Oh, murder!

[Sam Flynn]

The Reynolds sketch is a bit vague...
http://photos.casebook.org/displayim...=94&fullsize=1

It certainly doesn't show many signs of neatness, or folding, for that matter.

[Sam Flynn]

What was the source for this "clothes being folded", John, do you remember?

Looking through my Ripper books (starting with Leonard Matters in 1929), the first mention of the word "neat", as far as I could establish, was Donald McCormick, who says the clothes were "in a neat pile at the foot of the bed". The specific phrase "neatly folded" seems first appears in Donald Rumbelow's book. Rumbelow possibly took this from McCormick, and/or from what others had written or spoken about since.

In short, I was unable to find a reference to Kelly's clothes being "neatly folded" any earlier than the 1970s, and no reference to "neatness" at all before the late 1950s. Perhaps this is yet another groundless ripperological meme we can trace back to McCormick.

[Sam Flynn]

You think Kelly was drying her clothes? then she must have gone out a second time.

Good point, Jon. Besides, we know she took in laundry and unofficial lodgers (Maria Harvey and someone called "Julia"), so can we be sure it was Kelly's bodice?

[John G]

Looking through my Ripper books (starting with Leonard Matters in 1929), the first mention of the word "neat", as far as I could establish, was Donald McCormick, who says the clothes were "in a neat pile at the foot of the bed". The specific phrase "neatly folded" seems first appears in Donald Rumbelow's book. Rumbelow possibly took this from McCormick, and/or from what others had written or spoken about since.

In short, I was unable to find a reference to Kelly's clothes being "neatly folded" any earlier than the 1970s, and no reference to "neatness" at all before the late 1950s. Perhaps this is yet another groundless ripperological meme we can trace back to McCormick.

Hi Sam,

Do you think they may have inferred it from the Times report, stating that the clothes "were laid down in the ordinary manner"?

[Sam Flynn]

Do you think they may have inferred it from the Times report, stating that the clothes "were laid down in the ordinary manner"?

I don't think so, John. If the Times had said "tidy", "orderly" or similar, there might be mileage in that idea, but "ordinary manner" doesn't really imply "neatness", and "laid down" doesn't imply "folded", either.

The clincher is that McCormick says "neatly folded at the foot of the bed", whereas the Times and Pall Mall Gazette (the exact same wording, so probably from a press agency) explicitly state, in the selfsame sentence, that "the clothes of the woman were lying by the side of the bed".

I suspect that McCormick made it up to inject some extra mystery into his narrative. He wasn't averse to a bit of artistic licence, which wouldn't be so bad if his book hadn't proven so influential.

[John G]

I don't think so, John. If the Times had said "tidy", "orderly" or similar, there might be mileage in that idea, but "ordinary manner" doesn't really imply "neatness", and "laid down" doesn't imply "folded", either.

The clincher is that McCormick says "neatly folded at the foot of the bed", whereas the Times and Pall Mall Gazette (the exact same wording, so probably from a press agency) explicitly state, in the selfsame sentence, that "the clothes of the woman were lying by the side of the bed".

I suspect that McCormick made it up to inject some extra mystery into his narrative. He wasn't averse to a bit of artistic licence, which wouldn't be so bad if his book hadn't proven so influential.

Hi Sam,

Thanks, and I would have to agree although, of course, there is the question of perspective: at the very least I would of thought that, from the perspective of a Times journalist "ordinary manner" wouldn't have meant "chucked down in a heap!"

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, and I would have to agree although, of course, there is the question of perspective: at the very least I would of thought that, from the perspective of a Times journalist "ordinary manner" wouldn't have meant "chucked down in a heap!"

Your point is well made, as context is hugely important when it comes to interpreting what are often ambiguous sources. However, in this instance, the text almost certainly came from a press agency hack, not a Times journalist, as the same wording appears unaltered in other newspapers.

[Wickerman]

Looking through my Ripper books (starting with Leonard Matters in 1929), the first mention of the word "neat", as far as I could establish, was Donald McCormick, who says the clothes were "in a neat pile at the foot of the bed". The specific phrase "neatly folded" seems first appears in Donald Rumbelow's book. Rumbelow possibly took this from McCormick, and/or from what others had written or spoken about since.

In short, I was unable to find a reference to Kelly's clothes being "neatly folded" any earlier than the 1970s, and no reference to "neatness" at all before the late 1950s. Perhaps this is yet another groundless ripperological meme we can trace back to McCormick.

Thanks for doing that Gareth, any roads that lead to McCormick are riddled with potholes.

[Wickerman]

Good point, Jon. Besides, we know she took in laundry and unofficial lodgers (Maria Harvey and someone called "Julia"), so can we be sure it was Kelly's bodice?

Agreed, and Kelly did not own a hat either. She borrowed one from Maria Harvey, so who's was the remains of the wire-frame hat found in the grate?

[Pierre]

Agreed, and Kelly did not own a hat either. She borrowed one from Maria Harvey, so who's was the remains of the wire-frame hat found in the grate?

So where did the articles of a woman´s clothing come from and where did the cry "Oh, murder!" come from?

Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

So where did the articles of a woman´s clothing come from and where did the cry "Oh, murder!" come from?

Apropos the clothing, it's already been noted that Kelly took in laundry and the occasional female lodger, so it's quite possible that some of the clothing did not belong to Kelly.

[Roy Corduroy]

Perhaps this is yet another groundless ripperological meme we can trace back to McCormick.

Now I know what the word 'meme' is, thank you Sam. Seen it all the time lately but no idea what it is.

So a meme is, in plain English, a hoary old chestnut.

Roy

[Bridewell]

Actually, why couldn't it have been (Oh merde)????

Why not indeed? If such a cry was heard by a person with no knowledge of French it would be assumed to be "Oh, murder!". The 'oh' has always jarred with me anyway. Surely, if your life was at risk you'd just shout "Murder!" or, as others have postulated, "Help!"

[Bridewell]

But did they?

According to the Echo's report of the inquest, Prater said:

"A black kitten, of which I am very fond, came to my bed, and rubbed itself against my face....it tried to get into the bed, and awoke me. That must have been about half-past four, as I heard the clock chiming. I pushed the kitten away...And, just as I pushed the kitten away I heard, "Oh! Murder!" It was as if it was a nightmare. It was just "Oh! Oh! (in a faint, gasping way) - Murder!"

So Prater is very clear, she heard the cry literally immediately after she heard "the clock" (which can only be the Spitalfields clock) chime (which she thought was the chime at 4.30).

But then according to the same report of the inquest, Lewis said:

"I woke at about half-past three. I heard Spitalfields clock strike...I could not sleep. I sat awake from then until a little before four o'clock, when I heard a female voice. It was a scream."

So, even allowing for the fact that Prater might have meant 3.30 or 4.00 rather than 4.30, the two accounts are completely different because Lewis said she heard the cry before 4am, and thus BEFORE the strike of the clock at that time, whereas Prater said she heard the cry AFTER the strike of the clock.

If their evidence is accurate they cannot have heard the same cry.

There is nothing in the half-hour chime to indicate which chime it was so the likelihood, it seems to me, is that both witnesses were truthful. Perhaps Mrs Prater heard the clock strike '3', then dozed off and was woken by the kitten just as the clock struck at 4.30. She might reasonably 9though incorrectly) assume that the time was 3.30.

[Bridewell]

Strangulation using a cord is quiet, this is why it is used by special forces in combat. Apart from a faint gurgling noise, and possibly kicking out, there is nothing to call attention to the assault.
The mark of a cord would be obliterated when the throat was slashed, and Kelly's throat was slashed several times.

Would slashing the throat several times disguise a fracture of the hyoid bone typically found after strangulation? (Not disputing what you say - just posing the question as I don't know the answer).