The Night She Died

[Jon Guy]

True, Sam.

I need Chrismasonic to chime in here and tell me about those lads and lasses wandering around the Newcastle bars with nowt on in Winter !!!

I used to when I had a life !!!

[Ben]

I'd have to agree with Rob and Gareth.

I can't see too much evidence of any "neatly folded" blanket at the foot of Kelly's bed. "Rolled back" is nearer the mark, and the logical explanation is that it was done by the killer to facillitate the mutilations.

I take Jon's point also. When I'm at my most hammered, I'd flop into bed fully aware of the cold, but wholly lacking the motivation to do anything about it. Not much fun in the morning though when you wake up in the cold and rain with your hiking boots still on. But then maybe I shouldn't have been drinking aged 11 (or however old I was) at cub camp.

Regards,
Ben

[Stephen Thomas]

I've given up on Kelly's photo, Stephen, since I can see bugger all in it. Are you sure it's a blanket, and neatly folded?

Hi Robert (and Sam)

Yes it's a blanket and it's neatly folded if you look closely.

Not rolled up sleeping bag style as is often presumed.

Hi Jon

I've been hammered a thousand times more than Mary could ever have been but I've always covered myself up to sleep.

Best wishes gentlemen.

[Chava]

if that 2s is based on "Nichol" prices, then it might not be too far off what Kelly, Cox and Prater might have expected in return for offering the equivalent service in Dorset Street.

Wait a second. It was Nichols, wasn't it who said 'I've had my doss-house lodging 3 times tonight and spent it...' She must have charged 3d, which if I recall correctly was the price of a street-walker and the price of a tot of gin. There's a hellova gap between 3d and 2/- If Nichols can charge 3d, I can see Kelly etc charging 6d, but none of these women were exactly pin-up material, so I doubt they could charge 2/- That's half a week's rent!

I disagree, Robert, that the murders weren't sexual in nature. The killer's going for the generative organs, displaying his victims with legs spread etc. But that having been said, I can't imagine the Ripper 'playing along' with a victim or feigning sexual interest beyond the point where he was able to kill her. Sutcliffe did pretend to have sexual intercourse with one of his victims--who was very near to death at the time--in order to deceive someone who was walking by. He then stuffed her body in an abandoned sofa if I remember right... I don't think Our Boy messes around. As soon as he feels safe, he acts. And he would feel safe in Millers Court right after the door was closed and he was alone with Kelly.

[Ben]

Yes it's a blanket and it's neatly folded if you look closely

I must respectfully beg to differ, Stephen.

I've looked as closely as possible, and there's nothing that could possibly be construed as "neatly folded" about any of the bedclothes at the foot of Kelly's bed. Whether Kelly covered herself up or not, her killer could easily have rolled back the covers himself, and he probably did.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Robert]

Hi Chava

He took two wombs, but he also took a kidney, a heart, and a piece of bladder. He left the breasts alone until the last murder. I suppose the only guarantee that it was sexual, would be if he had an erection/orgasm while he was doing this. As far as Kelly is concerned, he must have been quite a "stud" to keep going considering the time it must have taken him. I know some people think he could have done Kelly in 10 minutes or so, but I don't see that.

[Sam Flynn]

I can't see too much evidence of any "neatly folded" blanket at the foot of Kelly's bed. "Rolled back" is nearer the mark...

... "rolled-up" is closer still, Ben - and no killer was going to bother doing that. Indeed, it appears not to have been unrolled (or "unfolded", pace Stephen Thomas) in the first place.

[Sam Flynn]

Wait a second. It was Nichols, wasn't it who said 'I've had my doss-house lodging 3 times tonight and spent it...' She must have charged 3d

... fourpence I think, Chava, but no matter - that's basically what she said, not that I imagine that there was a fixed rate.

Arthur Harding referred to "brides" (prostitutes) providing a "fourpenny touch", although the "brides" with whom Harding would have been familiar operated some time later than 1888. Harding was only born in 1886 - a fact which really ought to be remembered when considering Harding's statements about... erm... a certain Dorset Street character whose name I won't mention on this thread

There's a hellova gap between 3d and 2/- If Nichols can charge 3d, I can see Kelly etc charging 6d, but none of these women were exactly pin-up material, so I doubt they could charge 2/-

I was referring strictly to an "all-nighter" indoors. Maybe Kelly did charge sixpence a "touch" when she operated outdoors, but that'd only be (at most) 10 minutes' worth of her time against a slime-ridden wall. I'd imagine that a shilling or two (come in, Mr Hutchinson, your number's up!) wouldn't have been too much to ask for a night of sticky monkey-love in front of a fire.

[Ben]

It's nigh on impossible to assess the condition of the bedclothes from that photograph to my untrained eye, Gareth. It could be bunched up, rolled up, or rolled back. I'd hesitate in describing it as "neatly folded" though.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I'd still say "rolled up" rather than "folded", Ben - however, the salient point on which both Stephen and I seem to be unanimous is that it wasn't "flung back", chucked aside or dumped on the floor.

[Stephen Thomas]

I must respectfully beg to differ, Stephen.

I've looked as closely as possible, and there's nothing that could possibly be construed as "neatly folded" about any of the bedclothes at the foot of Kelly's bed. Whether Kelly covered herself up or not, her killer could easily have rolled back the covers himself, and he probably did.

Respectfully also, Ben

There is what would appear to be Mary's bedcover either folded or rolled behind her right leg towards the foot of the bed. It is presumed by some people that the camera that took the reverse angle body shot of Mary was resting on it. This is a 'given'. It's there for all to see. I used to think it was rolled up but now I see it as folded with Mary's left leg 'pop sock' lying across it giving the impression that it's tied. Maybe I'm wrong. Who cares?

[Stephen Thomas]

I'd still say "rolled up" rather than "folded", Ben - however, the salient point on which both Stephen and I seem to be unanimous is that it wasn't "flung back", chucked aside or dumped on the floor.

Thanks Sam

As the saying goes, you got my drift.

[Ben]

Hi Stephen,

All I can discern from the Kelly photograph are some bedclothes that have been bunched up in some fashion, and it's worth bearing in mind that we can only see part of the bedclothes in question. It would have taken some effort to compact it into a small folded bunch prior to it being tied together, and I'd be very surpised if Kelly ever had occasion to go to such meticulous lengths.

Maybe I'm wrong. Who cares?

That's just it, Stephen. Maybe I'm wrong too. That's why I'm dubious about drawing any hard any fast conclusions from the photograph which, let's face it, no more announces "She must have had a client with her", than it screams "She must have been disturbed in her sleep". I'd plump for the latter on balence, but not on the basis of the photograph.

All the best,
Ben

[Chava]

This is hard to explain without hand-gestures, but if that (I presume woollen) blanket was lying over her, and the killer wanted to get it out of the way easily, the easiest thing to do would be to reach over and fold the part covering her legs back towards the middle, fold the part covering her upper body back over that, and then roll the whole thing to the side. And that is what it looks like to me. The whole operation would take about 5 seconds and he could do it with one (left) hand. The problem with woollen blankets is that they are heavy and hard to manoeuvre. If he tries to pull it off and throw it to the floor, it might drag or snag, especially if it was wet. And it would make a noise hitting the ground as well. Wool, in those days before flannelette and nylon mixtures, was coarse and heavy. If I were in his position I would fold it as above and bundle it out of the way. And that is what I believe he did.

By the way, even if Kelly was a very neat and particular person, I would be surprised to see her blanket folded rather than laid out on top of the top sheet and possibly tucked in. You'd only leave the blanket folded if you weren't expecting to use it. There's no advantage in having to come home and make your bed before you fall into it, especially if you like a drink of an evening. However she may have expected to bring clients there and not wanted to soil her bed-linen. In which case she wouldn't have left her top sheet on the bed. For if the blanket's off, surely the top sheet would be as well? And for that again, if she was leaving her blanket folded, why is it lying on the far side of the bed and halfway up the bed and more or less against the wall rather than neatly at the foot of the bed where it's so much easier to deal with? All you need to do is just pull it up and there you are! If it's folded on the side you have to wrangle it. It's much easier to fold a blanket up like that than to unfold it. The former you can do with one hand. The latter you'll need both hands and a bit of distance from the bed to shake it out.

(I don't know if I'm making sense here but I am doing my best to explain myself under very difficult circumstances!)

[Ben]

Yep, I'd tend to agree with that, Chava.