Her eyes?

[Wickerman]

This is actually a better theory than mine, tbh. Instead of sleeping together and Jack capitalizing on it, they were preparing to have sex.

Most prostitutes of the time offered their services as anal sex, their client being behind them, whether this was a quick 'knee-trembler' down some dark ally, or in the comfort of a bed. In this case I see Kelly facing the partition, or lying face down to provide the service. Either way she was attacked from behind, as I believe were all the other victims.

Although I do not agree that Jack in any way shape or form strangled his victims....

There is enough circumstantial evidence from the murder's of Nichols and Chapman to justify the theory. Stride is another possibility, but neither Eddowes or Kelly provide anything towards that idea.
The only comment I have about Kelly was the cry of "murder", if as some speculate, she did physically defend herself (ie; has defensive wounds) then we should expect considerably more vocal exclamations than a mere "oh, murder". She would have had time to scream the house down.
It is though perhaps all she could get out if she was being strangled.

[Mortis]

If you think in that picture you can make out any features when Bond himself said he couldnt, go ahead and believe what you want. I never said Barnett wouldnt have seen her hair, it IS obvious in the pictures. Why I would say he couldnt use the hair for ID I cant say, and Im puzzled as to why someone would suggest someone who didnt say something, did. When he made his id the flap of skin covering her eyes....in that photo would have been laid aside. Your lines like "You can see the eye clearly on the upper left side of her face"....provably incorrect......"A person defending themselves would leave very strong gashes on the fingers and palm itself"...completely dependant on the position of the person being attacked....."And in such a scenario she wouldn't be able to defend herself in any way"....another presumption you have no evidence for, ....are revealing about you, not this crime.

Umm, where exactly did Bond say he couldn't? "Face hacked beyond recognition" is just that. It's not supposed to be taken literally as in "there's no way to recognize this face ever". What's astonishing to me is that you continue to spout your own beliefs in contrary to all the evidence. So Barnett said he could recognize her by her hair and eyes, yet you sit here and argue that there were no eyes to see despite the fact that the police would have mentioned something of that sort if Barnett was lying? Your arguments make no sense and I've noticed this in your other posts. You're determined to stick to your guns about the idea that there were numerous rippers in Whitechapel at the same time and that's that - to the point of ignoring reality. How would Kelly defend herself if her throat was cut to her vertebrae? Care to explain to me how that works? And why would the slashes be carefully executed rather than random cuts, shallow and deep in all possible directions, if she was struggling for the knife? The slashes on her arm point to a specific design, not to some chaotic fight. Same as the rest of her body, btw. This was a carefully done murder.

Heres something you might try to figure out..... how she got her throat cut while lying on her right side facing the partition wall.....the arterial splashes are revealing in that regard, ..then look at the injuries to her left arm, an appendage which would react to the first cut and be between the killer and Mary. The face was slashed, the arm was cut....post mortem? No, review the evidence again. What we have is someone who was on the space Mary left on the left hand side of the bed reaching across with a knife in his left hand to access the throat.

Wickerman's theory was better than mine, so I wouldn't say she was laying on the side. And even if we presume my original scenario where they were both laying next to each other, her injuries on her left arm are in no way consistent with defensive wounds. You can notice it quite easily that he cut her in very specific manner. On her upper arm he cut her in such a way to create a skin flap. Presumably the same way he cut her legs down to her femur, albeit it seems to have given up on that for one reason or another for the arms. Defensive wounds would be chaotic, they would be all over the place, they would be both shallow and deep, they would be in different places in different shapes. Here we have carefully placed wounds with approximately the same depth. The only exception would be her slight cut to her thumb.

If you interpreted evidence well you can learn a lot....like he was left handed, and she was most probably back to sleep. Why did no-one hear anything after "oh-murder'? Because nothing happened at that time. Soon thereafter, when Elizabeth and Diddles settled back to sleep, thats when he kills. So what can that evidence teach us? That he was in the room with her knowledge, that she likely left him space on the bed to spoon in with her, and that she reacted to the cut while the killer and his weight could be applied to keep her movements subdued. The throat cut was first...calling out was no option at that point, but she was still alive for a few moments.

There is no evidence he was left handed. If we go by Wickerman's theory, which is more credible, he killed her while she had her back to him, getting ready for sex. He could have done it with either hand. And if we go by your theory and mine, sure he killed her by his left hand but that doesn't make him left-handed. You can easily cut a neck with either hand, you don't have to be ambidextrous. As far as the "oh murder" shout, I do not give it much credence. For one, Sarah Lewis testimony to me is bullshit and contradicts Prater's. For me, if we go by Prater and Cox testimony, which were the most credible ones, she was killed somewhere after 1:30 AM. At this point there was no singing and apparently the lights went out from her room. As far as the "oh murder" shout, that too is debatable. Her throat was cut first, that is obvious, there is no two ways about it. If her throat was cut, she wouldn't have any opportunity to scream or say anything in particular really, just gargle sounds and moans. This would confirm Lilley's testimony, which I do believe, in Nichols murder that reports the same thing:

"It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away."

There would be no way for Mary to shout anything in particular..

You think you see something that cant be seen, you dismiss the fact that she is alive after the throat cut and would be reacting, you suggest this murder was like a client Ripper murder...despite the fact she obviously knew her killer and we have no evidence that she had ever brought a "client" into that room, you insist that death comes in seconds after a throat cut even though you can see thats not the case in other so called Canonical murders,....and dispelling that all makes me argumentative?

Where exactly does your belief that she knew the killer comes from? We know for a fact that the only two people with Kelly that day (male wise) were Blotchy (where she was apparently already drunk) and Hutchinson's suspect (where she was apparently also kind of drunk, from what I remember). Even if you believe Hutchinson, and I don't, the suspect is still unknown to Kelly. Blotchy and Astrakhan are both clients. There is no evidence whatsoever that the guy who killed her was known to her personally. Unless you believe that somehow after Blotchy leaves someone enters her room and they happily sleep together. This doesn't work in any remote scenario before the age of cell phones and what not. She couldn't have arranged a meeting later given that by the time she goes in with Blotchy it's already close to 00:00 AM. And we know that she stayed in that house at least until 01:00 AM. So your only real thread here is that Barnett somehow visited her afterwards on his own volition and that to me is very far-fetched.

Evidence is one thing, drawing conclusions based solely on cuts is not how you find out what happened, The physical evidence is the most revealing sure, maybe some crime reconstruction might help you understand why Bond thought he face was almost unrecognizable and why it seems to almost anyone...perhaps excluding you...that wounds on her arms seem like defensive ones. Might even reveal to you that it would appear the man that killed Mary used the knife in his left hand, trying finding that evidence with any other Canonical.

How do you think the police solves these types of crimes? By blood spatter, how the wounds are positioned and done, what wound came first based on the blood, etc. This is how police reconstruct crime scenes. And due to the mess left at Kelly we're unable to discern a lot of things, but a couple of things are to be sure:
1. Her throat was cut first, there were no signs of a struggle, nor any struggle being heard (except a single lone cry of "oh murder", which is difficult to ascertain whether it came from Kelly's room or someplace else. And the volume of said cry is very different depending on who you believe - Lewis or Prater)
2. The killer seems anatomically fascinated by the body. It seems like a kid playing with his toy, seeing how "far" he could take it
3. Wounds are very carefully done, there is no chaotic design. The killer carefully took the organs out, posed them with the victim.
4.His knife cuts in a specific pattern. Even something as simple as ignoring the eyes to carve the rest of her face speaks volumes. In contrast to the Tabram kill in which the killer chaotically stabbed her in different places without much thought.
5. Mary was posed. Her left arm was placed on her stomach, her legs spread out in a very specific pattern, her face turned left, looking at the pounds of flesh on the table.

From this we can ascertain that the killer was not your average Joe, he knew exactly what he was doing and was doing it before. Your theory that a random shmuck could do this holds no weight. This is not your ordinary kill, this was done by someone who has been quite desensitized from the human body and killing brutally.

[Michael W Richards]

This is actually a better theory than mine, tbh. Instead of sleeping together and Jack capitalizing on it, they were preparing to have sex. Much more likely given the circumstances. Although I do not agree that Jack in any way shape or form strangled his victims. Your theory also fits perfectly with the "slash neck" first scenario. And if we believe that Stride is a victim of the Ripper, he did a similar thing there, going behind her back, pulling her handkerchief to expose her neck and then slashing it

And no doubt that the Ripper was a client. MJK didn't seem to know many people, especially men. And I find the idea that an ordinary person like Barnett is going to have the guts to do what the Ripper does on an even more obscene level is ridiculous. For me the answer lies in Blotchy.



I do not know if this is safe to post here, although it should be given that this is a Ripper forum:


or your right on the picture. Her nose is that big thing in the middle that has been crooked in a different direction by the slashes, it seems. Her mouth should be some cm's down from there, but even I am not sure if that is her mouth because the Ripper slashed that area to bits. There is a thin line where her mouth should be, but obviously the lips are gone.



They do not. The Ripper slashed the upper part of her arm very deep. It looks like to peel the flesh. He also slashed deep into her forearm, but those slashes are not in any way shape or form defensive slashes. They look deliberate, deep and in line with the idea of "ripping". They also look to have a very specific pattern - two deep slashes, very close to each other, running in a horizontal fashion from the anterior part of her forearm to the posterior. These can be noticed in the photo of MJK2.

This was a very methodical kill, like the rest of the Rippers. There was no "slip up". And if we go with your theory of her "defending herself", that would cause quite a bit of ruckus in Miller's Court, wouldn't it? Yet no-one seems to have heard a thing, even those that were very, very close to her room. All the evidence suggests that, much like the other victims, her throat was cut first and severely. And in such a scenario she wouldn't be able to defend herself in any way. An instinctive reaction to the human body would be to try and hold her throat in an effort to stop the bleeding, albeit it wouldn't matter - death would come in mere seconds regardless.

And as far as your other post, sometimes Michael you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. Her eyes (or at least one eye) are clearly visible. Her hair would also be something very easy to discern given the fact that Mary, per witnesses, had a very distinctive hair. We also have mortuary pics of the other victims and their hair is freely on display, so I don't know where you get the idea from that Barnett wouldn't be allowed to see MJK's hair.

If you think in that picture you can make out any features when Bond himself said he couldnt, go ahead and believe what you want. I never said Barnett wouldnt have seen her hair, it IS obvious in the pictures. Why I would say he couldnt use the hair for ID I cant say, and Im puzzled as to why someone would suggest someone who didnt say something, did. When he made his id the flap of skin covering her eyes....in that photo would have been laid aside. Your lines like "You can see the eye clearly on the upper left side of her face"....provably incorrect......"A person defending themselves would leave very strong gashes on the fingers and palm itself"...completely dependant on the position of the person being attacked....."And in such a scenario she wouldn't be able to defend herself in any way"....another presumption you have no evidence for, ....are revealing about you, not this crime.

Heres something you might try to figure out..... how she got her throat cut while lying on her right side facing the partition wall.....the arterial splashes are revealing in that regard, ..then look at the injuries to her left arm, an appendage which would react to the first cut and be between the killer and Mary. The face was slashed, the arm was cut....post mortem? No, review the evidence again. What we have is someone who was on the space Mary left on the left hand side of the bed reaching across with a knife in his left hand to access the throat.

If you interpreted evidence well you can learn a lot....like he was left handed, and she was most probably back to sleep. Why did no-one hear anything after "oh-murder'? Because nothing happened at that time. Soon thereafter, when Elizabeth and Diddles settled back to sleep, thats when he kills. So what can that evidence teach us? That he was in the room with her knowledge, that she likely left him space on the bed to spoon in with her, and that she reacted to the cut while the killer and his weight could be applied to keep her movements subdued. The throat cut was first...calling out was no option at that point, but she was still alive for a few moments.

You think you see something that cant be seen, you dismiss the fact that she is alive after the throat cut and would be reacting, you suggest this murder was like a client Ripper murder...despite the fact she obviously knew her killer and we have no evidence that she had ever brought a "client" into that room, you insist that death comes in seconds after a throat cut even though you can see thats not the case in other so called Canonical murders,....and dispelling that all makes me argumentative?

Evidence is one thing, drawing conclusions based solely on cuts is not how you find out what happened, The physical evidence is the most revealing sure, maybe some crime reconstruction might help you understand why Bond thought he face was almost unrecognizable and why it seems to almost anyone...perhaps excluding you...that wounds on her arms seem like defensive ones. Might even reveal to you that it would appear the man that killed Mary used the knife in his left hand, trying finding that evidence with any other Canonical.

[Mortis]

I agree about the apparent lack of defensive wounds, a single cut to her thumb & some wounds on the forearm could have been made by the killer in haste. I've always believed the victims never saw a knife, they were strangled. The killer was a strangler who used the knife to mutilate.
The blood stains on the top left corner of the bed indicate to me she was on the bed when her throat was cut, but whether she was on her back or face down is likely debatable. In my view she was face down and he pulled her head up off the bed by the hair, and sliced her neck from behind. This would justify the heavy blood stains over the side of the mattress, and on the floor.
Thats my conjecture.

Also, from that position, face down on the right side of the bed (nearest the partition), he only needed to role her over onto her back, and she would then be at the left side of the bed (where she was found), the bed being quite narrow.
If that sequence of events holds true it tells me the killer was on the bed with her when the attack began. The killer was a client that she brought home.

This is actually a better theory than mine, tbh. Instead of sleeping together and Jack capitalizing on it, they were preparing to have sex. Much more likely given the circumstances. Although I do not agree that Jack in any way shape or form strangled his victims. Your theory also fits perfectly with the "slash neck" first scenario. And if we believe that Stride is a victim of the Ripper, he did a similar thing there, going behind her back, pulling her handkerchief to expose her neck and then slashing it

And no doubt that the Ripper was a client. MJK didn't seem to know many people, especially men. And I find the idea that an ordinary person like Barnett is going to have the guts to do what the Ripper does on an even more obscene level is ridiculous. For me the answer lies in Blotchy.

I cannot make head nor tail of that picture I am afraid. I have never been able to recognise any part of her face, where the eyes, or the mouth or anything quite frankly is located.

I do not know if this is safe to post here, although it should be given that this is a Ripper forum:


You can see the eye clearly on the upper left side of her face or your right on the picture. Her nose is that big thing in the middle that has been crooked in a different direction by the slashes, it seems. Her mouth should be some cm's down from there, but even I am not sure if that is her mouth because the Ripper slashed that area to bits. There is a thin line where her mouth should be, but obviously the lips are gone.

I think just the visible marks on her arms in the photos strongly suggest slashes and the arm being used protectively. And neither of Marys eyes can be seen in any of the surviving crime scene photos.

"...the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds & the face hacked beyond recognition of the features." "The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition."

Bonds words. And easily used to support random slashes vs the more precise cutting like the thighs.

They do not. A person defending themselves would leave very strong gashes on the fingers and palm itself. The Ripper slashed the upper part of her arm very deep. It looks like to peel the flesh. He also slashed deep into her forearm, but those slashes are not in any way shape or form defensive slashes. They look deliberate, deep and in line with the idea of "ripping". They also look to have a very specific pattern - two deep slashes, very close to each other, running in a horizontal fashion from the anterior part of her forearm to the posterior. These can be noticed in the photo of MJK2.

This was a very methodical kill, like the rest of the Rippers. There was no "slip up". And if we go with your theory of her "defending herself", that would cause quite a bit of ruckus in Miller's Court, wouldn't it? Yet no-one seems to have heard a thing, even those that were very, very close to her room. All the evidence suggests that, much like the other victims, her throat was cut first and severely. And in such a scenario she wouldn't be able to defend herself in any way. An instinctive reaction to the human body would be to try and hold her throat in an effort to stop the bleeding, albeit it wouldn't matter - death would come in mere seconds regardless.

And as far as your other post, sometimes Michael you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. Her eyes (or at least one eye) are clearly visible. Her hair would also be something very easy to discern given the fact that Mary, per witnesses, had a very distinctive hair. We also have mortuary pics of the other victims and their hair is freely on display, so I don't know where you get the idea from that Barnett wouldn't be allowed to see MJK's hair.

[Michael W Richards]

The id of Barnett was made by using her "air and eyes", only her "air" is visible while in her room. So his id was at the mortuary, which presumably would be after the "volte face" was completed, or with only her face exposed. One wonders why the person she had been the most intimate with wouldnt be given other less mutilated parts to look at also...like her hands, or feet. Intimate people would know the others features.

People have imagined they see features like an eye of Marys in the surviving photos, or make out her mouth clearly. But thats really not possible when Bond himself thought her face had been hacked beyond recognition.

[Michael W Richards]

I think just the visible marks on her arms in the photos strongly suggest slashes and the arm being used protectively. And neither of Marys eyes can be seen in any of the surviving crime scene photos.

"...the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds & the face hacked beyond recognition of the features." "The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition."

Bonds words. And easily used to support random slashes vs the more precise cutting like the thighs.

[Losmandris]

I agree about the apparent lack of defensive wounds, a single cut to her thumb & some wounds on the forearm could have been made by the killer in haste. I've always believed the victims never saw a knife, they were strangled. The killer was a strangler who used the knife to mutilate.
The blood stains on the top left corner of the bed indicate to me she was on the bed when her throat was cut, but whether she was on her back or face down is likely debatable. In my view she was face down and he pulled her head up off the bed by the hair, and sliced her neck from behind. This would justify the heavy blood stains over the side of the mattress, and on the floor.
Thats my conjecture.

Also, from that position, face down on the right side of the bed (nearest the partition), he only needed to role her over onto her back, and she would then be at the left side of the bed (where she was found), the bed being quite narrow.
If that sequence of events holds true it tells me the killer was on the bed with her when the attack began. The killer was a client that she brought home.

Hi Jon,

You have mentioned this before and I totally agree. It is very possible none of the victims actually saw the knife. If there had been defensive wounds on MJK I am sure they would have been referred to in the post mortem. I also believe if there had been any excessive damage to her eyes, this would have been flagged as well. I think however brutal the injuries to her face were, after some cleaning up and stitching she would have been identifiable to those who knew her.

[Losmandris]

Not true. I can easily make one of her eyes, I can even post a picture circling it. If I remember correctly, Barnett identified her in the mortuary where they probably "cleaned" her up a bit (like you said, for example not having a flap of skin hanging her other eye). Kelly had no defensive wounds either. He appears to have slashed her arms for the heck of it, similar stuff he did to Eddowes. They do not in any way shape of form represent "defensive wounds" given that defensive wounds would be more very extensive on the fingers and palm. It would also not be possible as the coroner already confirmed that Kelly's throat was slashed first (which would explain the amount of blood) and Kelly would really have no real means to defend herself as such, just like the other victims.

Kelly's throat was most likely slashed from behind given the blood pattern, the killer then placed his hand on her mouth as to muffle any possible sounds. Of course, the latter is speculation, but given the bruising patterns on Nichols and the fact that no single person ever heard him despite many witnesses being in a very close proximity to the killings suggest that this is the method the Ripper used to quickly incapacitate his victims without giving any alert.

I cannot make head nor tail of that picture I am afraid. I have never been able to recognise any part of her face, where the eyes, or the mouth or anything quite frankly is located.

[Wickerman]

.......Kelly's throat was most likely slashed from behind given the blood pattern, the killer then placed his hand on her mouth as to muffle any possible sounds. ....

I agree about the apparent lack of defensive wounds, a single cut to her thumb & some wounds on the forearm could have been made by the killer in haste. I've always believed the victims never saw a knife, they were strangled. The killer was a strangler who used the knife to mutilate.
The blood stains on the top left corner of the bed indicate to me she was on the bed when her throat was cut, but whether she was on her back or face down is likely debatable. In my view she was face down and he pulled her head up off the bed by the hair, and sliced her neck from behind. This would justify the heavy blood stains over the side of the mattress, and on the floor.
Thats my conjecture.

Also, from that position, face down on the right side of the bed (nearest the partition), he only needed to role her over onto her back, and she would then be at the left side of the bed (where she was found), the bed being quite narrow.
If that sequence of events holds true it tells me the killer was on the bed with her when the attack began. The killer was a client that she brought home.

[Mortis]

In the images we have of Mary Kelly she is in the bed she was killed in and in the condition, presumably, she was found in. That condition included a flap of skin hanging loose from her forehead over her eyes. You therefore couldnt make them out in the pictures or from the window,.... which means anyone, like Barnett, that used the eyes as part of their id did so by viewing her somewhere else. It also is revealing from the standpoint of slashing....something that likely caused the defensive wounds, also visible.

Not true. I can easily make one of her eyes, I can even post a picture circling it. If I remember correctly, Barnett identified her in the mortuary where they probably "cleaned" her up a bit (like you said, for example not having a flap of skin hanging her other eye). Kelly had no defensive wounds either. He appears to have slashed her arms for the heck of it, similar stuff he did to Eddowes. They do not in any way shape of form represent "defensive wounds" given that defensive wounds would be more very extensive on the fingers and palm. It would also not be possible as the coroner already confirmed that Kelly's throat was slashed first (which would explain the amount of blood) and Kelly would really have no real means to defend herself as such, just like the other victims.

Kelly's throat was most likely slashed from behind given the blood pattern, the killer then placed his hand on her mouth as to muffle any possible sounds. Of course, the latter is speculation, but given the bruising patterns on Nichols and the fact that no single person ever heard him despite many witnesses being in a very close proximity to the killings suggest that this is the method the Ripper used to quickly incapacitate his victims without giving any alert.

[Wickerman]

The Morning Advertiser and the Echo both reported "by her hair and eyes".

It's an issue of accent, when a Cockney say's "hair", it's pronounced like "air", it will sound a lot like "ear".

[Mark J D]

... Barnett could only ID Kelly by her eyes & ears...

-- I know we see that written everywhere; but isn't it possible/likely that Barnett said something like '... her eyes and her hair...', only for it to get written down as '... 'er eyes an' 'er 'ear...' because of his strong accent and his 'h'-dropping...?

Bests,

M.

[Michael W Richards]

Yet, aside from those mentioned, in each case the victim was ID'd after someone who knew her saw the body.
No mention of being ID'd from a photograph.

In the Ripper cases that have images taken I believe all the others were taken in the mortuary, which is also where Id's likely took place. I think the 6 pics of Mary taken in her room, (1 of the slides, MJK1 or 3 indicated they were from a total of 6 images) actually represented a new era of forensics.

[Wickerman]

I am sure I had read that the photos were used for ID purposes. So I wonder was there one floating about of MJK? I suppose it was less likely because it was known right away who was living at 13 Millers court. So not much point. For the other victims establishing an ID would have taken a lot longer and using a photo as ID would have been a useful tool.

Yet, aside from those mentioned, in each case the victim was ID'd after someone who knew her saw the body.
No mention of being ID'd from a photograph.

[Michael W Richards]

Am I the only one who was surprised to learn that MJK's eyes actually survived the ordeal? It's probably due to the graininess of the picture but whenever I look at it I can never make out MJK's eyes, I always just assume they've been mutilated like the rest of her face.

In the images we have of Mary Kelly she is in the bed she was killed in and in the condition, presumably, she was found in. That condition included a flap of skin hanging loose from her forehead over her eyes. You therefore couldnt make them out in the pictures or from the window,.... which means anyone, like Barnett, that used the eyes as part of their id did so by viewing her somewhere else. It also is revealing from the standpoint of slashing....something that likely caused the defensive wounds, also visible.