Partition wall

[Gene Lewis]

Dunno... for all I know she might've been quite loud...

All the best

Dave

re-LOL !

Gene

[Wickerman]

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?

Ok, well, the first important point is that there was no official time of death established at the conclusion of the Inquest.
Macdonald (the Coroner) should have allowed Dr. Phillips to complete his conclusions from the official autopsy which would have included his opinion of the time of death. This did not happen.

There is a press report given in the Times on Nov. 12th, before the Inquest began, where Dr. Phillips is reported to have claimed that Mary Kelly died 5-6 hrs before he arrived at Millers Court, therefore approx. 4:45-5:45 am.

On the 10th, Dr. Bond, in a report given to Robert Anderson, estimated Kelly's time of death to have been between 1:00-2:00 am, based on a calculation of the degree of digestion of her stomach contents.
This calculation depends when Kelly ate her last meal. Dr. Bond would have needed to ask the police when this was, but where the police gained this information from is not known.

That is a summary of what might be deemed the near-official sources presently available, hence the wide ranging debate on the subject.

Add to this are the claims of Sarah Lewis and Mrs Kennedy who both claimed to have heard the cry of "murder" about 3:45 am, and Prater who initially suggested a similar time but then corrected herself to "shortly after 4:00 am".

Also, an erroneous opinion was printed in the press (Star) suggesting her death occurred "shortly after three o'clock", this conclusion was arrived at, they say, by collating the evidence given at the Inquest by Dr. Phillips, Mrs Cox and Mrs Prater.
A simple perusal of the Inquest testimony immediately dispels this conclusion.

So there you have it.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Just a reminder that the people who stated that they saw Mary Kelly alive after she entered her room just before midnight were either warned at the Inquest that their testimony disagrees with virtually all the facts and the other statements, and in the case of GH, he was found to be less than reliable.

There is no witness that was believed by the officials to have seen Mary after that time by the end of that Inquest week.

The estimated TOD isnt an insurmountable issue when considering that fact.

Cheers

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Phil

I'm glad to see you worded that as "more exact" rather than "more accurate"...

Wasn't there an old thread where somebody fairly authoritatively set down on paper the suggested layout of the McCarthy Houses and the tenements in the court? There may indeed have been a couple...but I just had a quick look under Victims MJK and Scenes of Crime and can't find the wretched things...Always the way!

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

miakaal

There is MUCh debate about the precise time of kelly's death.

It had, of course to be before Bowyer found her, but there are views on EARLY, LATE and IT WASN'T HER.

EARLY - based on things like Mrs Prater, medical estimates of time of death (complicated by the way her body had been deconstructed and thus may have cooled faster.

Also George Hutchinson's observations - in themselves somewhat controversial.

LATE - sightings of MJK relatively late in the morning in the britannia pub, with Lewis and also the difficult to evaluate conversation with Mrs Maxwell.

NOT her - relates to the last (mrs M) and the fact that the body was in such a state. Was MJK SEEN so late because it was not her who was killed earlier?

Others will give you much more exact information, I'm sure.

Phil H

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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