Soliciting or night attack.

[Sox]

One thing, I think anyway, certainly points away from the 'she was sleeping' theory: Arterial spray. This, of course, depends on wether or not you think Kelly was a Ripper victim,

One thing I think is for certain, Kelly's killer did not have the same concerns over being bloodstained that were displayed in the previous four murders. Maybe the reason for this, was that he was in the same state of undress as Mary Kelly. In more than one study on Victorian prostitution, it has been noted that men and women of that era were loathe to be naked for sex, the female normally stripping down to her chemise, the male leaving on an undershirt.

Phillips surmised that Kelly's body was moved after her throat was cut, he states.....

I am sure that the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead that was nearest the wooden partition, because of the large quantity of blood under the bedstead and the saturated condition of the sheet and the palliasse at the corner nearest the partition.

.....which could well be consistent with someone being on the bed beside her, or in bed with her. Kelly being on that side of the bed is also consistent with a killer who has not yet taken the initiative, because she got in/on the bed first.

If Phillips was correct, and Kelly was on the side of the bed nearest the wall when she was killed, then this means that her killer not only had to sneak into her room, but that he had to climb onto the bed to attack her, leaning over would have put him at a severe disadvantage.

All things that could point to Mary Kelly's killer having been taken to No13 by her.

[Ben]

Hi Sox,

Maybe the reason for this, was that he was in the same state of undress as Mary Kelly.

...Another reason could be that he derobed himself of his outer garments prior to attacking in order to avoid being noticed on the streets afterwards in an obviously bloodstained condition, and this would be perfectly compatible with the "sleeping" scenario.

The blood pattern is also compatible with the killer tilting the torso towards the partition so as to direct the bloodflow away from himself, and since blood can be seen directly behind Kelly's neck in the photograph, it's quite clear that the blood stains occuped the general region encompassing Kelly's right ear and the adjoining partition.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

One thinks that is often overlooked: A man with a knife can easily put a woman into any position he wants her to be in. "Okay in the bed. Face the wall." I don't care that the Ripper was at large. When confronted with a weapon and assurances that you won't be hurt of you comply, and given that a bloke didn't look wild and crazy, most people would comply.

That argument gives us still the possibility of surprise.

Cheers,

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi .
If one looks at the crime scene at millers court, one could clearly see a rolled up item, which appears to be bedding, it is positioned on the bed against the wall,and the victim appears to be laying amongst remains of sheets.
My point has always been regardless if the bedroll was on the bed initially, or had been moved into that position to aid photography, it clearly was not needed for bed use, indicating that MJK did not require it, which would suggest that death could have occured much later then medical opinion .
Some of us have mentioned that the killer may have neatly folded up the blankets, which for the life of me cannot entertain, I cannot imagine a brutal killer like the Ripper even contemplating such a act.
Also a sketch was made at the time showing the interior of the room , and although one cannot say for certain it is accurate, even so it depicts kellys boots laying close to the fireplace, which suggests to me that kelly herself must have been aware of a fire burning, as it would have been pointless placing them there to dry if the fire was unlit.
As we have no reports of a glowing fire, from room 13 during the night, and as ashes were still relatively warm at 130 pm when the room was entered , that adds weight to my suggestion that the fire was lit at daylight.
Mrs Maxwell was the last witness to claim to have seen the victim alive , and she was the last witness to have see her talking with a man, as she has never been proven mistaken, and has a sworn statement on record in her favour, I find it foolhardy to reject her.
If one takes all the above points, and observes the crime scene, one comes to the likely deduction that the market porter seen talking with Mjk was most likely her killer.
Astracan simply, was not the last person seen with Kelly, therefore like Blotchy, should be eliminated.
A lot of flak has been directed against Hutchinson, and much has been made of the police losing intrest in him, giving the impression to many of us, that they rejected his sighting, but an alternative explanation could be although they were keen to identify Astracan[ hence the walkabouts] they were more intrested in Maxwells porter.
Why?
I am of the strong opinion that the police believed that Mary was killed in daylight hours, the crime scene would have told them that , without Maxwells
version, and that is why they requested, that she attended the inquest, and told the court.
If they were convinced medical opinion was right , they would have dismissed her sighting as bunkum, they would never had her, giving a statement under oath, which would have contridicted their own police doctors, and placed their expertise at doubt.
My opinion foks.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Richard,

Why would a glowing fire in a room cause anyone to make a report about it? If it was usual for people to light fires, then it wouldn't be reported.

Your whole point, I guess, is that it wasn't a night attack. Nor was it solicitation. It was a morning attack then? If so, what does it matter?
JTR already did one morning attack. How does it change anything?

Cheers,

mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi Michael.
Forgive I do not get your point, with reference to the fire , all I was saying was a glowing fire during the night would have been noticable, and may have drawn attention to the room, which of course the killer would not have wanted.
Also Fiona Kendall made a point, that her great grandfather Kellys landlord,
used to spy on the court during the night to keep up with the residents activities from a back room which looked over the court.
He never mentioned a fire, although of course we do not know where he was on the night of the 8th/9th.
As for morning attacks .
All were morning attacks, I am suggesting however, this one occured around 9am.
How does it change anything,?
Rather a lot Michael dont you think.
I also not saying it was not solicitation, it would naturally have been so.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Richard,

My point was that a fire's glow may have been so common on cool nights that it wasn't something a person would remark on or even notice.


Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

all I was saying was a glowing fire during the night would have been noticable, and may have drawn attention to the room, which of course the killer would not have wanted.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

on such a cold night, with a broken pane, I can't see her undressing and going to bed.
She must have lit the fire before, whether alone, whether with the killer.

Amitiés,
David

[claire]

it depicts kellys boots laying close to the fireplace, which suggests to me that kelly herself must have been aware of a fire burning, as it would have been pointless placing them there to dry if the fire was unlit.
As we have no reports of a glowing fire, from room 13 during the night, and as ashes were still relatively warm at 130 pm when the room was entered , that adds weight to my suggestion that the fire was lit at daylight.

Hi, Richard,

Nice logic, overall...just a couple of quick responses to the above...

It's plausible to think that someone would place their boots by the fire in anticipation of lighting it later, especially if it was one's habit to dry them off there.

Secondly (and I agree that a lit fire may well be visible), it's not guaranteed that a low, long-burning fire (as we might keep going during cold weeks) would be that visible...it's only when the flames are leaping about (which likely happened later, when the clothing was burned) that it's really that visible from outside. I recall that there were some curtains/window coverings over the second (unbroken) window closest the fire, which may have concealed the low glow of such a fire.

Lastly, if you've kept a fire going for a fair old while (speaking as someone who has lived in a coal-heated house), you'll know that it can remain warm for a rather long time after it has gone out. It's not just a couple of hours or so, but usually several hours (I've learned this to my cost, cleaning out a grate in the afternoon from a fire that went out in the morning, and have the burns to prove it!!). That said, in your support, a chilly room with broken windows may well hasten the cooling process.

The longer you've had a low fire burning, the longer it takes to cool, though, in general. Just because the grate/embers were still warm doesn't mean the fire recently went out...if it had been lit in the morning, I'd be surprised if it went out so quickly for the embers to just be warm by the time of the exam. And if it was just a quick and dirty fire, just a flame and the clothing, for example, it would, conversely, have gone out so quickly that the grate would be cold within a very short time, leading to the conclusion it was a decently built fire in the first place.

[The Good Michael]

Also Fiona Kendall made a point, that her great grandfather Kellys landlord,
used to spy on the court during the night to keep up with the residents activities from a back room which looked over the court.

Richard,

I don't put much stock into hearsay. What back room? What was the room number? Which residents did he spy on? It sounds like mere anecdote to me. I believe she was related to him, but she hasn't come forth with anything else.

Again, what if Kelly was killed at 6, 7, 8, or 9? What does it matter if all doctors were wrong and only Maxwell was right? You must have a reason to rewrite history.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi Claire,
If Kelly had lit the fire the question arises.
When ?
If it was when she entertained Blotchy, then Mrs Prater never saw it when she went up her stairs at 130am.
Was it when she arrived home with Astracan, after all she was alleged to have said 'You will be confortable' [ overheard by Hutchinson]
In which case why would she burn precious items such as pawnable clothing?
Did he say he would pay her well , and she believed this fine gentleman may be a a future sugar daddy? so the clothing was unimportant.
Was it Jack The Ripper she was taking back to her room, and he was in luck , this woman was even going to light a fire for him...
Questions I Cant answer, but the boots may be a clue.
I believe the most sustainable rain was at dawn , when it was wet enough for Catherine Pickett to know at the door of room 13, to borrow kellys shawl, as it was heavy drizzle.
So if her boots needed drying I would say she lit the fire on awakening before 8am, and speculation has me having kelly take them off , after returning home around 850am, to wait the arrival of Maxwells porter.
I have already in previous posts discussed the room clues, and feel this scenerio, best describes my idea of what might have occurred.
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Hi Richard,

I asked you this on the other thread, and I ask it again...
Do you really believe Mary has vomitted in the morning, then has eaten fish and potatoes, then has taken a guy home...etc ?
And btw, do you believe Maurice Lewis ? (ie: Mary was short, stout and dark.)

Amitiés,
David

[richardnunweek]

Hello Mike,
I must agree Fionas snippits on Casebook were short lived, however there were reasons for her departure, although I understand she and Coral corresponded after.
I agree dangling a 'carrot' is not cricket so to speak, for I feel her oral history could have been so important to Casebook, to actually hear the views of the McCarthy clan, would be most intresting, to say the least.
According to Fiona, her great-grandfather not only knew who might have been responsible, but motive also.
Fascinating, one wonders did the police hear of his suspicions?
Did he act privately on his suspicions?
For him to believe he knew who, and why, does this suggest the killer was connected to Mjk, and had a reason to kill her.?
Anyway we proberly will never know ....unfortunetly.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hello David,
Do I believe Mary Kelly vomited?
Answer .
I believe she told Mrs Maxwell that, it is possible that she drank some ale. left from the previous night , and vomited .
If this was the case it would depend upon the severity of the vomiting.
I remember reading that fish and chips/potaoes, could be digested in 90 minutes, so if she was killed around 9am , it would have been possible to have eaten some around 730am.
Do I believe that ?
Answer No.
What time did kelly consume the food?
Answer... no idea.
Do I believe Maurice Lewis?
Yes And No, I accept he was in the court that morning playing pitch and toss, simply because he admitted playing an illegal game, but I also accept he described the wrong person, by the said description, but the mystery is .
If he saw this woman , who he believed was the dead woman, leave kellys room , and return to it.... Who was this woman?
And to top it all he saw this same woman talking to a man he describes as Dan [Barnett] at 10am[ not possible] in the Britannica.
So who was this woman, who was not Kelly, she was obviously known in the area, and what connection was she to both Mary, and Joe.?
More mysteries my friend.
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Thanks Richard,

you know I respect all kinds of views, but in this case I can't help feeling you must have some reason to favor this quite unbelievable "morning scenario and timing"...
But I'm patient...one day I'll know why...

Amitiés mon cher,
David