Oh, murder!

[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]

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.

[John G]

John,
The same applies to any report from an individual such as cadosch. And the statement of Lilley should be viewed in the same way.
We need to be careful but should not exclude such reports on the grounds of lack of corroboration; we don't do that with Cadosch.

It's not that she did not remember the time, she simply never noticed it. However obviously must be before the police started knocking on doors.

The time is placed by a train passing which is I agree not concrete but I have made several comments on that point on this thread and it looks to me as if the train actually passed around 3.30.

All the best.


Steve

Steve,

Yes, you make some good points. I accept the Lilley's statement cannot be completely discounted but, of course, neither is it anything like definitive.

Of course, Nichols may have been JtR's first victim and therefore, on that basis, the murder where you would most likely expect mistakes to have been made.

[Elamarna]

Not sure what to make of this, particularly as its an uncorroborated account, and she doesn't even remember the time she heard the noises.

John,
The same applies to any report from an individual such as cadosch. And the statement of Lilley should be viewed in the same way.
We need to be careful but should not exclude such reports on the grounds of lack of corroboration; we don't do that with Cadosch.

It's not that she did not remember the time, she simply never noticed it. However obviously must be before the police started knocking on doors.

The time is placed by a train passing which is I agree not concrete but I have made several comments on that point on this thread and it looks to me as if the train actually passed around 3.30.

All the best.


Steve

[John G]

Thankyou Joshua, yes that is the only reference I could find too.



I looked at that sketch, but I wasn't sure how anyone could see clothing on that chair, if it is a chair.



If I recall correctly, Mary Cox said it was raining after 1:00 am.
You think Kelly was drying her clothes?, then she must have gone out a second time.



If her clothing was 'arranged', then doesn't that suggest she was entertaining?
If her killer removed her clothes (as per Dew?), we wouldn't expect him to 'arrange' them anywhere.
If Kelly was killed while asleep, she should have been dressed like other women of her class.

"Dressed like other women of her class"? Do you have evidential support for this proposition?

[John G]

Harriet Lilley
http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/w/Harriet_Lilley.html

Not sure what to make of this, particularly as its an uncorroborated account, and she doesn't even remember the time she heard the noises.

[John G]

At the time I replied I was thinking the source might be Insp. Dew, but Sam says the source was a press sketch.
What was the source for this "clothes being folded", John, do you remember?

The Times 10 November reported that, "the clothes of the woman were lying by the side of the bed, as though they had been taken off and laid down in the ordinary manner."

[Wickerman]

I don't think it was Dew, Jon. He says "The girl's clothing had nearly all been cut from her body in the mad process of mutilation."

Thankyou Joshua, yes that is the only reference I could find too.

The Reynolds sketch is a bit vague...

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?pid=94&fullsize=1

I looked at that sketch, but I wasn't sure how anyone could see clothing on that chair, if it is a chair.

I've always thought that, if Kelly had been out in the rain on the night of her death, her clothes would have been laid over the back of a chair in front of the fire to dry off. And the Telegraph seems to suggest the same;

If I recall correctly, Mary Cox said it was raining after 1:00 am.
You think Kelly was drying her clothes?, then she must have gone out a second time.

"That the woman had had no struggle with her betrayer was shown by her position and the way in which her garments, including a velvet bodice, were arranged by the fireplace."

If her clothing was 'arranged', then doesn't that suggest she was entertaining?
If her killer removed her clothes (as per Dew?), we wouldn't expect him to 'arrange' them anywhere.
If Kelly was killed while asleep, she should have been dressed like other women of her class.

[Joshua Rogan]

At the time I replied I was thinking the source might be Insp. Dew, but Sam says the source was a press sketch.
What was the source for this "clothes being folded", John, do you remember?

I don't think it was Dew, Jon. He says "The girl's clothing had nearly all been cut from her body in the mad process of mutilation."

The Reynolds sketch is a bit vague...

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?pid=94&fullsize=1

I've always thought that, if Kelly had been out in the rain on the night of her death, her clothes would have been laid over the back of a chair in front of the fire to dry off. And the Telegraph seems to suggest the same;

"That the woman had had no struggle with her betrayer was shown by her position and the way in which her garments, including a velvet bodice, were arranged by the fireplace."

[Wickerman]

Not sure what Bucks Row resident you're referring to.

Harriet Lilley

http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/w/Harriet_Lilley.html

[Wickerman]

Well, "folded" over a chair implies a significant degree of care, as opposed to, say, thrown onto the floor or chucked over the chair!

At the time I replied I was thinking the source might be Insp. Dew, but Sam says the source was a press sketch.
What was the source for this "clothes being folded", John, do you remember?

[Michael W Richards]

On the issue of the manner of subduing the victim, the circumstantial evidence should be included with the physical evidence to determine what method was likely used to incapacitate the victim.

Since no noises were heard by the residents of Bucks Row, since no noise other than the thud and light exclamation was heard at Hanbury, and no noise was heard at Mitre Square...all sites with witnesses nearby, nor was there any noise created by the murder of Liz Stride, it seems probable that the victim was subdued before any cutting.

[John G]

All the contemporary sketches in the press at the time show some knife-wielding predator. All the movies have some killer attacking the victim with a knife, blood splashing all over the place.

None of his victims were attacked with a knife. It's quite possible none of his victims ever saw a knife, with the exception of Kelly perhaps (defensive wounds?).

All I'm saying is, his first approach appears to have been strangulation.
A number of killers like to see the agony in their victims face as they croak and gasp their last breath - part of a turn-on.

A degree of caution is required when considering the opinions of the Victorian GPs. Dr Biggs, for instance, has commented on the matter of the swollen tongue in Chapman's case:

"A swollen tongue and/ or face are findings that are nonspecific. Many people try and attribute such findings to particular causations, but often it means nothing as a variety of mechanisms (natural and unnatural) can result in the same appearance." (Marriott, 2013).

[Pierre]

Hi Wickerman,

So if we generalize from your hypothesis we say:

Victims who were standing > strangulation

Victims lying down > throat cutting

With the exception of Stride.

Pierre

And also:

Kelly already lying down.

Stride in the wrong place.

[John G]

The killer was not quick enough to prevent Chapman calling out, or Kelly by all accounts.
A resident in Bucks Row heard voices in the street and a scuffle, and in Berner St. the singing from the club may have drowned out any noise.
Your only claim to a silent attack then is in Mitre Square, where the nightwatchman claims to have heard nothing from the square.

Hardly the prince of stealth

Not sure what Bucks Row resident you're referring to. In respect of Chapman, did she call out? I take it your referring to the evidence of Albert Cadosch. However, his testimony is somewhat questionable: see for example Begg, 2004, p82. Moreover, all he heard was the word "No". Hardly evidence of the victim putting up a desperate struggle or, indeed, attempting to call for help, is it?