What the photos may tell of her last moments

[Ben]

They both gave her money, but only one could come to her room and perhaps just walk in, and thats Barnett

Not necessarily, Mike.

If Fleming was accustomed to visiting her regularly, he could easily have "just walked in", especially if he lived a minute away in the Victoria Home. If Kelly's killer had monitered her movements for some time prior to murdering her, he could easily have walked in too. It would simply have been a case of monitering the various comings and goings to know when she was most likely to be alone and asleep.

Like Robert, I'm not sure why the killer needed to knock or tap. A sleeping victim is easier to kill than a non-sleeping one.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

I don't believe a word that comes out of George Hutchinson's mouth.

Perhaps you should!
The guy who once called himself Hutchinson had known Kelly for 3 years, used to give her money, and he certainly came back to the VH early in the morning on 9 November.

Amitiés,
David

[perrymason]

Look carefully, and you'll see that there's a narrow "groove" in Kelly's leg below the left knee, in the corresponding place where the "garter" is seemingly affixed to her right. It looks for all the world that an improvised "stocking keeper-upper" might have been tied there as well. Upon removing it, any dent in the skin caused by such an object would not have had the chance to return to normal, if she'd been killed within a relatively short time of removing it from her leg.

We've all experienced this phenomenon when removing socks, a belt or a watch - the skin remains "pinched" for several minutes afterwards, preserving the outline of the restriction, but gradually "bounces back" as it's replenished by one's (still-working) circulatory system. It might take five or ten minutes for the skin to resume its normal shape - possibly less for a younger person.

Sam, Im definately in agreement with you that the appearance is consistent with what you suggest, but to me, the right leg in particular, strikes me as a demarcation line. I think he wanted to take the flesh off just past the knee, and disjoint her leg. Why he stopped, who knows, its not the only incomplete action she displays.

Im not sure that this would be inconsistent with an incomplete Torso murder in fact....her head is almost cut free.

I believe the photo reveals this,... she was, or had been at some point in time, intimate with the man in the room that kills her. And lacking a single witness account that even suggests she started bringing clients to her room after Joe left, and the single account of an unknown man translating to what appears to be a friendly visit with over an hour of entertaining and song...completely the opposite of the street whore who is forced to do perhaps a few tricks per hour...her lights dont even go out until they have been in there almost 1 1/2 hours.

We are left with a man who has, was, or was allowed to consider being intimate with her. Having nothing to do with a "client" relationship...but maybe a patron of sorts.

Cheers Sam

[Chava]

The guy who once called himself Hutchinson had known Kelly for 3 years, used to give her money, and he certainly came back to the VH early in the morning on 9 November.

I'm sorry, I must have missed something in all those files and reports! Corroborative evidence for Hutchinson! And here's me thinking he emerged, gave his somewhat dodgy account, and vanished.

In other words, all we know about Mr Hutchinson we know from his own mouth. And if he came back to the VH 'early in the morning of November 9th' why was he hanging round Millers Court in the small hours? On a rainy night? In November?

I'll believe he fetched up at the VH on that night. I assume there are records of his being there. I see no reason to doubt that he knew the victim. I see no reason to doubt that he had hired her services over the years those times that she was on the game and he had some money. I see every reason to doubt his account of that night. If he was staying at the Victoria Home, why in hell was he hanging round Millers Court? He'd seen Kelly pick someone up. He had every reason to believe that she was going to spend some time with her punter. He had no money, and she had made it quite clear that it was money she needed. It was cold. It was raining.

Like I said. I don't believe a word of his account.

[claire]

Michael, I think your account is very plausible. I can quite see that Fleming would occasionally turn up at night, knock the door and request recompense for any money he might have given Mary. It doesn't even need to be that formal (and I like your term patron: because it is often implied that the beneficiary repays in kind)...how many women have let in former lovers for a quick walk round the park again, just because? Lots. And it may well be that her comments about Fleming ill-using her were intended as a sort of justification for her continuing to put out for him (not to suggest that he wasn't capable of violence, or that he didn't ill-use her; just that there must have been some motivation for her to make the comment given that she continued to see him). He would knock: it would have been a habit. She'd wake up for a knock, however drunk, just as, however drunk, someone wakes up for a wee or a drink of water or because of screaming cats.

But I am at risk of making Sam very cross indeed: this is, of course, beyond the immediate remit of the photo (but I still think that the photo indicates domesticity rather than paid sex).

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Ah, but it isn't, Fisherman.
Thanks to pictorial evidence, we can see plenty of blood between the head in the middle of the bed and the partition. Notice the blood directly behind the head - perfectly consistent with the sort of residual ooze that trickles out in the wake of the initial arterial spurt. "

Believe it or not, Ben, but I HAVE looked at the picture. What it tells me is that there is an area behind Kellys head that I canīt see, and I feel quite certain that the same applies to you. Therefore neither of us can tell if the WHOLE area between head and wall is consistent with what arterial spray would produce or not, but I feel pretty certain that the area we canīt see is what led Phillips to his conclusion.
If, Ben, that whole area - including the bit obscured by the corpse that we cannot see - had been blood-saturated, then why on earth would Phillips state what he did with such certainty? Please keep in mind that he did not throw it forward as a suggestion, he stated it as a certainty. And he was THERE, Ben. He was not dealing with a 120 year old photo, like you and I are. I really donīt see how you as a layman, using a very aged photo, could compete with the professional opinion of a very knowledgeable and deeply experienced medico who stood on that very floor, beside that very bed, took a real good look at it all from all angles, with nothing hindering his field of vision, and stated that he was SURE that she had been moved.

What you and I can say is that there seems to be blood on the stretch that is visible to us. We cannot, however, see how much blood it is, we cannot judge if one stretch is drenched enough to make any positive statement about how much blood it had been subjected to, and we cannot look at the wretched things from more than the one angle that is offered in the photo. And that can only tell us so much, Iīm afraid. One thing, for example, it cannot tell us, is to what degree the palliasse directly beneath Kellys neck was blood-saturated. If she was cut in the top-hand corner and bled off there, the spurts would gradually diminish and transform into blood oozing out of the wound, ending up under the neck, saturating the palliasse at that place. If she was then moved to the middle of the bed, after that blood had trickled out, then there would be no saturation of blood beneath her neck at that place.
Such things, Ben, are not there to be read from the photo. But they WERE there as Phillips reached his certainty. He could look, feel, investigate, establish. I really think that calls for some acknowledgement. And we KNOW that ONLY the corner area was described as blood-saturated, remember!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

When Barnett was in occupation,Kelly would probably lie close to the partition so as not to be disturbed when he left for work,and habit caused her to still keep that position when Barnett left.The position of the covering bedclothes are as I would expect them to be if uncovered from her and moved by someone standing the free side of the bed.The bedclothes would also be in position as found if Kelly removed them herself.Diagonally across right bottom of bed.Easier to move to from both positions.
There might have been some moving of the lower body to free that part from bedclothes,and her head might have been turned to the left for easier access.Had she been standing up when killed,it would have been convenient to just lay her on her back,with legs dangling over side of bed.So I assume she was killed in bed,and moving her not considered.As Blotchy face was only seen from the rear,identity is not an issue,he could have been anyone.He however was in the best position to judge her circumstances that night.He could have returned.He could have even been Hutchinson.

[richardnunweek]

Good Morning Harry,
I certainly agree with you suggesting that Mary slept partition side, when Barnett was resident, as that would make practical sense to me also.
I have two problems with the pictured crime scene, the bedroll positioning , and the bolster draped over the table.
The bedroll appears to be stationary, as if not in bed making mode, giving yours truely the impression that when Mary was attacked and killed she was not contemplating going to sleep, which of course leaves the servicing a client option the alternative.
The question is Who?
Was it Mrs Coxs Blotchy?
My opinion...unlikely owing to the time factor, and the almost certain event that sex would have taken place much earlier, and that would leave kelly sitting around in a chemise until the alleged cry was heard.
Hutchinsons Astracan,
My opinion...a more visable suspect, although I cannot for one minute believe that this man was her killer, he was hardly dressed for butchery, and also one should take into account Kellys fear factor, it appears she was extremely fearful of the WM, and therefore she would be unlikely to allow a man dressed like something out of the penny dreadful back to her room in the dead of night.
So we have one more person left if we are to discount domestic candidates ie, Barnett/Fleming, and that is.
Mrs Maxwells..Market porter.
The man in my opinion was her killer, I have always believed her account, and that being the case this man was the last person seen with Kelly alive.
As I mentioned earlier, she was paronoid about been murdered, and it was said she did not like walking the neighbourhood alone, she even had sleepovers after Barnett left, so it is conceivable that she was caught of guard by being accosted in daylight, and assumed she was safe at that time of day, as the whitechapel killer was a night fiend, and it is quiet possible that she returned back to her room to get ready for a randy porter, and it was whilst in the act of undress that the killer entered her door which was open ready for him.
I could almost imagine kellys words to her soon to ne murderer' Give us a couple of minutes luv, its the second door on the right down millers '
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Believe it or not, Ben, but I HAVE looked at the picture. What it tells me is that there is an area behind Kellys head that I canīt see, and I feel quite certain that the same applies to you.

Why wouldn't I believe that you have looked at the picture? There is a small area behind the head that I can't see, but given the blood directly behind the head that I can see, and which seems to continue in large patches towards the partition, I'd say that's rather consistent with throat cut relatively central to the bed, but which commenced on the right side and allowed the initial turbid jet to splatter the partition.

If she was cut in the top-hand corner and bled off there, the spurts would gradually diminish and transform into blood oozing out of the wound, ending up under the neck, saturating the palliasse at that place.

It tells us that there was substantial blood directly behind the head that would seem unusual if her throat was cut when squashed up against the wall. We don't need any more "angles" to notice this.

It's not as if we're talking about a vast area anyway, and we're certainly not talking about a completely dry area between her face - as we see it in the photograph - and the partitiion. I think people misinterpret the term "corner", as though Phillips was talking about a tiny area on the edge of the bed. "Corner" could refer to the whole top-right region of the bed.

I really donīt see how you as a layman, using a very aged photo, could compete with the professional opinion of a very knowledgeable and deeply experienced medico who stood on that very floor

I don't appreciate ther hectoring, patronizing tone. It will anger me. Phillips was also "there" when he examined the earlier victims, and he chalked Eddowes and Chapman up to different killers. I disagree with his conclusion then, as I do now. I'm not ruling out the possibility of her being slightly more to the right of the bed than to the left. I am arguing vehemently against the suggestion that she must have been squashed up against the partition to accomodate a client, to the extent that the blood woud have deflected back off the wall against the killer's face.

He could look, feel, investigate, establish.

...And get things demonstrably wrong.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

The bedroll appears to be stationary, as if not in bed making mode, giving yours truely the impression that when Mary was attacked and killed she was not contemplating going to sleep, which of course leaves the servicing a client option the alternative.

Not sure why you're surprised that the bedroll appears to be stationary in a photograph, as opposed to moving around of its own accord! The photograph only tells us that the bedclothes (what's a "bedroll"?) ended up that way, and they could easily have ended up that way after the killer cast them aside to commence the mutilations. He could easily have done that after attacking her as she slept.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"There is a small area behind the head that I can't see"

...and there you are. THAT is what I am speaking of, Ben. Phillips saw it, and it would have been part of the material he used for his decision.

"I don't appreciate ther hectoring, patronizing tone. It will anger me."

By now, Ben, you will be familiar with the fact that much as I prefer dealing with people who are not angry, I couldnīt care less if they are. And I am not patronizing you in any way. I can see perfectly well what you are building your picture on, just as I can see that you are at a desperate loss when it comes to comparing your sources to the ones Phillips had at hand. It has nothing to do with patronizing - it is a mere demonstration of facts.

"I am arguing vehemently against the suggestion that she must have been squashed up against the partition to accomodate a client, to the extent that the blood woud have deflected back off the wall against the killer's face."

Ben, you know just like I do that there are killers who would bathe in their victims blood if they had the opportunity. We have no way of telling of what mindset Kellys killer was in this respect. I am also having serious doubts about the suggestion that the blood would bounce half a metre or so from the wall, back onto the attacker.

You chose not to respond to my suggestion that the area directly beneath Kellys neck, lying the way she was found, may have been one thing that was weighed into Phillips certainty. There was never any suggestion made that it too was blood-saturated, as surely it would have been had she bled out lying there from the outset. Such things were at hand for Phillips to deduct from, and they would make for a very firm ground to stand on. Firm enough, in fact, to enable Phillips to disregard choices like "I believe", "itīs reasonable to suggest", "It all points to" and the likes of that - he simply stated that he was sure.
That is enough for me, since there is no chance to disprove it by using the photo.

The best, Ben!

[Ben]

THAT is what I am speaking of, Ben. Phillips saw it, and it would have been part of the material he used for his decision.

We're talking about an exceptionally small area, Fisherman, and given the blood saturation everywhere else, it's only reasonable to surmise that the unseen patch had a similiar appearance, as opposed to being dry as a bone.

By now, Ben, you will be familiar with the fact that much as I prefer dealing with people who are not angry, I couldnīt care less if they are.

I'm not familiar with that, Fish. I think most people would find the phraseology patronising, but I'm sure it wasn't intentional. Suffice to say that I don't consider myself to be a "desperate loss" when the pictorial evidence is so unambiguous on this point.

I am also having serious doubts about the suggestion that the blood would bounce half a metre or so from the wall, back onto the attacker.

So you really think she was squashed up right against the partition when her throat was cut, despite the evident blood stating between the head and partition? I'm very surprised. Yes, if the killer cut her throat when she was that close to the wall, he'd certainly get some back-spray on his garments, and whether he enjoyed blood-bathing or not, that would have hampered his abilities to avoid capture.

There was never any suggestion made that it too was blood-saturated

Oh, but it is.

The blood directly behind her neck is the densest area of blood in the entire photograph. If that isn't heavily saturated blood, then the killer must have emptied his entire quart can of beetroot juice in that region! If there was no blood directly beneath her neck, then this may suggest that her head was slightly nearer to the partition at the time of the attack, but certainly not squashed up in the corner or else the visible blood stains wouldn't have been there.

That is enough for me

No it isn't.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben! You write:

"We're talking about an exceptionally small area, Fisherman, and given the blood saturation everywhere else, it's only reasonable to surmise that the unseen patch had a similiar appearance, as opposed to being dry as a bone."

Take another look at the photo, Ben. Then estimate how long a stretch that is obscured from your wiew. I would say that we cannot rule out that as much as 15-20 centimetres are left unaccounted for by the camera. And that is not an ”exceptionally small area”.
Moreover, we can of course not surmise that this area had a similar appearance as did the rest of the linen on that side, the way you do. To begin with, the linen we actually CAN see at that side does NOT have a similar appearance altogether. You spoke yourself in your last post of patches of blood, and I could not agree more - there are bloodied areas and there are cleary unbloodied ones. Therefore, the only given evidence we have to use in this case is Phillips words, and they strongly imply that the appearance of the linen was such as to ensure him that the body had indeed been moved.
You are reading things in that you cannot see here, Ben, and that is not recommendable in cases like these. A brilliant example of this is when you write that ”The blood directly behind her neck is the densest area of blood in the entire photograph”, since that is an area that we have just agreed that you cannot see! What you are looking at is the much bloodied corner of the bedding, Ben – the exact area that Phillips described as blood-saturated.

When you write:
”So you really think she was squashed up right against the partition when her throat was cut, despite the evident blood stating between the head and partition? I'm very surprised.”

... I am surprised by something else: the fact that you are placing words in my mouth. I have never spoken of squashing up against the partition wall, have I? You are welcome to point to that passage of mine whenever you find it, but believe me – it will illude you as effectively as does the area directly behind Kellys head in the picture. What I HAVE said is that I think she was on the far side of the bed, and that her killer was on the other side. No squashing there, Iīm afraid!

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Why did you say "That's enough for me" when it clearly wasn't, as I fully predicted in my last post? You do this all the time. Just don't bother saying it in future.

I would say that we cannot rule out that as much as 15-20 centimetres are left unaccounted for by the camera

Oh, I don't think it was anywhere near as much as that.

The important point remains that the blood that we can see - the blood directly behind the head - is not confined to a tiny area in the top-right most extremety of the bed. It appears saturated, and is the densest blood region visible in the photograph. I believe the visible dark staining behind the head is wholly inconsistent with a "close to the partition" affair.

Moreover, we can of course not surmise that this area had a similar appearance as did the rest of the linen on that side, the way you do

Which area are you talking about, Fish? The blood that we can see is not condensed to the top-right extremity. It's very dark, obvious blood, and it's visible on the pillow behind the head and towards the partition. That isn't compatible with a slashed throat right up against the partition.

What you are looking at is the much bloodied corner of the bedding, Ben – the exact area that Phillips described as blood-saturated.

....Which isn't a tiny area towards the extreme corner of the bed, but virtually the whole of the right side of the bed towards the top where her head was; "corner" being an encompassing term after all. If we're in agreement on that score, I'm delighted, but there's no way that there's a 20 centimetre gap between her head and the blood directly behind it.

What I HAVE said is that I think she was on the far side of the bed

Yes, but to accomodate another person on the bed would necessitate her squashing up very close to the partition, and I don't believe that corresponds to the blood patterns which we've agreed aren't condensed to the furthest extremety.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben, interestingly, asks:

"Why did you say "That's enough for me" when it clearly wasn't"

I was speaking of Phillips assertion - THAT is enough for me. If you are speaking of my right to post here and occasionally bring up the same subject more than once, then may I perhaps remind you of your posts on Hutch...?

"Oh, I don't think it was anywhere near as much as that."

Of course you donīt, Ben. Nobody was expecting you to. Iīll make a rough measure and we shall see.

"Which area are you talking about, Fish? The blood that we can see is not condensed to the top-right extremity. It's very dark, obvious blood, and it's visible on the pillow behind the head and towards the partition. That isn't compatible with a slashed throat right up against the partition."

And you know that the blood you are speaking of comes from arterial splashing ... how??

"Which isn't a tiny area towards the extreme corner of the bed, but virtually the whole of the right side of the bed towards the top where her head was"

The blood that is visible to you between head and partition wall is not all that many square inches, Ben. Much is obscured by head and ribcage, and we are left with but a small part, and that is not covered in blood totally either.

"Yes, but to accomodate another person on the bed would necessitate her squashing up very close to the partition"

Wouldnīt you say that this is somewhat dependent on the sixe of the bed and the ones who lay in it, Ben? On second thoughts, donīt answer that - of course you would not.

The best, as always!
Fisherman