MJK Murder

[Chava]

I could very well be over-thinking this, but here goes:

We know from the PM etc and the in situ evidence that MJK was killed while facing somewhat downwards on the far right hand side of the bed in her room. There is arterial splatter on the wall beside this side of the bed and it's in line with her neck as she is found in the bed. She's either killed while face-down or facing that wall. Chances are she was slashed while face-down and moved afterwards so that arterial blood splashes on the wall. We also know that she is wearing some kind of nightgown, and her clothes are draped over a chair at the other side of the room. A handy sketch--which I hope someone will link too but which I cannot at present find--also shows her shoes beside this chair. It's very likely that she got undressed by herself and got into her nightgown by herself.

Now here's what bothers me and this has always bothered me. She was killed facing over to the right of the bed. If she had been alone in that bed and someone crept up on her, it's likely that she would have been killed further over to the middle of the bed. She would have been by herself. And it wasn't a big bed! Even if someone surprised her, I doubt they could have angled her quite that efficiently. The position she was in when killed sounds more like she was sharing that bed with someone who occupied the other side. He could have grabbed her in a blitz attack, but more likely to me he suggested sex from behind in some fashion, and killed her while she was on her hands and knees and so defenceless.

So where do we go with this? Well for a start I don't believe in the random or purposeful killer breaking into the room and attacking her while she sleeps. That would be a very risky thing to do. Even if he managed to push the cloth aside and look through the window, it's not like there's any light around that will help him see through to the far side of the room to make sure she's asleep or dead drunk. And if he attempts a break-in and she isn't asleep and yells her head off, he's very possibly caught.

What makes sense to me is that she let him in her room either while she was dressed or after she got into her nightclothes. If that's the case, he could kill her at any time. If it's Blotchy Face, and he doesn't want to interrupt the concert, he waits until she starts taking her clothes off, at which time she's occupied with unbuttoning skirts, pulling off chemises etc. She's basically helpless to attack at that moment. She's also helpless as she pulls her nightgown over her head. He could kill her at any time. If it's someone who comes along after Blotchy-Face has left, same thing. Even if she's already dressed for bed when she lets him in, at some point she will turn her back and he can kill her.

But he doesn't. It looks very much to me as if he kills her while they are in bed. And that's nowhere near as easy to do as it sounds. For a start she might not agree to the sex-from-behind thing. And if she doesn't, he's not in a very good position to kill her without her having the chance to struggle which is the last thing he wants. He could seize her and roll her over and then slash her. But that would still mean he got into bed beside her. The Ripper doesn't hang around, he appears to kill his victims as soon as he gets an opportunity. This happens with Eddowes, it apparently happens with Chapman if Mrs Long's evidence is to be believed. It likely occurs with Nicholls and Stride. I'd expect the Ripper to attack MJK at the very first opportunity but he doesn't. MJK's murderer takes his time. He goes to bed with the victim. She is relaxed enough around him to share her bed with him and wear her nightgown. This does not mean to say she's necessarily known him long. According to Barnett, she moved in with him the day after she met him. But I doubt she would move in with someone the night she met him.

What we have here, I'm pretty certain, is a personal murder. Whether it was the Ripper or someone else, he knew MJK and she knew him. It could still be Blotchy Face. Certainly a man with his description comes up in other murders and attacks. But even if it is the Ripper who kills MJK, I doubt he kills her for the same reasons he kills the others. I'll go further and suggest that the man that got into bed with MJK that night may not have intended to kill her. Something happened or something was said, and everything changed.

[Rubyretro]

Interesting, Chava..

Personally, I think that Hutch hung around for such a long time to give MJK the time to be well asleep before he reached through the window to open the door.

There was a fire burning in the grate which may have given a dim light -enough to see that the woman in the bed was static and in a sleeping position.

She had been drinking so she might even have been snoring for all we know.
If the cries of 'Murder!' that were heard came from Mary, then she DID wake up and shout -but nobody came to her aid.

If she awoke then she must have struggled, so her position in the bed was not the same when she died as when she was sleeping.

JtR probably moved her as he was killing her and/or whilst mutilating her.

[kensei]

I don't think any assumptions can be made about the manner of MJK's murder based on the position her body was found in. Rubyretro is right, the body would have been moved during the mutilation, probably significantly and several times over given the extreme level of damage to the body which would have taken a considerable amount of time to do.

Also, I don't think MJK allowing someone into her bed had anything to do with how comfortable she felt with him. When she was prostituting herself, she was enticing both because of her physical attractiveness and because of the fact that she had a private room available rather than having to do business quickly in a dirty alleyway, whereas most of the other victims did not have permanent or semi-permanent lodgings. And if she brought a client to her room, they'd use the bed. I believe that on the night she died she first had Blotchy Face as a client and that after singing for him for a time they had sex in her bed, and that she then brought Astrakan Man there for the same purpose. Why would she get into her nightgown? Well, she was quite drunk by then and may have felt that she couldn't go out anymore and this was definitely the last customer of the night and then it was time to sleep. Perhaps he told her he would pay extra to spend the night with her. Whatever. But I believe he was the Ripper and that he killed her while she was in a very tipsy state, close to or even after passing out. I also believe the cry of "Murder" heard by Mrs. Prater was uttered not by MJK but by a passerby who saw the Ripper making his exit. But of course there are many who will vigorously disagree. Basically, I do not believe that Mary Jane's killer was someone who knew her or that there is any reason to feel that this must be so.

[kensei]

I just wanted to reiterate here that I think that how drunk Mary Jane was is of key importance in understanding what happened. Inhibitions are lowered, reason goes out the window, and one is much more easily influenced when in that state. Her actions in such a condition do not need to make sense to us. I think she brought two complete strangers to her room that night and that even if she had lived she would have had only fuzzy memories of either of them, at best.

[Garry Wroe]

Therein lies the problem, Kensei. You argue on the one hand that Kelly was killed by the Jewish-looking pick-up, then assert on the other that she was drunk. But the one and only source we have for the Jewish-looking pick-up is Hutchinson - and Hutchinson claimed that Kelly was sober when he encountered her. Or are we to believe that the hyper-observant Hutchinson was able to recollect the microdetail of Kelly's punter but failed to notice that Kelly herself was drunk to the point of near-incoherence?

As for the substance of Chava's original post, this is a sequence of events that I examined in some detail in my book. Suffice to say, I think it unlikely that Kelly was in a prone position when she was killed. The arterial blood-spray pattern on the partition wall, for example, is almost identical to that which was discovered on the Hanbury Street boundary fence - and we may be relatively certain that Annie Chapman was lying in a supine position when her throat was cut.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Chava]

That's the point. She was drunk and vulnerable as hell. So why did he wait until she was in the bed to kill her? Because she was definitely killed in that bed. And, pace Kensei, she was killed on the far right side of it. That is where the large blood pool was. There wouldn't have been nearly so much blood during the mutilations because she'd basically bled out after death.

The Ripper appears to have killed very quickly after meeting his victim. Probably at the first opportunity he had. MJK would have given him a lot of opportunities long before she made it to the bed. Let's suppose he knocks on the door while she's in her nightgown and she lets him in. He could kill her quickly and quietly the first time she turns her back on him. But he waits until she's all tucked-up in bed.

I've got to say here that I totally discount the idea that the killer crept in on her while she wa sleeping. first off, there is no evidence to suggest that fire was blazing while she was in bed alone. It was likely dying down because she wouldn't have been able to afford the coal to keep it going for long. I remember coal fires. They don't shed a lot of light when they are turning to ash as this one would have been. So the killer would not have been able to look through the window and see her condition. And even if he could, all he would have noted would have been a sleeping woman. If he tries to break in on her, and she is just dozing, or she's a light sleeper, she screams her head off, people come running, and he's caught with a bloody great knife trying to break into a prostitute's room. I wouldn't fancy his chances in that scenario with a bunch of prostitutes all round him. Our Boy is brighter than that.

He went into her room because she let him in. After that door is closed he can kill her at any time he wishes. But he waits until she (and, I believe, he) are both in bed. There's a reason for that.

[Jane Coram]

Hi All,

I don't think there can be much question that Mary was killed whilst she was lying on the bed, facing the wall, (at least to some extent) and fairly close to it, from what Bond says in his report to the Home Office.

'. . . arterial blood was found on the wall in splashes close to where the woman's head must have been lying.'

I don't know if it's possible to say if her killer actually got into bed with her, or even if she was expecting him to because there just isn't enough to go on really.

It's possible she might just have liked sleeping on that side of the bed. If she was used to sharing it with Joe, then that might have been 'her side' of the bed -- and probably was, if Joe had to get up to go out to work at an early hour of the morning. He wouldn't want to have to scramble over Mary to get out of bed. I think most married couples have 'their side of the bed' and stick to it out of habit, even if their partner isn't there.

Having said that, there's no reason at all I can see why she couldn't have got into bed and moved to that side because she had a customer with her.
So six to one and half a dozen to the other really.

A few things though -- The item of clothing that Mary was wearing the night she was killed was a chemise and not a nightgown. Dr Phillips states in his inquest testimony that it was 'her linen undergarment', which seems to suggest it might have been her one and only undergarment.

In her drunken state, I think she got the top layers off and just slumped on the bed. In the newspaper sketch mentioned, her boots do look as if they are lying where they fell, and her clothes really are more or less dangling over the chair in a real old heap -- so I'd guess she just chucked them anywhere because she was so drunk.

I personally don't think that her killer broke in for the reasons already given. I think she either let him in, or she had left the door on the latch and he simply walked in. I honestly don't think it's possible to say if she knew him or not.

There is a possibility that Mary was aware of what was happening to her and put up some sort of a struggle, as there were what might be defensive wounds on her arms and hands, although Bond states that he believes there was no struggle by any of the victims, which presumably includes Mary. He does say though that the corner of the sheet may have been over her face at the time of the attack. It has to be possible though that it was just dangling over the edge of the bed onto the floor and was trailing in the pool of blood.

Best guess I can make is that she was lying on the far side of the bed, leaning towards the wall, half dozing and very drunk. She may or may not have been expecting anyone to join her. Her killer knelt on the bed, knife in hand and cut her throat before she had much chance to realise what was going on. She may have put her hands up to feebly defend herself. Obviously because knife tip went in on the right side of her neck, the spray hit the wall and the blood poured down onto the floor. Then her killer rolled her over to perform the mutilations, moving her further into the middle of the bed for easier access. Basically, I don't think anyone can do more than hazard a guess at what happened that night, because there just isn't enough to go on!


Just a thought to leave you with. Why was the bedding rolled up neatly at the end of the bed, and why is there something white draped over it that looks very much like stocking. That should cause a bit more thinking.

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[Chava]

I agree with everything you say, Jane. However it still would have been easier and more efficient to kill her from behind while she was standing rather than to kill her from behind while she is lying down. Much, much easier to control the victim, catch her by surprise and control the knife slash. The only way he waits until she is lying down is if he's shorter than her. And that would be a valid reason to wait. How tall was MJK again? I seem to recall 5'6" but I'm not sure...

[Jane Coram]

Hi Chava,

Well, I'm not so sure it would have been easier to kill her standing up. Hopefully there is someone on here that knows a bit more about how to kill people than I do.

I can see a few problems with cutting someone's throat standing up from an amateur point of view, but I'm obviously just guessing.

I should have thought that the arterial spray would have gone everywhere if the victim were standing up. Lying down the spray could be directed into the ground, or in Mary's case the wall so that the blood spray was restricted.

The victim's head would fall backwards with nothing to hold it in place if the throat was cut that severely, causing even more blood spillage on the killer.

The dead weight would literally be a real beggar to move without getting blood all over him.

I could well be wrong on all counts.

I would say though, just logically, that he'd killed all of the other victims whilst they were lying down, so he would have been much more familiar with that technique and he never had any trouble killing the other victims whilst they were on the ground, so why would he have a job with Mary?

Her estimated height was 5' 7" btw.

Now we just need someone that knows about cutting people's throats to set us straight. You're going to tell me you are a trained SAS assasin now aren't you? Lol.

Much love

Janie

xxxx

[Rubyretro]

I think that there's some really intersting things coming out in this thread now!
(and not least, how we girls look at personal experience when judging the veracity of the detail and men look at an overall 'big picture' : I think that it's the same with artists -but that's another story).

So..
Gary

. Or are we to believe that the hyper-observant Hutchinson was able to recollect the microdetail of Kelly's punter but failed to notice that Kelly herself was drunk to the point of near-incoherence?

I had reason to mull over this point at the weekend, because I was at a big party where lots of people had been drinking.

I think that the point is whether Hutch had been drinking himself.
I was sober myself at the party, but when I discussed the details of the evening with my husband and some girlfriends, I saw that they were totally incapable of objectively judging whether someone they had chatted with was p***ed or not -because they had been totally rat-arsed themselves at the time.

Also, it's amazing to see how someone who appears paralytic one moment, can rally and seem much more sober the next....I think that the cliché 'drink yourself back sober' has a veneer of truth.

I'm really beginning to ask myself if JtR didn't commit his crimes whilst on a bender (I think that substance abuse can have a role in the functioning of serial killers).

If both Mary & Hutch were both used to drinking alcohol, and both 'under the influence' that night, then I don't think it incredible that he didn't think it important to notice just how drunk she was -he might have been concentrating alot on himself getting his sentances straight-she might have made an effort to seem sober when talking to him-they might have fooled each other.

[Rubyretro]

It was likely dying down because she wouldn't have been able to afford the coal to keep it going for long. I remember coal fires. They don't shed a lot of light when they are turning to ash as this one would have been.

Chava-I use both wood and coal to heat my downstairs all winter.

I never said that the fire was blazing, and I too imagine it very low & glowing.

That's enough to make out dark grey shapes, and you can see that someone isn't moving, is prone, and well generally -asleep.

Let's say that with a broken window you can here sleep-noises (if not heavy snoring).

I feel fairly confident that with that tiny room, I could make a good judgement, from the window, as to whether Mary was asleep.

[Rubyretro]

It's possible she might just have liked sleeping on that side of the bed. If she was used to sharing it with Joe, then that might have been 'her side' of the bed -- and probably was, if Joe had to get up to go out to work at an early hour of the morning. He wouldn't want to have to scramble over Mary to get out of bed. I think most married couples have 'their side of the bed' and stick to it out of habit, even if their partner isn't there.

That is just so true !!

I'm typing this in my bedroom, and behind me is my spacious double bed :
my husband is away during the week at the moment, and I am looking at all the pillows squashed over to 'my' side.

Of course we sleep on the side which is practical for the morning..

[GregBaron]

Mjk..........

Well Ruby, GH certainly had a good eye for detail while drunk....
doesn't seem likely to me....perhaps he had a buzz or was a bit tipsy
but that's quite different than slurry, blurry, wobbly drunk...
Remember, he was supposed to be dead broke.....of course he could have
lied about that too!
I believe others described Mary as drunk which is usually recognizable
even by the tipsy....

As to Mary's demise, I imagine she could have been lying flat like
the others may have been and if the intial cut is on the side of the
wall the pressured blood may spew in that direction even if she wasn't
facing it...then the blood could also rush out of that side(her right)
onto the bed...either that or she was lying on her side when he pulled
her head back and slit across her throat....by the way, both of these
scenarios appear to me to be the work of a left hander whereas it seems
to me Chapman was the work of a right hander...hmmm....I may be trashing
my own belief that MJK was the Ripper's work....Oh I know, he was ambidextrous, why not?

There's been some discussion of throat slicing techniques on other threads
and of course few agree.............

I do agree that we can't really determine if someone snuck in on a passed
out Mary or a punter took his time as she passed out after their rendezvous...


Greg

[Rubyretro]

Remember, he was supposed to be dead broke.....of course he could have
lied about that too!

He might have been broke because he'd spent all his money on drink, of course !

Let's just say that I have no firm conviction on whether he was drunk or not -I was just trying to demonstrate to Garry that he could have been and that would explain why he didn't 'notice' how drunk Mary was.

As to what a 'drunk' would be capable of -there are examples in the papers every day. One that stood out for me was of a woman who was arrested at the ferry for having an unbelievable quantity of alcohol in her -turned out that she'd driven from Scotland whilst swilling neat vodka behind the wheel
during her trip -THAT takes alot of concentration;

I've worked as a painter on a building site here (yes, I've done alot of things) and seen the workmen drink pastis from 11H30 and then red wine with lunch, (all illegal), and do complicated calculations and move heavy bits of stone into place in dangerous & delicate situations..and the work looks perfect afterwards.

I havean open mind on this ...

[Chava]

The suggestion has always been that he attacked while the victim was upright--often strangling first. Then cutting possibly while the victim was comatose or near death on the ground. The arterial spirt in Chapman's case is very slight considering the circumstances of the body, and she may well have been near to death before he took a knife to her.

If I were to attack someone I would definitely do it from behind while the victim is standing. Grab the neck and pull it up with one hand, slash with the other; or grab the victim's neckerchief and yank really hard. Almost impossible to defend yourself in those circumstances. Then lower the victim down to the ground and have 'fun'. Killing a supine sleeping victim from behind her on the bed is much harder than one might think. For a start, how do you sleep on your side? Do you lie in a straight line with your upper hand along your body? Or do you pull your shoulder over and lie your shoulder, arm and hand forward on the bed which will allow you some balance in that position? If the latter--and I humbly submit that this is how people do sleep on their side--it would be beyond hard to get at a woman's neck to strangle her or slash her without disturbing her sleep and risking her fighting back. Add to that your own precarious position on the bed and I would argue that the killing-rom-behind-while-both-supine-on-the-bed theory holds no water at all. He could well have knelt behind her, pulled her up, and slashed her that way. I think he did. But he's still in bed with her choose how. And I don't see the Ripper allowing things to get that far before his kill.

As for the firelight theory, I'm sorry but I disagree. She may be visible 'sleeping' in the bed, but the watcher can't be sure she actually is asleep enough for him to come in on her even if she is snoring (and if she snores enough to be heard from across the room, she snores enough for Prater to report hearing it. And she doesn't). It's extremely unlikely he got in through the window. And if he did get in through the door, he would have had to know about MJK's habit of drawing the bolt in order to let himself in. One mistake as he balances across a broken piece of glass to draw that lock back, and he is caught.