Was Bond right about the cut linen?

[Sam Flynn]

"Where is this mysterious sheet that covered her face, then?"

To the right of her, Sam, as Bond said.

The sheet to her right is under her body, Fish. In fact, all of the sheets are. Phillips (who was first on the scene) only surmised that Kelly's head was in the top right-hand corner of the bed when killed - he makes no mention whatsoever of any sheet having been over her face at the time. That - or so it would appear - is quite possibly because there was no "over-sheet" there in the first place.

I think that although she was lying on it, there would have been material enough to grab hold of and lift up over her face, cut, and let it drop back again.

Why on earth would he do that? Oh, yes - I forgot - you believe that Kelly was killed by someone known to her... For info, I'm happy to entertain that possibility as well, except I'm not in the least convinced by Bond's theorising on the specific matter of the cut sheet.

[Fisherman]

Sam asks:

"Where is this mysterious sheet that covered her face, then?"

To the right of her, Sam, as Bond said. I do not think he made it up, or that he misremembered. I think that although she was lying on it, there would have been material enough to grab hold of and lift up over her face, cut, and let it drop back again. The pic does not allow us to see if it is lying loosely on the palliasse behind her head, but I think it would have done.

No, Sam, what we are missing is not the sheet - it is the corresponding cuts in the palliasse under it.

The best!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Where is this mysterious sheet that covered her face, then? Phillips doesn't mention it, and he was there before Bond. The only sheet Phillips mentions is that located at the corner of the bedstead nearest the partition, which was saturated in blood - and this sheet is under Kelly's body. Bond himself only mentions that one in the notes he made on the spot, whereas his theorising about a sheet having been over the face only appeared in hindsight.

[Fisherman]

Since this thread has not gained any speed yet, I will throw some more wood into the fire.
Like I have already mentioned, it has often been speculated that the much cut linen to Kellys right hand side was due to the knife travelling down into the fabric at the ends of the strokes to her face, and not to the notion that the killer covered Kellys face before he cut away at it.

Let me just point out that Bond reports that the sheet was much cut - but there is no mentioning that the palliasse was! And surely, to check for that would be the only thing that could conclusively show if the sheet was lying over the paliasse as it was cut - or not.
I suggest that this simple confirmation was assured, and that Bond therefore would have been perfectly right!

The best!
Fisherman

[Bailey]

Hey Fish

No, I typo'ed there, it should have said "cheek" rather than "sheet." I was picturing Mary on top of the sheet, and the sheet on top of the bed, and the knife, held by a lefty, cutting from high and right (eg say nose level) down and to the left - as it would travel down the curve of the face - and then catching the sheet (and possibly the mattress below) as collateral damage at the end of the stroke. This could also possibly apply during throat cutting, I suppose, depending on the angle. Again, all this rests on MJK being on her back and the killer attacking from directly "in front" or astride her, thus reducing the likelihood of it having happened this way.

Like I said, just a thought that occurred to me, rather than an argument in favour of anyone else. It simply entered my head as a reason the sheet might be cut on one side of the head but not the other as per your point 1. So I guess therefore I am somewhat in support of your argument

As for the actual idea of the sheet being over the face - makes little sense to me to be honest. It may be that she chose to sleep that way, but that seems odd. And I find it unikely the killer pulled it over to hide what he was doing from himself! I'll maybe buy that it got pulled up in the struggle and slashed accidentally, but that assumes a struggle, which also seems doubtful for all the well argued reasons we know and love. Collateral damage to the sheet during some other part of the process works for me, but I wasn't there, so what do I know?

B.

[Fisherman]

Hi Bailey!

You may have misunderstood me here - what I tries to disprove was the notion that the linen was never over her face, as suggested earlier on the boards by, for example, Sam Flynn. When you write "the sheet slopes down and away towards the bed", I take it you are working from the presumption that it actually WAS over her face?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Bailey]

"To me, that implies that if the blade really travelled down into the bedlinen and the matress as the killer cut, then we should expect to find the fabric cut at both sides of the head. This, though, was not the case: it was cut only to the right of her (between head and partition wall, that is)."

If the killer was left-handed this would make sense. As a lefty, imaging cutting a face like that, you'd move the knife from your right to your left. So when cutting the side of the face closer to the wall, a stroke across the face, moving from right to left, would, if there was any downward angle in it, end in the blade very likely striking whatever surface you're cutting on.

If she was face up (and imaging the killer astride), this would be quite likely as the nose is the highest point and the sheet slopes down and away towards the bed. On the other side a left would effectively be cutting upwards and away from the bed.

Just a thought, no angle or agenda to push And of course if the killer was right-handed, the reverse would apply.

Cheers,
B.

[Fisherman]

Here´s something that was discussed peripherally some time back on another thread. I think it deserves a thread of it´s own, though, which is why I bring it back up again.

When Kelly was found, Dr Bond remarked that "the sheet to the right of the woman's head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack"...

The last time over, it was suggested that Bond would have been wrong, and that the cuts to the fabric were due to the knife travelling into it below her as a result of the fierce wielding of the blade. I don´t think this holds much water, though. The reasons are two:
1.We know that ”the face was gashed in all directions”, from the report Bond made about Kelly. To me, that implies that if the blade really travelled down into the bedlinen and the matress as the killer cut, then we should expect to find the fabric cut at both sides of the head. This, though, was not the case: it was cut only to the right of her (between head and partition wall, that is).
2.The cuts through the linen would not have been situated in immediate proximity to her head. If the linen was folded over her face, and thereafter lifted and replaced on the bed, then we should expect to find the cuts commencing in an area some way to the left of the head and extending perhaps some two or three decimetres further out towards the wall. There would be an uncut area of perhaps about a decimetre in length in the place where the linen travelled up from the bed as he stretched it over the face. I think that making the assumption that Bond checked his theory by placing the linen back over her face again to establish the connection is very reasonable.
Another theory that have been put forward have gone along the line that Mary Kelly herself pulled the linen over her face in a somewhat pathetic attempt to free herself of the sight of what was coming.
Interesting though such a suggestion is, I feel that there are two things speaking against that too:
1.If she had the time to realize that she was threatened at knife-point, then why did she not cry out? The single, nowadays-debated ”Oh, murder!” outcry seems very sparse in such a situation.
2.If she actually did pull the sheet over her face from the outset, then surely she was not obliging enough to keep the fabric stretched over her face as her assailant cut her? And a stretch to the linen would have been called for, since it is very awkward to cut otherwise.
I think that the most probable solution is that the killer was the one who did the stretching and the cutting, just like Bond suggests. I really can´t see any other working explanation to it. And, of course, to me, all of this suggests that the Kelly slaying was perpetrated by someone who had close bonds with her.

All the best,
Fisherman