Partition wall

[richardnunweek]

Hi Phil,
What ever the effect was, it apparently happened, as clearly that jacket of hers was not present in the room intact, neither was the bonnet.
On would imagine the jacket would have been cut into small pieces, however what would have been the purpose?.
Burning a blood stained jacket would not have been a easy task, and if it happened , the killer had to have had a really good reason..
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

Richard - ever tried burning clothing in a small grate? What is the effect?

I ask genuinely.

Phil H

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I keep coming back to the burning of a velvet jacket and bonnet because according to the police [Times Nov 12TH] they were bloodstained.
In order for these items to have been soiled with blood, they would either have been in the immediate area of the initial attack , or being worn by the victim.
The last descriptions we have of clothing seen on Mary Kelly, does not consist of either of those items, although the 9PM[ 8th] sighting by Mrs Prater does.
So I ask the following questions..answers please on a postcard......
Why was the velvet jacket owned by Kelly , and Mrs Praters bonnet[ left on the previous evening] on the bed when Kelly was attacked?
Why did Kelly change into these, prior to being attacked?
Was Kelly the person actually wearing them at the time of the murder?
Why would the killer[ police opinion] burn clothing because they were bloodstained..how would this incriminate him/her?.
I feel the burning of these garments are a clue to events, and should be discussed more vividly.
The police initially took the view that the murder happened in daylight , and the fire was started to disperse of evidence, not to give the killer needed light.
We should look at the murder scene, and take into account the good post by Rya, which notes the habits of 19th century women, also the bedroll which does not depict a night murder...that along with the questions asked here..
Regards Richard.

[Rya]

You're quite right, and I think echymosis was evident across her throat, so one possibility is she was strangled first, maybe she came too as the attack began?

Well, ecchymosis is associated with sharp instrument trauma as well; Bond is describing the same thing regarding the frontal knife injuries to her neck as he was describing on her right hand--extravasation of blood into the surrounding tissue causes ecchymosis, which in a cutting injury is the reddening we see around the perimeter of the slice. So he's describing these neck wounds as antemortem, or, more precisely, the cause of death. The fact that he didn't see ecchymosis in the deeper cuts across the neck that went down the vertebrae suggest that the killer continued, after the woman was dead, and exaggerated the initial cuts, either in an attempt to decapitate or just as part of the mutilation. Of course, this doesn't preclude the possibility they Mary was throttled or pummeled prior to death. But there was no obvious signs of struggle mentioned in the room--overturned furniture, the clothes neatly folded on the chair, and so on--and this combined with the lack of noise noticed by the other residents seems to suggest a quick and surprising attack. Other indications that she was awake and alert when the attack commenced would include the amount of blood splatter and dispersal, caused by her struggle while dying, and the clenching of the hands, which is common in traumatic death and not necessarily related to rigor mortis (the killer obviously manipulated her left hand after death, of course).

The business about her nudity when found is a significant detail which has gained little attention from writers I've read on the murder. Phil is quite right about the less than casual nature with which folks in those days approached nudity. More to the point, no sex worker would have removed all her clothes for a customer, even in a private setting, unless he specifically asked for that--and Mary was an experienced prostitute. It is unlikely that the killer undressed her after the murder, as all of the upper garments would be blood soaked, and this is not mentioned, although we have no inventory of the room. The fire in the grate would be plausible if she was induced (or paid) to remove all of her clothing for her partner, but then I would have kept that grate burning all night irregardless in those conditions. And Mary certainly wouldn't have laid about in nothing but her chemise as a morning habit, especially since it is pretty obvious that the landlord's henchman was a peeper. Kind of odd all around, and probably deserves its own thread.

[Wickerman]

Perhaps I should have just said that the wall was comprised of old doors Jon, how many and to what extent, is unclear. The "incidental" wainscoting means nothing when discussing the structural components.

Hi Michael.
We can all see the single door behind the wallpaper. I was interested in the basis for Sam & yourself believing that there were any more. How many and where do you see them?
Seeing one is a given, if you see two, please show me.

From Elizabeths statement at the Inquest;

"I should have seen a glimmer of light in going up the stairs if there had been a light in deceased's room, but I noticed none. The partition was so thin I could have heard Kelly walk about in the room."

Yes Michael, but you specifically wrote, "...the cracks were plastered. It was through some of the cracked plaster that Elizabeth could see into Marys room,..."

We know there was a partition, we do not know what it was made up of, and "we" includes Sam. Also, we do not know if plaster (expense?) was used to fill in any gaps. We do know dirty wallpaper was used to cover the partition, so why bother with plaster?

My mentioning Sam Flynn was in conjunction with the faded numbers identified on the partition wall Jon, and I might add its not a matter of debate either. Clearly there.

Like the "FM"?

Michael, it was common in those days to put the house number on the architrave around the door. Not on the door itself. Doors get damaged and are removed, in many street photo's we do see a number painted in the top corner of the wooden door surround. I'm not saying it couldn't have been on the door, but don't assume it had to be, the custom was to have it permanently on the house (architrave).

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jon,

To respond to your issues with my post...

Michael, it is not possible to determine if the whole partition wall was made up of doors by looking at one photo which shows the impression of only one door. And, incidently, wainscoting panels on either side.


Perhaps I should have just said that the wall was comprised of old doors Jon, how many and to what extent, is unclear. The "incidental" wainscoting means nothing when discussing the structural components.


You can't know that either Michael.
There are options that must be considered, we have no definite answers.
These conclusions by Sam are not supportable.

From Elizabeths statement at the Inquest;

"I should have seen a glimmer of light in going up the stairs if there had been a light in deceased's room, but I noticed none. The partition was so thin I could have heard Kelly walk about in the room."

That addresses whether she could see into and hear what happened in Marys room from the stairs, inside the house.

Regards, Jon S.

My mentioning Sam Flynn was in conjunction with the faded numbers identified on the partition wall Jon, and I might add its not a matter of debate either. Clearly there.

Best wishes

[Wickerman]

The wall was made of old doors, in fact a faded #26 is still visible on one of the doors....,(see old partition threads or Sam Flynn), and the cracks were plastered.

Michael, it is not possible to determine if the whole partition wall was made up of doors by looking at one photo which shows the impression of only one door. And, incidently, wainscoting panels on either side.

It was through some of the cracked plaster that Elizabeth could see into Marys room, which she noted was dark when she went in.

You can't know that either Michael.
There are options that must be considered, we have no definite answers.
These conclusions by Sam are not supportable.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

Having read the preceding remarks I noticed that there were a few misconceptions about the wall and how sounds might travel to other lodgers upstairs.

The wall was made of old doors, in fact a faded #26 is still visible on one of the doors....,(see old partition threads or Sam Flynn), and the cracks were plastered. It was through some of the cracked plaster that Elizabeth could see into Marys room, which she noted was dark when she went in. The stairs were accessed by a door just inside the "tunnel" leading to Dorset Street, something like 20 or 25 feet in total.

When Elizabeth said she heard the noise after Diddles woke her, she said it was "faint-as if from the court". That, added to Sarah Lewis's comments that the noise was "as if at her door", coupled with the above stats indicates that the cry of "oh-murder" originated in the courtyard and Elizabeth did not hear the noise from inside the house.

On that basis its my belief that one of the windows above Marys room, either over the tunnel opening in the bridge between #27 and 26, or directly above Marys windows, allowed the sound to access Elizabeths room.

Cheers

[Phil H]

I am not sure that many people in Victorian times made love wholly naked.

Conventionally, husbands and wives would have worn a nightgown (man) and nightdress (woman) which they would not have taken off. I have met people (in their 70s say 25 years ago) who were shocked by late C20th conventions and said that they had never seen their spouse naked in many years of married life.

It might have been different in the east End and for poorer classes, but for most clothing was too difficult to take off or put on without aid - no zip-fastners - but usually many hooks often up the back, or lacings.

I think that Mary may have been prepared to undress for someone close to her - Barnett, Fleming, especially if under the covers. I doubt it would often have happened for a client.

However, I am ready to be told I am wrong. And I would offer this:

It occurs to me that the large fire MIGHT have been to warm the room enough to allow nudity without discomfort. If so, then it assumes/implies (at least for me) a client who could pay more than usual, someone MJK trusted, or intimacy.

Phil H

[Wickerman]

Thanks for the info on 26, Wickerman. Do you have a source on No. 13 being an extension to the original?

I'm sorry Rya, I should have posted the pic.



Just by looking at the sketch, a 'lean-too structure', it appears to have been a later addition to the original plan of a typical terrace house.

On the antemortem injuries, it is quite possible that there were others inflicted on Mary, either to her arms or face. She may also have had stabbing injuries, perhaps to the neck or chest, that were less obvious due to obliteration from the subsequent mutilations.

You're quite right, and I think echymosis was evident across her throat, so one possibility is she was strangled first, maybe she came too as the attack began?

On the other hand, I don't think the killer felt necessarily more secure in 13 during the murder; he had more time, but it was a very exposed room, and he would have had no idea who might be coming or going (I'd wager he asked such questions to his victim) while he was in there; girls always shared rooms for business, and Mary seems to have been no exception.

Kelly's state of dress is more consistent with her being undressed for entertaining than for sleep. At this time of year I'm sure she slept in her clothes like anyone else.
This is an indicator to her client that they were not pressed for time.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rya]

Thanks for the info on 26, Wickerman. Do you have a source on No. 13 being an extension to the original? Was 27 modified in a similar way?

On the antemortem injuries, it is quite possible that there were others inflicted on Mary, either to her arms or face. She may also have had stabbing injuries, perhaps to the neck or chest, that were less obvious due to obliteration from the subsequent mutilations. The autopsy report would have noted these, but, alas, we don't have it. Bond noted the injuries to the hand, I assume, because it was relavent to the sequence of events and because as a criminal pathologist (and Bond can deserve to be called such), he would have automatically checked her hands for such things.

A last point about noise: what I know about slums like Miller's Court during Victorian times is that they were frought with nighttime traffic; the residents were mostly prostitutes, and they were in constant circulation during the period between 12 and 6 in the morning. Other homeless people would wander in and out of such places for water, to urinate, or to find temporary shelter from the weather; they could be found sleeping in the corners of such courts and "gardens," as they were also often named. Arguments, reverie, and the noise from sexual encounters went on all the time. Plus, on the night in question, you had heavy rain and wind battering the area. I think a murder could have been committed in the middle of the court outdoors and it's possible nobody would have arisen to look out their door. It was an advantage, in all the murder areas, the killer had in the East End slums.

On the other hand, I don't think the killer felt necessarily more secure in 13 during the murder; he had more time, but it was a very exposed room, and he would have had no idea who might be coming or going (I'd wager he asked such questions to his victim) while he was in there; girls always shared rooms for business, and Mary seems to have been no exception. I think he would have been sensitive to noise, traffic, etc around him, and I don't think he would have lingered there a second longer than he needed to. (and this would be even more true, I think, even if the killer knew the victim, or had stalked the court with the idea of killing the girl in the ground floor room with the broken lock on her door)

Lastly, it takes about thirty seconds on average to lose consciousness from the rupture of a major artery in the neck; between three and seven minutes before all cardiac activity stops. There have even been cases of people in combat or accidents, where, having had catastrophic neck injuries, still managed to run some distance from the scene before collapsing (truly the walking dead). So Mary may have put up a good fight even after the fatal wound was delivered; but if her windpipe was severed, she couldn't have cried out. But the idea that she might have tried to bang on the partition to attract attention isn't that far-fetched at all.

[Wickerman]

Hi Rya.
Another worthy post..

Welcome to the boards, SHJ.

A few quick thoughts on this topic, which summarize some of the comments made already:

As I understand it, Mary's room was originally part of the large ground floor area of 26 Dorset street; it may have originally been the kitchen area.

Mary's room was described as being originally the parlour for No. 26. The parlour was generally the entertaining room, or best room. Had it been the kitchen we would think her fireplace would have been a complete range.
Also, Mary's room and the one above appear to have been extensions to the original house (No.26), so a kitchen should have already been catered for.

At the time of the murder, the rest of the ground floor had been turned into a storage shed, so there was nobody living on the other side of the partition...

Alternately the staircase to the upper floors was likely directly behind the partition. Prater makes reference to being able to see through a crack? in the partition from the stairs.

On the sleep vs awake business, it is possible that she was sleeping when attacked, but a few facts weigh against this. First, she was mostly naked when found, and it is very unlikely she would have decided to sleep nude in a 0 degree Celsius room (Prater didn't). It is more likely that she removed her clothes for sexual relations.

Agreed, her location on the bed, her clothes laid on a chair?, and her state of undress are all consistent with her entertaining someone in her bed as opposed to her have been asleep alone and suddenly awakened by a burglar, as has been suggested.

Secondly, the defense wounds on her right hand, very typical in knife murders, were inflicted antemortem according to Bond's notes (Extravasation of blood into the surrounding tissues is a common checkpoint for determining ante versus postmortem wounds).

There are also cuts across her left forearm which appear to be pointless from a mutilation point of view.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Spring Heeled Jim

I'd whole-heartedly endorse Colin and Phil's three recommendations...there are others that could be added, but those three are a good start. Be aware though that while the Sugden book and the Sourcebook can be read as narratives, the A-Z is more like an encyclopaedia with entries which whilst sometimes not complete, do point you in the right direction.

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

I was indeed refering to Paul Begg, Martin Fido & Keith Skinner's "The Jack the Ripper A-Z".

It's always difficult to know how much people have read into the subject, and that book is a very helpful (and largely accurate and up to date) quick reference on a whole range of Case issues. If you are not familiar with it it is worth investing in - perhaps with Sugden's book and "The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook" (ed Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner) which effectively inccludes all the official files and other surviving documentation, in full. essential reading really.

The Sugden and the Ultimate are both available in paperback (I have seen the former remaindered in the UK), but I don't think the latest A-Z has yet come out in paperback.

Oh, "Scotland Yard Investigates" by Evans and Rumbelow (soft copy available) is also very good.

Amazon should be able to supply any and all.

If you have other questions please ask.

Phil H

[Bridewell]

A-Z

Phil again forgive my ignorance but A-Z?

Hi Jim,

I think Phil is alluding to "The Jack the Ripper A-Z" by Paul Begg, Martin Fido & Keith Skinner. Well worth getting, but try to get the latest edition. Philip Sugden's "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" is another worthwhile purchase.

Regards, Bridewell.