Partition wall

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Phil H]

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

I ask genuinely.

Phil H

[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]

What ever the effect was, it apparently happened, as clearly that jacket of hers was not present in the room intact,

It could have been taken away, of course.

neither was the bonnet.

I thought a fame was found? If it was a straw bonnet it might have burned more readily than wool or cotton.

On would imagine the jacket would have been cut into small pieces, however what would have been the purpose?.

I don't know and it hardly seems sensible. I just asked a question - you clearly don't know the answer.

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..

My understanding is that in a small grate, such a garment would either smother the fire that existed OR create huge amounts of smoke. but maybe i am wrong.

phil H

[richardnunweek]

Hi Phil,
I do not know what answer I could have given, regarding the burning of clothes in a small grate, apart from the obvious one you have pointed out.
The remains of what was [ apparently] Mrs Harvey's bonnet, was found in the grate, along with a piece of velvet, which the police described as part of a jacket, which the police described as apparently bloodstained.
Mary Kelly owned a black velvet jacket, one would suggest that this was the item , Mrs Prater saw her wearing at 9pm[ 8th], and this was the item found partly in the grate, Kelly's jacket was obviously missing from the room, and the laundry left by Mrs Harvey, that was missing did not include a velvet jacket.
As for not knowing the answer.
If I knew without speculation ..I would be a clever ---- but I am not.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

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.

Richard.
Didn't the police say "because they might have been bloodstained"?
They were in no position to know because they were burnt to ashes.

[B]

I thought a fame was found? If it was a straw bonnet it might have burned more readily than wool or cotton.

Phil.
I think you'll find a straw bonnet does not require a frame, straw keeps its shape. Wire frames are for fabric, velvet, wool, etc., material which requires a frame to keep its shape.

A hat is an odd article to throw on a fire, especially when there are clothes lying around.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

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.

Didn't artists sometimes require their models to be nude or nearly so?

I'm ducking now!

curious

[VincentP]

I'm more than sure that Kelly, a prostitute with a keen leaning towards the pleasure of gin, was more or less likely intoxicated at the time of her murder. Apart from that, it was four in the morning.

Due to the such an extreme hour, as well as her intoxicated state, it seems more than likely that a struggle--if much one occured---not to have been that great. The room was dark, she was unexpecting and not clearly in a right state of mind. She was possibly overtaken very suddenly and, based on an assumption, the assailaint was very strong. I'm sure he either threw a sheet over her head as she layed on the bed after undressing (explains the clothes folded neatly on her bed) and or he got on top of her, pulled out his knife (to which than she screamed) and taking one hand, pushed her head so her right cheek layed on the pillow and, with much force so it was pushed down onto the bed blocking her ability even more to fight back, cut her throat.

The mutilations were still possibly done when she was still alive. Such mutilations on her body could have only taken about fifteen minutes to be done.

As for her clothes in the fire-grate? Most likely for light. Aftewards he probably just left. The whitechapel murder always seemed, to me at least, to take his victims by surprise and, like most blitz-style serial killers, carried out his "work" in a haste.

I strongly don't think he stayed in the room over at least a half hour, if even.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Jon,
Correct,,the police believed the killer '' might '' have burnt the jacket because it was bloodstained.
Regardless it still is strange, that they were inclined to that assumption.
The whole of the Millers court murder is shrouded in mystery, although if one takes the word of the interviewed Mrs Kennedy, it really is quite simple.
A woman [ Kelly?] and two men were at the court at 3,30 am,[ one would imagine at the entrance,but not necessarily] and we have the witnessed cry shortly after,... half an hour or so.
So was that Mary Kelly and her killer/killers?
Or was it a murderous trio, about to descend on room 13.? Two men and a woman being the culprits.
Not impossible if one takes the view of McCormack....Doctor P, and Winberg, Livitsky .
Regards Richard.

[Spring heeled Jim]

Some superb fascinating discussion taking place here thanks people I am learning more every day opinion and fact.

So what is the general opinion regarding would MJK have banged the partition wall due to being attacked? It is a simple question but I have to repeat it as in my opinion it would have been very loud.

The opinions and insights on here are fascinating keep it up people

[Wickerman]

Hi Richard.

The whole of the Millers court murder is shrouded in mystery, although if one takes the word of the interviewed Mrs Kennedy, it really is quite simple.
A woman [ Kelly?] and two men were at the court at 3,30 am,...

That is an isolated comment, I don't know what to make of it myself.

The man outside the Britannia did seem to be entertaining, or at least in communication with, another woman. Maybe they were together, but she turned away from him. Kennedy said she saw MJK standing with them both, so Kelly was seen talking to a man and a woman as opposed to two men?

Or was it a murderous trio, about to descend on room 13.? Two men and a woman being the culprits.

There has been talk about, who's voice cried "oh, murder", if it was not Mary Kelly? Who was that other woman outside the Britannia and what was her relationship with the male?

Not impossible if one takes the view of McCormack....Doctor P, and Winberg, Livitsky .

Noooooo Richard, please, ...Noooo!


Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

So what is the general opinion regarding would MJK have banged the partition wall due to being attacked? It is a simple question but I have to repeat it as in my opinion it would have been very loud.

No-one claims to have heard any banging. The couple(?) living above Kelly were not awakened, and Prater said she heard no banging.
There doesn't appear to have been a room on the other side of the partition, if anything it seems like it was a hallway with stairs to the upper rooms.
There was nobody on the other side of the partition to hear her.

Regards, Jon S.

[miakaal4]

Read somewhere on this thread that Kelly was killed after 4am. I thought
Dr Bond said between 01.00 and 02.00am? I have not read much about the time of death and was unaware it was much later. Anyone know the prob time and why?