Oh, murder!

[John G]

Perhaps we're at cross-purposes, John. I don't think that Kelly was asleep, or that her killer waited for her to fall asleep. He may well have waited for the right moment to strike, but I believe that Kelly was fully conscious (albeit perhaps a bit tired and/or tipsy) when that moment came, and in the moments leading up to it.

Okay, fair enough Sam. However, it still seems very unlikely to me that the perpetrator, who appeared to attack the victim whilst in an absolute frenzy, would have calmly waited whilst Kelly undressed and got into bed. And presumably it would have been far from ideal to attack the victim whilst she was in an awkward position, i.e. in bed, awake and presumably facing her attacker.

[Pcdunn]

Oh my dear boy, what an absolutely charming example but it doesn't work because a tiger is an animal and if the premise is that I eat animals then it's perfectly possible that I eat tigers, indeed they are rather tasty in a stew.

Let me put it another way for you my dear boy, if you are told that animals have escaped from the zoo then it's possible that the tigers are free isn't it?

My dear Oscar-- er, I mean, David-- what delightfully witty responses you have been writing to our friend Pierre. I love it when Ripperologists indulge in philosophical debate, and I will continue to look forward to your posts.

[Michael W Richards]

According to Dr Bond Kelly's arms had been mutilated, which I would submit is not consistent with defensive injuries, but may be consistent with a perpetrator intent on destroying the body.

As to my other point, I should, of course, have said murdered after the perpetrator waited for them to fall asleep; there are, of course, cases of victims being murdered whilst asleep: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...asleep&f=false

She had cuts and nicks on her hands, her wrists, and her forearms...completely consistent with defense wounds.

[Sam Flynn]

However, it still seems very unlikely to me that the perpetrator, would have calmly waited whilst Kelly undressed and got into bed.

Just to be clear, John, according to my scenario, she didn't get fully undressed and didn't so much as lie down, still less get into bed. So he really wouldn't have had to wait too long at all - a minute or so, at most. And, like I said yesterday, that's about the time it would have taken to stroll from Church Passage to "Ripper's Corner" in Mitre Square.

who appeared to attack the victim whilst in an absolute frenzy

The butchery may have been frenzied, but the lead-up to it needn't have been. Don't confuse the climax with the foreplay

[John G]

Just to be clear, John, according to my scenario, she didn't get fully undressed and didn't so much as lie down, still less get into bed. So he really wouldn't have had to wait too long at all - a minute or so, at most. And, like I said yesterday, that's about the time it would have taken to stroll from Church Passage to "Ripper's Corner" in Mitre Square.
The butchery may have been frenzied, but the lead-up to it needn't have been. Don't confuse the climax with the foreplay

Okay, Sam, I might have missed it but what's your hypothesis for Kelly's remains being found in the bed? And if the killer, in your scenario, didn't delay until she was fully undress, why was she found wearing only a nightdress?

[Sam Flynn]

Okay, Sam, I might have missed it but what's your hypothesis for Kelly's remains being found in the bed?

If she was sitting on the bed getting undressed, it would have been fairly simple for the killer to push her back onto the bed and kill her. After she was dead, he could have moved her body wherever he liked, as I'm sure he did.

And if the killer, in your scenario, didn't delay until she was fully undress, why was she found wearing a nightdress?

I'm saying that her killer struck before she got fully undressed. This is consistent with her still wearing a shift/chemise, and is also consistent with her having managed to remove only one stocking before she was killed.

[Michael W Richards]

Sam and John,

If the killed arrived when "oh-murder" was heard, which to me is the most probable answer, then why would there be any need to wonder about whether she was already undressed and in bed. We have a witness, in fact 2, that said the singing had stopped and the room was "quiet and dark" before 1:30am.

Mary was in bed when that happened, if she had been in bed with Blotchy, whoever arrived would have had some verbal exchanges with Mary and maybe Blotchy, but none were heard. That seems to indicate that she was alone, and in bed.

[John G]

If she was sitting on the bed getting undressed, it would have been fairly simple for the killer to push her back onto the bed and kill her. After she was dead, he could have moved her body wherever he liked, as I'm sure he did.I'm saying that her killer struck before she got fully undressed. This is consistent with her still wearing a shift/chemise, and is also consistent with her having managed to remove only one stocking before she was killed.

Well I'm not sure why the perpetrator would have signalled his iviolent intentions by pushing her into the bed. And is this consistent with Dr Phillips' testimony, that the fatal wound was inflicted "while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead."

Moreover, according to Dr Phillips the victim was only wearing a single garment, therefore in your scenario the killer must have waited until she was virtually completely undressed.

To my mind, as I've noted before the evidence is more consistent with Kelly having retired for the night, although the removal of just one stocking might indicate she was somewhat inebriated at the time.

[Sam Flynn]

We have a witness, in fact 2, that said the singing had stopped and the room was "quiet and dark" before 1:30am.

Indeed, Mike, but that still leaves open the possibility that she went out again. Perhaps the room was "quiet and dark" because she was out.

[Michael W Richards]

Did she let someone into her room? The evidence may suggest otherwise.

Are you talking about the evidence that there was forced entry? There is none. Are you talking about the latch via window method? As far as we know only Mary and Joe, and I believe McCarthy, knew about that. Are you talking about entering via the door that was left unlocked? Why would Mary leave the door unlocked if she is in for the night?

[John G]

Sam and John,

If the killed arrived when "oh-murder" was heard, which to me is the most probable answer, then why would there be any need to wonder about whether she was already undressed and in bed. We have a witness, in fact 2, that said the singing had stopped and the room was "quiet and dark" before 1:30am.

Mary was in bed when that happened, if she had been in bed with Blotchy, whoever arrived would have had some verbal exchanges with Mary and maybe Blotchy, but none were heard. That seems to indicate that she was alone, and in bed.

Hi Michael,

Yes, I think the reference to the singing having stopped and the room being quite is a very good point, and it clearly reinforces the argument that Kelly had retired for the evening and was, indeed, alone and in bed.

[John G]

Are you talking about the evidence that there was forced entry? There is none. Are you talking about the latch via window method? As far as we know only Mary and Joe, and I believe McCarthy, knew about that. Are you talking about entering via the door that was left unlocked? Why would Mary leave the door unlocked if she is in for the night?

Yes, I was referring to the latch via window method, and I wouldn't rule McCarthy out as the perpetrator. Mary may have neglected to lock the door if she was drunk.

[John G]

Indeed, Mike, but that still leaves open the possibility that she went out again. Perhaps the room was "quiet and dark" because she was out.

But she was hardly living in high quality, soundproofed accommodation. But if your scenario is correct no one heard her return with the murderer; no one heard her conversing with him; no one heard anyone moving about; no one heard anything, apart from a solitary scream of "oh murder", which might not have emanated from Kelly's room.

By the way, what was her assailant doing whilst she was undressing? Was he undressing as well? Because that would seem like a very odd scenario to me considering what happened next.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, I think the reference to the singing having stopped and the room being dark... clearly reinforces the argument that Kelly had retired for the evening.

It might support that argument, John, but I wouldn't say it reinforced it as such, because it also supports the idea that Kelly went out again, and would also be congruent with her having been killed before 01:30.

So, given that the silence/darkness supports these three eminently plausible scenarios, it doesn't really help much

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;413428]

Can you elaborate?

Sure.

"To construct a scene of desecration to change things" =

To construct: included controlling, planning and preparing. All those elements was prior to the actual murder.

A scene: the specific place and its contents where the result is to be seen. The results were to be seen on the streets and in yards. But with Kelly it had to be seen indoors.

Of desecration: the female body was sacred but not in a religious way. These women had destroyed their own bodies. The idea was that that type of women should not have female attributes.