed beside her, although she was lying at the edge of the bed. If he's lying beside her, he has to support himself with one arm while trying to kill her with the other. And even if he was left-handed, this would be impossible to achieve. I've thought it's possible that he got into bed with her and waited for her to start drowsing off, then he knelt back up on his knees behind her in order to have both hands free to attack her. But on reflection I don't see how this works. If he'd gotten into bed with her, he would have been naked, or as near naked as makes no difference. So where did he hide the knife? He'd have to have it very, very handy and easy to get to. But if he pulls it out and puts it on the chair next to the bed, Kelly might notice! And if he tries to hide it ahead of getting into bed, she might notice that as well. It wasn't a big room. I suppose he could have waited until she turned her back and then yanked it out and hid it under the mattress or whatever, but that would be a very risky move. If she turned round, saw him, and yelled her head off, someone might have come running and he would be caught.

All that having been said, she was killed at the far edge of the bed. And that does look like she had company in there... He could have waited until she was fast asleep, crept out of bed, grabbed his knife from his clothing and just come straight at her across the bed. That might well be what happened.

Barnett said he met Kelly and moved in with her on the same night. She'd already lived with two other men before him. I wonder if she was looking for a similar arrangement, so spent the evening with someone--like Blotchy-Face--and thought she could get him to move in with her. In which case she would have allowed this total stranger to spend the night with her, and she would have undressed more-or-less completely. And she wouldn't have spent valuable hooking-time treating him to multiple choruses of rather cheap parlour songs.

Just a thought...

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Chava

Yes very well reasoned observations. If jack strips off and goes to bed with MJK what does he do with the knife? and why take the time?

Mary stops singing about 2 am and it seems attacks at 4 am. That's nearly two hours? twiddling his thumbs...weird.

Of course Claire could be correct, she could sleep on one side but its hardly a king size double davan In fact I'd call it a single bed at best...actually sharing bed makes sense...then it doesnt

Anyway I'm not going to try and offer any solution. Nothing quite seems to fit, interesting posts however.. thanks to you all.

Pirate

[Robert]

If there were two in that bed - which I strongly doubt - then that's all the more reason to think that the bedside table was moved there after the murder.