Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[RivkahChaya]

(I’m assuming that milk stays white in the stomach, and would be recognizable during the examination).

No, milk doesn't "stay white" in the stomach for very long, because the white look of milk is from the non-absorption of light particles by a lot of non-pigmented ingredients, like calcium, and casein, plus translucent milkfat, all suspended in water. Modern milk is homogenized, so that it doesn't separate; in 1888, it did, and before every use, you had to shake it, to get a consistent texture. Back then, the bits of fat looked yellowish, and the whey (mostly water) were nearly transparent.

At any rate, milk has a lot of sugar, and a pretty easily broken-down protein (relative to the protein in meat).

However, in the process of digesting milk, the water is liberated first, and the sugar is broken down easily, while the fat, one of the last parts to break down, is left in the stomach in high concentration, and the glycerides are releasing a short-chain fatty acid called butyric acid.

Butyric acid stinks, and it stinks in high concentrations in the stomach an hour of so after drinking milk. Butyric acid is was makes rotten milk and rancid butter stink, and it is what makes vomit smell. The more dairy in your stomach, the more your vomit will stink, although other foods have butyric acid; milk just has really large amounts.

Human breastmilk has low amounts of it compared with other mammals, which is why puke and poop from breastfed babies is low-odor.

So no, the stomach contents would not be white, but there'd be a real stink if the person had been drinking milk, unless the milk had been drunk just minutes before death-- even then, anerobic bacteria in the stomach would attack it, so even if digestive processes ceased, if the body lay undiscovered, you'd still get a pretty bad stink.

[Wickerman]

Hi Michael.

That means the killer either sneaked into her room somehow while she slept and attacked her before she woke, or....and most probably the real answer....Mary's killer was already in her room but with her permission.

Agreed, he was invited in.

The fact that she is not in the middle of the bed but on the right hand side, likely with her face facing the partition wall, indicates that its possible she was "sharing" the bed with someone who was to get into bed from the left side.

Yes, agreed. They started out by being in bed together.
We might be reminded by those words quoted by Hutchinson, attributed to MJK in speaking to her client:
"She said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable"
Suggestive that Kelly had more in mind than a quickie.

One thing is certain, Mary was lying down on her bed and by all appearances unaware that she was about to be attacked. That suggests she was on her side, facing the wall, likely asleep.

On her side but not necessarily asleep. I would not rule out strangulation as the initial attack, once unconscious, he turned her on her back and sliced her throat.

The cry of "murder" was heard "as if at the door" where Sarah Lewis was residing in the court, suggesting by the volume, that the door to Marys room was open when she exclaimed it, or someone in the courtyard uttered it.

My earliest belief was that the cry of "murder" was from another witness who looked through the broken window. This witness never surfaced so it remains my conjecture, and will likely be nothing more.
If the killer was so lacks as to let Mary utter any cry at all wouldn't you think he would high-tail it out of there pronto?

The accepted scenario of MJK crying out and the killer just continuing to murder and mutilate her with no regard for the possibility that neighbours would come to see what's the matter, is hard to accept.
This is why I think that the murder was over by the time of the "cry", and that means someone else saw the body before Bowyer, who we know nothing about.

.... and since we have no witness including all the courtyard tenants that suggest Mary ever left the room after that time, .....

This is not exactly true. I know you choose to dismiss Hutchinson, but there is no proof either way that Hutchinson did not meet Mary when he said he did.
Then we have Mrs Kennedy, another who some choose to conveniently dismiss, and again without the slightest shred of evidence.

"Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before......
Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday..."
Evening News, 10 Nov. 1888.

Then again on the morning of the 12th, it was reported about the pilot coat found in Kelly's room...
"Even were this not so, the coat would not tally with the description of the man in whose company the unfortunate woman Kelly was last seen - a well dressed man with a long overcoat over an ordinary coat."
Daily News, 12 Nov. 1888.

So even when Hutchinson walked in to Commercial St. that same night, the police were already aware that Mary Kelly had been seen out after her liaison with Blotchy, at the same time (2:00-3:00am), and in the company of a well-dressed man.

The path of least resistance is to dismiss both witnesses, but then you end up making the evidence fit the theory rather than the correct way, which is that the theory should fit the evidence.

Regards, Jon S.

[Edward]

Hello All –

Hi Phil
Unless the jug or cup was made of glass, how would anybody from a distance be able to determine that the content was milk? Again, the items found in Number 13 don’t seem to include a jug of sorts (there was an empty ginger beer bottle listed, I believe). Plus, the victim’s stomach contents did not include milk. (I’m assuming that milk stays white in the stomach, and would be recognizable during the examination).

Hi Richard
I agree that the “horrors of drink” could very well have been the “horrors of what was found in Room 13”. (especially if Mary knew the victim)

Hi Raven
The victim was on the bed when murdered. (right side) I do not think otherwise.

Best Regards,
Edward

[richardnunweek]

Hi Phil.
Yes indeed , but then went to fetch her husbands breakfast, either at Bishopsgate street , or Spitalfield market, which included visiting a milk shop which she had not visited for some time..this was verified by the police.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

Wasn't Maxwell returning plates? Off the top of my head.

Phil H

[richardnunweek]

Hi Phil
Just a quickie there was a milk shop, in Dorset street number 8?, so Kelly would not have far to venture,although was it open at 8am, if so why did Maxwell go further afield ?
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Michael,
Going with the assumption that the killer and Kelly, were in the room for sex, even under pretence, then the most regular position on top would be likely.
I can not see a problem if the killer straddled Kelly for him to slice her throat, with one hand .maybe partially covering her face with a sheet.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

On Mary and milk

In 1888 I think she'd have used a small jug or a cup. The seller would have ladled it from a milk churn.

Phil H

[Michael W Richards]

I would like to know how he managed to cut her throat with her laying in bed like that.

He didn't have the advantage of sneaking up behind her, no element of surprise ambush.

I would think just to be there and lean over her with a knife would arouse her to a movement to fight him off and leave a different blood pattern, or something.

Also, I have read she was moved in the bed so he could sit there and do his work. So, then, at first she was farther away, meaning he'd have to get into the bed a bit and lean way over, very difficult to slash a throat like that I would think.

Her killer approached her as she lay on her right side and cut her throat. That would mean he was on the bed, and the fact she didnt wake, indicates what I posted previously.

It also is data that almost certainly confirms that Marys killer used the knife with his left hand. Find another Canonical where that is so strongly indicated...and remember that truly ambidextrous people constitute about 1% of a randomly selected group within the general population.

So...likely its a Killer known to Mary...and a left handed man.

Cheers Beowulf

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

I will address some of your rebuttal points Jon, but time available is going to limit me to this one thought for now....regarding the attack itself.

Mary was initially attacked while in bed in her chemise on the right hand side of the bed. The spurts on the partition wall gives us that data.

That means the killer either sneaked into her room somehow while she slept and attacked her before she woke, or....and most probably the real answer....Mary's killer was already in her room but with her permission. The fact that she is not in the middle of the bed but on the right hand side, likely with her face facing the partition wall, indicates that its possible she was "sharing" the bed with someone who was to get into bed from the left side. One thing is certain, Mary was lying down on her bed and by all appearances unaware that she was about to be attacked. That suggests she was on her side, facing the wall, likely asleep. The cry of "murder" was heard "as if at the door" where Sarah Lewis was residing in the court, suggesting by the volume, that the door to Marys room was open when she exclaimed it, or someone in the courtyard uttered it. If it was the second option, then I believe we can assume Mary would have been dead at the time, because she would have heard that cry and therefore been awake and alert to cry out herself when she gets attacked. And Elizabeth and Sarah heard no noise following the cry. That in and of itself pretty well dismisses the cry of murder as the attack commencement.

Since we know by virtue of Mary Ann Cox that she did have a visitor when she entered the room before midnight, and since we have no witness including all the courtyard tenants that suggest Mary ever left the room after that time, Blotchy is a prime candidate for her bed mate. Did he leave unseen? Did he open the door for someone after Mary fell asleep? Did he slip out and someone else slip in?

These questions, and the fact that the killer,..... (who could not lock the window easily from outside the room, even with the lower right pane broken, therefore he left via the door after he took the spring latch "off" so it would lock behind him,....seemed to gain access to the room without waking Mary or causing her to cry out...(see above), indicates to me that her killer was in the room with her knowledge.

When assessing the probable personal nature of the attack on her face and the bizarre ritualistic manner in which he placed organs under her head and between her legs...a breast under her head...it seems to indicate that Mary was not killed by a stranger.

Hence, a killer who seeks strangers out while they were actively soliciting on the streets is not suggested in this murder.

There is no real strong basis to suggest that Mary wasnt in that bed when found by Bowyer...but there certainly is to suggest that whomever killed her gained access to her room without Mary complaining about it.

Cheers all

[richardnunweek]

Hello Curious.
The trio of killers is not just a possibility that I have dragged up,
The suspect Pedachenko , was allegedly aided by a man named Levitski, and a female called Winberg .
A coincidence here, is the shout of Lipski heard at the Stride assault, sounds rather like Levitski, does it not.
That has got me wondering now..
Regards Richard.

[curious]

If all of this happened then it has to have been pre-planned, and it was for the sole purpose of having the woman known as Kelly,dead in room 13, and no longer active.

Regards Richard.

Hi, Richard,
I'm fine with speculation, there has to be some to make sense of the facts which don't really seem to add up.

Why would the three go to all that trouble? I get the complete mutilation to disguise who had actually been killed, but why? andd any ideas who the men were?

Thanks,

curious

[RavenDarkendale]

@ RivkahChaya

True the motive is there for renter to murder landlord as well. An entire weeks wages were owed as back rent which would be a major loss to the landlord. The killing would be due to anger and frustration, as the renter gives yet another pitiful excuse as to why she cannot pay. Perhaps her age and beauty is what kept him from throwing her out. But everyone has an end to their rope, and frustration causes a lot of bad things.

@ Edward

Isn't it more logical that they moved to the bed because they weren't getting naked to play horseshoes? She lies down naturally on her back, he cuts her throat, perhaps the dissection begins before she is actually dead. If he cut her throat before moving to the bed where is the blood evidence?

Just saying

Raven Darkendale

[richardnunweek]

Hi Edward,
Many rumours surrounded the Millers court murder, one of them suggests, that Kelly rented out her room that evening to someone [ obviously for soliciting].
If indeed that was the case, then it would be possible that she returned to her room at daybreak, expecting the room to be vacated, put her hand through the broken pane [like Bowyer] to reach the bolt, and saw the ''Horror of drink'' and staggered into Dorset street, and was sick.
But what happened next?
A answer is so hard to find, that is conceivable, so it is dismissed.
Regards Richard.

[Edward]

Hello Beowulf

Given the position of the victim when the throat was cut (near a wall/Partition on her right), it might indicate a left-handed killer. I agree, it would be very awkward to cut a throat right-handed with the victim in that particular position.
Regards,
Edward.