Kellys front door, why no blood?

[skypilot]

I'm new here so be patient with my probably "foolish" questions at this point. I liked your idea of blood seeping through the bed and unto the floor. Do we know this actually occurred and, secondly, the timeframe it took for the "seeping" could help to set the time of MJK's murder. Do we know this was taken into account? thanks! al

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mitch,

I think its possible the blood could have seeped from under the bed after the ripper had left.

Most of the blood had been shed several hours before the door was forced open, it would have been well-congealed long before Dew entered the room (assuming he did at some point). Most of the blood, being shed at the top right-hand corner of the bed and on the floor beneath, would have started to congeal there even before the killer left the scene. What did not congeal would have been soaked up by the mattress.

Of course, one possible means by which Dew might have slipped could have come about if, during the removal of the body (and/or parts thereof), some "awfulness" was inadvertently dropped onto the floor. However, Dew's autobiography implies that he slipped earlier in the process, at the point when he first took in the details of the room - and the body was apparently still on the bed at this point.

I think the most important thing a lack of blood ...

There was no "lack of blood", as such - copious quantities of it would have jetted out of the neck within seconds, and the rest have oozed out within minutes, of the killer cutting Mary's throat.

[Mitch Rowe]

The only thing I would say about JTR is Im fairly certain it was a man. He knew more than the average joe about what he was up to. Thats it. You can fill in the blanks from there.

[Blues]

leaving the scene...

JTR left the scene after burning the clothes he was wearing that may (probably) were blood soaked/stained. He then changed into the clothes he had at No. 13 - for he frequented there often - and went out fresh as a Whitechapel Daisy. There's an old saying - KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid. Most things are NOT some mysterious contrivance/conspiracy. Most things are as they seem. The human mind loves a good story though. "It HAS to be more than THAT!" Like Oswald COULDN'T have acted alone...well, in all certainty, he COULD have. Dude had problems...dude lost his job...dude wanted to keep his flower fresh...dude wanted to raise some extra dough on the "uterine" market while going about his frightening business - does the onset of uterine trophies coincide with the decline of dude's income? (seriously, does anyone know for sure?) It's like OJ's story of Nicaraguan Cocaine assassins killing Nicole and Ron. No...it was much simpler than that...as usual...it was a coke addled jealous man who was capable of nearly severing the head of his once beloved. It makes one ashamed to be part of the testosterone gender. Anyway, it's all speculation.

Blues

[Mitch Rowe]

I think its possible the blood could have seeped from under the bed after the ripper had left. Boyrer did mention seeing blood on the floor. So I think there was a fair amount of blood there. And maybe not all under the bed. The picture dont show much blood so I really dont have an answer.

I think the most important thing a lack of blood tells us is that JTR was not a raving maniac. He was calm cool and collective.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Sam,
The trouble is, along with all of the witnesses police, or media, we tend to argue that 'It could not have happened ', or'That can not be right', when the fact is surely we are not in a position to be so adamant, and negative.

I'm only going by the inquest testimony of McCarthy and Bowyer, Rich - which was fresh in their minds, widely reported and written down, at the time. 'Twas first Bowyer, followed by McCarthy, who arrived at the police station; they summoned Inspr Beck and returned with Beck to Miller's Court. No 14 year old boy enters into it - not even in some of the more sensational articles in the local press, if I recall correctly.

Added to that, most of the "awfulness" was confined to Mary Kelly's bed, as is evident from the testimony of those who were certainly at the scene, and as we can see ourselves from the photographs.

In the case of Dew, he is honest to state that although memory fades after time , the events of the morning of the 9th November88 will always remain vivid, and therefore why should we doubt his recollections?

I'm just doubting elements of them, and noting that memoirs of that period (perhaps even today) had a tendency to inflate the importance of the subject. We have only to look at Major "I nearly caught him!" Smith and Sir Robert "I know more than I'm letting on" Anderson to see that.

Dew seems more of an honest broker than either (IMHO), but that doesn't mean his account should be seen as squeaky-clean; and, by that, I don't just mean that his memory might have been fading either - I'm pretty certain that he knowingly exaggerated his role here and there.

So, Dew's slipping in the awfulness on the floor is almost certainly not true, as (probably) is his claim to have been the first on the scene with Beck.

[Bob Hinton]

Amount of blood.

It is assumed that anyone carrying out the attacks and especially MJK's would be covered in blood, but this is a fallacy.

Blood spurts out and generally covers everything if the victim is still alive whilst being stabbed, cut etc. If the person has been killed before the knife was used then very little blood would be sloshing about. Certainly with MJK there would be lots of body bits etc and other noisome items but I would expect the majority of her blood to be found in her body cavity.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Sam,
The trouble is, along with all of the witnesses police, or media, we tend to argue that 'It could not have happened ', or'That can not be right', when the fact is surely we are not in a position to be so adamant, and negative.
In the case of Dew, he is honest to state that although memory fades after time , the events of the morning of the 9th November88 will always remain vivid, and therefore why should we doubt his recollections?
With reference to Bowyer being refered to as a youth , this is clearly wrong if 'Harry' was the first person to enter the station at 1045am that is...
There is a report that at the time of Bowyers gruesome discovery, Mrs McCarthy and son[ Fionas Grandfather] were collecting rents in the court, and I have always had a inkling that it was that 'young man' that was sent hot footed to the nick. proberly followed by McCarthy man., infact Dew commented that he interviewed the youth in the court itself about the events leading up to his errand.
I appreciate that at the inquest it was not interpreted that way, but one should take on board that Bowyer may have been presented as the messenger to protect the 14 year old the anquish of giving inquest evidence.
With Regard to the slipping up, and other harrowing details recalling that event, that does not seem far fetched to me, the room was a bloodbath,, and i would suggest every person at the scene, would have experienced severe trauma for a very long time.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

I strongly suspect that Dew was bragging himself up on this occasion - he certainly didn't get his facts straight. Dew gets Bowyer's age hopelessly wrong, stating that a "young fellow with bulging eyes" sent by McCarthy arrived at the station just as Dew was chatting to Inspector Beck. Bowyer was an army pensioner, his "youth" long gone by 1888. In addition, Dew also neglects to mention that McCarthy himself soon arrived at the station and returned to Miller's Court with Beck and Bowyer. Neither McCarthy nor Bowyer, in their statements and inquest testimony, mention anyone other than the Inspector returning with them to Miller's Court.

I don't doubt that Dew could have been there at some point that morning, but the story of his being the first on the scene seems to ring a little hollow, and his account of his slipping in the "awfulness on that floor" may well have been a contrived bit of "shock-horror" tagged onto the end of his tale.

Hi Stephen,

I think the memoirs of Dew on this particular subject are somewhat in contrast with the official reporting of the scene, because If I recall he also mentions internal parts dangling from the ceiling and all over that room.

The official line is that the attack took place on the bed itself, with Mary near to the upper right corner of it. The only organs, flesh or viscera that isnt on the table, are on, in, or around Mary.

There has never been serious consideration of an attack at the doorway, because we have no witnesses hear or see anything after "oh-murder" around 3:45am, and they heard nothing from her room, or saw no light, from about 1:30am until that cry.

Im sure there was blood on the floor, but for all we know the killer cleaned himself off and burned the rag in the fireplace.

Best regards

[Blackkat]

This is something that I've wondered this too. Even with the other victims. Was there ever any bloody footprints or anything?

[DVV]

A bloody question...
Where have you read such details? Is this in Dew's memoirs? Can't remember this.

Amitiés,
David

[Stephen]

I read recently that when Walter Dew entered Mary Kellys room he slipped and fell because there was so much blood etc on the floor. So why is it that we have no report of any trace of blood on the outside of the door, no report of blood on the passage way leading from her door to Dorset street, or into the little court. No report of any blood outside the room when the room floor was awash....how did the Ripper manage this?