| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3984
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 4:11 pm: | 
|
Hi Richard
I'll have to let you and Leanne fight it out over whether Mary was killed in the night or the morning. I myself favour the night.
Remember, Richard : those who resign end up in the Village....
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1303
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
I never stated that i resigned, just that i would reserve my right to posts on apt threads.
The fact is Robert, the aspect I enjoy most as a casebook member, is the serious? discussion side to this subject, and as a middle aged[or later] man find it hard to go with the flow shall we say with frivolous content, even with honourable intentions by my other enthusiasts.
Regards Richard. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 290
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
The question we're asking. I suppose, is would Mary have undressed completely for a customer--a stranger?
I've been looking at accounts of Carrie Brown "Old Shakespeare" the prostitute who was killed in NYC in 1891. She was murdered in a hotel room, throat cut and mutilated in a manner very similar to the JTR victims. As far as I can tell, she was naked "below the armpits" when found.
This was in late April as opposed to early November, but it would probably still have been chilly at night, and she wasn't in her own room but a rented one. So it isn't out of the question that a prostitute would undress for a client.
Mags
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3987
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Hi Mags
I just don't see Jack waiting that long.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1633
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 8:16 pm: |
|
G'day,
ROBERT: If Mary Kelly put on her 'night chemise', (I got that term from a Victorian London Website), because she had no intensions of going out to find another customer, why wouldn't she have closed and therefore locked her door?
I find it hard to believe that she'd had time to fall into a deep sleep by the time that the single cry of "MURDER" was heard. It is when a person wakes up in the morning after a long sleep that they take a while to come to their senses. If her killer just walked in the front door, he would have been taking a huge risk.
RICHARD: Joseph Barnett may have had an alibi that 'covered' him until midnight, but the events we are discussing took place hours later!
Mary Kelly was definately murdered in the morning but the question is at what hour? Was the sun up? That would have been another, unnecessary big risk!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1634
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 8:24 pm: |
|
G'day Mags,
If Mary Kelly was serving a client would she have undressed then put her night chemise on? She could have left her night chemise folded on the floor by the bed, so she could put it on when the client left. If that was her night chemise still draped over her shoulder and she was taking it off when her killer struck, doesn't that suggest that her last visitor showed up unexpected and surprised her? "Oh here's Joe! He must have returned to give me his winnings at whist!"
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3991
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 3:54 am: |
|
Hi Leanne
Maybe Mary kept her chemise on when servicing her last client (she was already wearing it for warmth?) Or maybe she put it on when he left.
Perhaps having had a lot of drink she just didn't bother to lock the door. Then she fell asleep.
I'm just wondering, though, whether if she'd wanted she could have locked the door without getting out of bed at all. That room was pretty small. Maybe if she rested her left elbow on the table she could just reach to lock the door?
The cry of "murder" interests me. Having seen examples in the "Times" of people actually saying this, I don't have too much of a problem with it. But what puzzles me is, Kelly's death seems to have been a botched job by JTR - she seems to have had time to defend herself, however briefly. And yet the two women who heard the cry don't mention any other sounds - no sound of a bed knocking against the partition, or a table being knocked over, etc. And yet it would appear that JTR was stabbing Kelly through the sheet, and then slashed her throat without strangling her first. Wasn't she thrashing around a bit?
Mysteries, mysteries.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1635
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 5:38 am: |
|
G'day Robert,
I don't think that chemise was her underclothing. Victorian women commonly had a 'night chemise', specifically for sleeping in and anyway wouldn't she have thought the client would keep her warm?
Wasn't it agreed that all she had to do to lock her door was to shut it?
I don't think Mary Kelly's murder was exactly a 'botched job'. I don't think her murder was planned as well as the others, ie. I don't think the Ripper went there specifically to kill her.
I think she would have had the chance to thrash about a bit more if he'd chosen to strangle her first. No he sliced her throat quickly to prevent her screaming out again.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3993
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
Hi Leanne
I tend to see it the other way round - he kills the others with amazing speed and silence (particularly Eddowes) because he knows how to strangle them efficiently. If we look at Kelly, there's blood up the wall, defensive wounds. holes in the sheet, she seems to have been shrinking away from him (blood under corner of bed) plus there's a murder cry.
Re the door, I thought Bob Hinton had found that a door could be closed but not locked - something to do with pulling it to.
Your interpretation - that Joe lost his temper and killed her - is a possible one.
Anyway, we're getting off the subject of the chemise here....
Robert |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 7:29 am: |
|
Hi all
I agree totally with those who think that it is a sheet twisted around MJK's body and for the same reasons discussed. As most sources state that MJK's throat was cut whilst she was laying in the right hand corner of the bed and her body subsequently moved over to the left hand side after death but before mutilation occured, I was wondering if the sheet could have been used by the killer to drag the lifeless body across the bed. It is stated that the bed was pushed up close to the partition on the right hand side so the killer would not have had access to this side of the bed to push the body across.
Can anyone help with this query?
How many different MJK crime scene photographs are actually in existance?, is the photograph reproduced by Lacassagne another different version, or one reprinted from one of the originals?
I have seen three different versions in circulation,two bed scene versions; (the full length sepia with the crack through and the other full length version which has one slight difference to the sepia one and seems to indicate that the crime scene was tampered with slightly between shots )and the strangely angled one of the mutilations from the other side of the bed.
Are there any others?
thanks
Debra
|
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 6:22 pm: |
|
There is no way that can be a puffed sleeve of a garment, it is definitely a sheet, you can actually see on the close up that the fabric continues in a fold under MJK's arm.
Besides that the folds in the fabric are running in the wrong direction, they run horizontaly across the fabric, puffed sleeves are gathered top and bottom causing the folds to run down the sleeve.
She still could have been wearing a close fitting vest type chemise that doesn't show up on the photo because of the mess, but I don't think that is the sleeve of it! |
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 3:55 am: |
|
Hi everybody
Some points:
1. Too cold for sleeping naked
2. Victorian naked and current naked are very different things hence the possible disparity in the descriptions.
3. If the sheet was a rectangular plane, aligned with the bed, then there could be two options. A corner of the sheet flapped over her arm in which case the piece of material on her arm would appear to taper as it moves towards her chest - and it doesnt. The only way surely to produce th eeffcet as shown is a piece of sheet made by two paralell cuts flapped over her arm. It just does not look like the sheet she is lying on. It seems cleaner. The sheet does not appear to be untaucked at any point down the length of the bed but that may just be the mattress.
4. In the victorian era when even table legs were covered, it was unlikely that a Catholic Irish girl was going to bed naked unless she had a customer. Even then she was likely to be wearing something.
5. A discussion of the type of garment it is or was is confused by the fact that these girls were probably wearing anything they could get their hands on. There is no garantee that the description of "chemise" is at all accurate. Especially as I doubt Victorian men were so expert on the names of womens undergarments.
6. If the Ripper undressed her, there is no need to assume he took everything off. It looks to me like he stripped the body and just tore up the middle of the final undergarment leaving the arms intact as they were not in the way.
Lars |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2015
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Hi Robert!
Well the chemise rises again so to speak!
Have dragged myself away from the fearsome cats and have to say that in the 17th C an under garment very like a chemise was worn day and probably night underneath your outer clothes.
I STILL cant get away from Dr B's evidence and the photo that that puffy thing wasnt a sheet rucked up!
As to the lock...Ask Bob he knows about these things,but seem to recall there was something as you describe
Cheers
Suzi
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3997
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi
Yes, you may be right about the sheet/chemise thing in the photo highlighted area, but I can't imagine why Phillips would say what he did if she hadn't been wearing at least something....somewhere...
Robert |
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 265
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 10:49 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Wasn't it agreed that all she had to do to lock her door was to shut it?
I think so, Leanne.
I was wondering if the sheet could have been used by the killer to drag the lifeless body across the bed.
Debra,
As a CNA, I have used just that technique to bring 'dead-weight' people to my side of the bed many times, so I think that your proposition is entirely possible.
I still see a sheet, and not a chemise - so... my question is, just when did Mary get naked - if she infact did. As has been mentioned before, maybe she was wearing a chemise, but it was so bloodied up that we can't tell from the photos we have. But that "sleeve-looking-thing" doesn't look at all like a chemise to me. So, if Mary was indeed wearing a chemise the night she died, I propose that it was a thin strap one that got bloodied over. And what we see in the photo on her shoulder is infact a sheet.
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1636
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 5:14 am: |
|
G'day,
ROBERT: I think it's much easier to believe that the circumstances of Mary Kelly's murder differed from the others. Why jump to the wilder SPECULATION that there were two different killers, in the same area, at the same time? Does everything any one individual does have to be a 'mirror-image' of the thing he did before it....under all circumstances?
I don't believe her murder was as planned as the others were...it wasn't as premeditated and he didn't go there with the intensions of killing her...hense the 'overkill'.
'If we look at Kelly, there's blood up the wall, defensive wounds.' Those were splashes from the blade of the knife as he cut her throat. That indicates that she hadn't died from strangulation first. Her killer would have had to gaze into her bulging eyes until her life slowly expired!
'she seems to have been shrinking away from him (blood under corner of bed)' George Bagster Phillips concluded that she was laying on the side of the bed 'nearest the partition' when her killer severed her throat.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3019
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 5:40 am: |
|
G'day Leanne,
"Why jump to the wilder SPECULATION that there were two different killers, in the same area, at the same time?"
It is no wild speculations. It is one of several possible scenarios that the facts indicates. And not at all a very uncommon event.
"George Bagster Phillips concluded that she was laying on the side of the bed 'nearest the partition' when her killer severed her throat."
She could still have been moving backwards up against the corner prior to the attack, and in my view she probably did. In my opinion she was not taken by surprise and killed while lying in bed.
"Those were splashes from the blade of the knife as he cut her throat. That indicates that she hadn't died from strangulation first. Her killer would have had to gaze into her bulging eyes until her life slowly expired!"
Apart from the fictitious and irritatingly dramatic description... Those are all possible indications on that someone else than the Ripper may have done it.
From what we know, it seemed essential for the Ripper to make them unconscious and killing them fast, so that he met as little resistance as possible, making them lifeless and calm before the actual throat-cut (and then the mutilations).
To me the circumstances around the Kelly murder might indicate that she may have been murdered by someone she knew. But regardless if Barnett did murder her or not, there is nothing whatsoever linking Barnett to the other murders. Not a shred of evidence whatsoever.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3998
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 5:57 am: |
|
Leanne, we actually seem to be agreeing here.
I think the man who killed Kelly killed all the others. The circs were different, but I don't see that as a problem. I'm not sure that any of the murders were planned, though.
I think it's clear from what Bond says that the splashes on the wall were from Kelly's neck, not the blade.
Phillips says that her head was up in the corner of the bed by the partition when she was killed.
I'm not sure that the murderer would have been able to see her eyes at all - it would depend on the state of the fire and whether there was a candle lit when he killed her.
Robert |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 1:45 am: |
|
Hi all,
I believe Eddowes was wearing a chemise when she was murderd. A chemise was a popular undergarment in the 1800's. Kelly most likely wore one dureing the day and I am not sure she would of had a day time and a night time chemise. I feel the most likely scenario is, Kelly undressed down to her chemise and folded her cloths and then got comfortable on the bed. If the ripper had struck right away she would not of had time to fold her cloths. I am not sure what difference it makes if Kelly was naked or if she had a chemise on. I guess it is important to be as accurate as possible but does it really matter. Kelly could have got naked and laid on the bed or she could have got naked put on a nighttime chemise and laid on the bed or she could have undressed down to a chemise that she aready had on and laid on the bed. I believe the ladder but no matter what it does not change the crime scene. I guess some have argued that Kelly would not get naked in front of a stranger. I am not sure I agree with that argument. I think the big question here is why the ripper let her get so comfortable and what was he doing when she was undressing? I think that question is the big mystery. You would think that the ripper would have attacked her were she stood. I am almost tempted to believe the breakin theory.
Your friend,CB
--------------------------------------------------
"Things work out best for those who make the best out of how things worked out." I can not make a proper line Lyn. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4000
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Hi CB
Yes, I cannot imagine the Ripper hanging around waiting for her to undress. That's why I don't think the murderer was a man whom she'd brought home, e.g. Hutchinson's man.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1304
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
I would conclude almost one hundred per cent, that whoever killed Mary Kelly was someone who she would have never dreamed of doing so, as i have said before it simply was not her policy to bring back total strangers to her room since the murders were evident, i would conclude that both Mr Blotchy , and Mr Astracan were known to her, and if Hutchinsons statement is to be believed the former is eliminated.
If she did not know Mr Astracan then all i can say is she took a almighty risk, and considering how paranoid she was reported to have been, that seems unlikely.
So who are we left with?.
Obviously Barnett, we should also include her former lover Flemming, mayby the mysterious Lawrence,even Morganstone,mayby someone from her devious past such as a ex flame or even Husband.
My point is for love or money i cannot see her going back to her room with any one she did not trust completely.
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4001
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 3:03 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
First you say that Joe killed her because she was resorting to prostitution, then you say she was too scared to!
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1637
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 3:07 pm: |
|
G'day Glenn,
'But regardless if Barnett did murder her or not, there is nothing whatsoever linking Barnett to the other murders. Not a shred of evidence whatsoever.'
OK, what evidence links anyone to the other murders? Are we to believe that the Whitechapel murder never really existed?
LEANNE
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1306
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
What I suggested was she would never take a man [ unknown to her] home such as a pick up seaman as was her trade before the murders became evident.
I am not saying that she stopped her ways , it is clear she continued prostitution.
I suggested that she was at pains to be selective to who she went with, such as past clients, or at least known faces that she knew had been recently with other girls[ who survived the experience]
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1638
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |
|
G'day,
I think she was desperate that particular night because McCarthy wanted some of the owing rent money before she spent it at the Lord Mayors Day festival, and she knew that the rent collector would be around in the morning.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4003
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Yes she must have been in great need of money - either enough to keep Mccarthy at bay for another week, or to at least have the money for her doss on the Friday evening should he throw her out. Or maybe just to be able to afford her first drink next morning.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1311
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
If Mary was in desperate need of money, her first client Mr blotchy did not have much time to spend some cash, as she was doing Karoke for about a hour, now that is a turn off.
The fact is Kellys rent was several weeks behind . not one if she desperately needed money and Mr Blotchy was a prospective contributor then why the sing song?.
I believe kelly lived by her wits, the man [ Blotchy] proberly bought her back some alcohol, and she simply had a home drink, and he left once the alcohol was consumed.
on returning out on the streets around 2am, she encounters Hutchinson, and she tries to con him out of sixpence.
The alcohol could have drowned her responsibility when meeting Astracan, and she could have made a fatal mistake, but that is subject to opinion.]
Richard, |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4004
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
I agree that she probably took Blotchyface home for his pail of beer. After all, she did have a drink problem.
Later on she sets about raising some money. I think the procedure in those days was that when a person could no longer pay the rent they were evicted, but not prosecuted (pointless if they were penniless). I don't know, but I imagine that poor people could reach the point where they were so far behind with the rent, that paying any money off of it at all was only staving off the inevitable, and giving money to a landlord which they needed themselves. So they would just try to string the landlord along for as long as possible. Whether Kelly wanted money for Mccarthy, or just for herself, I can't say.
Robert |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Hi all
Lindsey, I totally agree with you on everything concerning the sheet, chemise question, and your description of dragging a 'dead weight' was exactly what I had in mind.
I always imagined JTR crept into Mary's room while she was alone in a deep alcohol induced sleep, then there would be no need to strangle her as with the previous victims. She was already in the position he wanted her in, silent and laid down. She may have awoken for a few brief seconds before he cut her throat, long enough to make the 'oh murder' cry ( if that was her) and throw her arms up in some sort of defence, but JTR was already in a position to overpower her by then.
What happened to the rest of her bedclothes though? surely she wasn't just covered by a sheet on a chilly Autumn night?
Is any other discarded bedding ever mentioned?
I wonder if Mary could have been using the old pilot coat on the bed originally as people used to do before duvets and central heating came along. Maybe JTR removed it from the bed and used it to cover the window to stop anyone seeing in while he went about the mutilation?
Just thinking out loud really! |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 7:56 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Kelly was scared and she may not have enjoyed walking the streets but still it was her only means of income. I think she would have taken anyone back to her room if they offferd her enough money. I think Richard brings up a good point. Drink could have impared her judgement. She may of had good intentions when she started out that night But the more she drank the more money she needed for drink. I doubt that the rent was priority number one for Kelly. The more clients she found that night the more comfortable she became and she may have just took one client to many.
The idea that Kelly may have known the ripper is interesting. I suspect that it is possible that they may have known eachother. I have speculated that the ripper may have spent alot of time in the eastend even on nights he did not kill and he may have been a familiar face in the pubs. It is possible that Kelly may of had a conversation with the ripper or shared a drink with him. I doubt that he would have been a former client. The rippe only killed on weekends and the interesting thing to me is that it was the first real chance the ripper had to kill Kelly after Barnett left. It was the real first weekend that he had. Considering that the ripper had not killed in six weeks and in my oppinion it was Kelly's first working weekend away from Barnett makes me wonder. Could the ripper had known Kelly? Could the rippr had known Kelly's situation?
I watched the 1988 movie Jack the ripper. In the movie the ripper comes to Kelly's house after being set up by her pimp. If it was common knowledge that Kelly was a prostitute then is it possible that the ripper stoped by that night to see Kelly after she had already gotten undressed and folded her cloths?
Your friend,CB |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1639
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 9:06 pm: |
|
G'day,
'Walking the streets' was not Mary Kelly's only source of income! Joseph Barnett kept visiting on a regular basis to give her what he could and I bet ya he thought it was for her rent but Mary was drinking it instead.
That's why I believe that Barnett visited her on her last afternoon and told her he had no money to give her, then thought of a plan to expand the little coin he had by getting into a game of whist and return to her before the rent man called.
LEANNE |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 216
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
Hi All,
I am pretty certain, that if Mary was wearing a chemise when she went to bed it was the same one she had been wearing all day and probably her only one. Men and women in those days quite often put on an undergarment and rarely took it off at all in the winter, perhaps now and again for a wash down or to visit the local baths. Then it came off and went straight back on again.
Even as a prostitute servicing a client she is unlikely have stripped down to nothing, there was no real heating in her room and she would not have taken off all of her garments, unless he was paying extra for it! It is quite possible though that the coat was on the bed as bedclothes and was taken off by JtR to put over the window. There are some rolled bedclothes at the end of the bed though.
I seem to remember being told that there was a broken backed chair between the bed and the wall which held Mary's folded clothes. How definite are we of it's exact position?
I think it very likely that it was someone that knew her, even if it was only as a client. Not Mr Blotchy or Mr Astrakan though.
I think the roll over the arm is not the arm of a chemise, either it's a sheet or another roll of folded white material, with some substance.
Jane
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Hi Jane.
The mans pilot coat was found over the window, Mrs harvey would surely have confirmed that this was the position of the coat as she remembered.
I agree that kelly would have least kept her privacy by serving a client with some undergarment on.
The remains of kellys clothing appears to be the bundle on the right of the bed, which appears to have a white band on the top. which i have claimed was her left stocking, the presence of a chair [ broken backed]suggests that there was a significant gap between wall and bed.
Richard.
] |
Harry Mann
Police Constable
Username: Harry
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 4:09 am: |
|
In deciding whether Kelly was wearing an undergarment,or whether the cloth was part of a sheet,we might consider how a bed is usually made for sleeping.
The undersheet is normally tucked under the mattress,as is the top sheet.The killer obviously would have to fold back the top sheet,to have unrestricted access to the body.Unless there was a violent struggle,I see no reason why the undersheet should be disturbed to any great degree.
A chemise could quite easily be tucked under the chin with one hand,while the other hand used the knife to cut the breasts.
It does seem that the top clothes have been pulled diagonally to the foot of the bed,and the legs placed atop them.
I suggest the mutilations were carried out with the killer standig by the side of the bed and adjacent to the small table.From there it would be easy to place the body parts as they were found.
H.Mann |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 224
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Thanks Richard, that's cleared up the bed thing I think. I just thought that Maria, having left the items there, might have been a bit peeved that Mary had hung it up at the window. I wondered whether Mary had made use of it after Maria had gone. I'll have to go through the reports again, just to satisfy my curiousity!
I'll have another look at the clothing bundle too... interesting.....
All the best
Jane |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 225
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 8:01 am: |
|
Hi Harry, welcome to the boards.
You do realise of course that Constables have to make ALL the tea for the other ranks, so hurry up and get a promotion!
I've sent you an e-mail, hope you could understand it, I do burble a bit.
That was a good post. I'm going back now to look at the bedclothes at the end of the bed and have a look at the bottom sheet.
There is a coloured up picture of the scene that Stephen did somewhere on the site and I think it is quite easy to find. It shows very clearly what's going on bedclothes wise.
Well worth having a look at, because it does clarify things a lot. Hope you've got a strong stomach though!
All the best
Jane |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
Hi Jane
I am confused now! doesn't take much though!
I always thought that the things on the bed were blankets rolled up too like you say, and actually on the bed, but from what other people have posted in the past it seems that some think those are the clothes folded on the broken backed chair between the bed and the wall.
If the bed was described at the inquest as pushed up against the partition I can't see how a chair fitted in there!
I think you had it right on your wonderful picture of the interior of Mary's room, didn't you put it to the left of the bed on that one?
Fantastic work by the way, I love going over to that thread to view your latest masterpiece!
Debra |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 9:38 am: |
|
Hello all,
I am making a complete "U" turn as at first I was convinced that I was looking at a bed sheet.
However now on closer inspection,I am convinced that Mary was wearing a chemise.
After studying the area in close up,I was able to quite clearly discern a decorative pleated trim around the material covering Kelly's shoulder.
Also visible but faint,there seems to be a sort of floral pattern on this material.
I think it is unlikely that McCarthy would have provided Mary with such decorative,"luxurious" bedclothes.
Kane |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1640
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
G'day,
Have a look at the photograph here under 'victims'/'Mary Jane Kelly'.
Whatever was wrapped around her left shoulder appears to continue running underneath her left arm and then out where her hips would have been. If that was her chemise it appears to be underneath her.
What Richard believes were her street clothes folded on a chair behind the bed look too thick. Could it have been a blanket?
LEANNE |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 231
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Hi,
I have to totally agree with Leanne's post, having looked at the photo again, that roll of material on the end of the bed are bed clothes and not Mary's clothes. I can see a blanket there and some sort of cover. So maybe the bed was against the wall after all.
The plans I have do show it pushed against the wall.
I think that is a sheet rather than a chemise, it is a different shade to the underneath sheet though, but matches the bulk of the cloth around the body in tone. Again to agree with Leanne, if it was the chemise, then it is around her rather than on her.
How's that for a bold post, I've taken my bravery pill today!
All the best
Jane
|
Harry Mann
Police Constable
Username: Harry
Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 3:33 am: |
|
Jane,
Thanks for the welcome,although really I have been posting for years.I was just not registered on the new board.Received your mail amd will try and follow the instructions.
There is of course an alternative to the chemise and sheet,and I think it has already been mentioned.It was/is called a wrap,a piece of material similar to a scarf but broader.Usually home made,it was worn in bed around the shoulders,and pinned at the front.It was to help keep the upper body warm,as most women seemed to dislike sleeping with the bedclothes too high.
If it was the latter I think it would definitly indicate that Kelly had retired for the night,and from any nocturnal activities.
Do not discount the so called blotchy faced man,he was in a better position than anyone to be informed of Kelly's situation and intentions.
He could have left and returned later. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1641
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 4:37 am: |
|
G'day,
According to the inquest report Mary Kelly was wearing that night: "a dark skirt - velvet body - and a maroone shall." (Caroline Maxwell) and Mary Ann Cox said she was dressed in a: "red pelerine and a dark shabby skirt."
I don't believe they were her street clothes folded behind the bed.
LEANNE
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 234
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
HI Leanne,
I think that swings it 100 percent for me. There is no way that the bundle on the bed is clothing of that colouring.... at least I can state that with some authority!!!!!
Definitely bed clothes.
That is the first thing I've been totally convinced about in a long time, so I think this is a red letter day!
Thanks Leanne.
Love Jane
xxxxxxx |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Hi,
Then the question arises where in the room was the neatly folded pile of clothes?.
Richard. |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 239
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
Oh Richard,
Don't do this to me, I originally put the clothes on a chair at the end of the bed, but you did make me re think that. I do think though that the pile at the end of the bed are bedclothes, and I can't under any circumstances see them as the clothes, because apart from the colouring that is not how any woman would fold her clothes.
Where do you think they were then, maybe behind them on the broken backed chair? You must have your own idea of where they were exactly.......
Jane
xxxx |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1642
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 8:44 pm: |
|
G'day,
'Then the question arises where in the room was the neatly folded pile of clothes?.
Richard.'
The 'Daily Telegraph' of the 10th of November stated: '...in which her garments, including a velvet bodice were arranged by the fireplace.' They were probably placed near the fire on a chair to dry them off and keep them warm.
LEANNE |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 241
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 6:42 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Nice one!
Totally convinced of 2 things in one week, that's got to be a record!
Not only that but it will fit into the picture of Mary's room beautifully, almost tailor made in fact, so I'm a very happy bunny.
Thanks
Jane
xxxxx |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1318
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 3:20 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
If her clothes were on a chair near the fíreplace that would imply that kelly lit the fire herself would it not?.
The killer would hardly be so kind as to dry his victims clothes whilst he was cutting her up..
Also when was this fire lit, after Blotchy face, or after Astracan, or in the early daylight hours.
I am sorry i do not see Mary in the middle of the night tired and hungover prepearing a roaring fire.
Summing up.
If Kelly lit the fire herself the most likely time would have been around 8am on the morning of the 9th.
If the killer lit the fire as it has always been conceived, then Kellys clothes were not by the fireplace, as she would hardly place wet clothes by a fireplace that did not have a fire going.
Sorry jane.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1644
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 3:54 am: |
|
G'day,
'If Kelly lit the fire herself the most likely time would have been around 8am on the morning of the 9th.' Richard, how do you work that one out?????
Why would Mary have lit a fire at 8am on the morning of the 9th to dry the clothes she just put on to go to the 'Lord Mayors Day' show?
I believe Mary Kelly lit an average fire sometime in the evening as it was normal on a cold night, and the killer could still have made it a roaring fire by popping Maria Harveys clothes on top.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4032
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 4:14 am: |
|
In a room that size, Kelly's clothes were bound to be near the fire unless she threw them doen in front of the door. But I don't believe she'd have put them right next to the fire before going to sleep, as without a fire guard there would have been a fire hazard.
I still find it difficult to believe that she'd have gone out in the rain in her dress, leaving the pilot coat behind. But there you go, I've been told otherwise by several people!
Robert |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 242
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 6:51 am: |
|
HI All,
The report says that the clothes were 'arranged by the fireplace' Why did the fire even have to be alight? You can still dry clothes without a fire. The chair could just have been by the fireplace as that was where it usually was. In a room that size she was hardly able the indulge in Feng Shui.......
We all do things out of habit. As far as I remember it was a broken backed chair, i.e more like a stool and what more sensible place to put her clothes? It just happened to be near the fireplace.
I can't see why she didn't put them there intending to light a fire in the morning to air them off after a night a cold drying.
See - now I'm convinced I'm getting very bold!!!
It's going to take a lot to shake me on this one now......
Lots of love
Jane
|
Dennis..Australia
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 7:00 am: |
|
My first impressions were chemise, but in looking at a black and white of the entire scene one sees it has a sheet.
Kelly has skinny arms and legs which rules out the drawing of her as a fat woman.
Her door mus have locked automatically, because she was forced to use the break in the window when she lost the key. Anyone watching her would have seen that there was easy access to the room.
Including Hutchinson.
I doubt Kelly was singing with a client. She had retired. I doubt she slept naked in a lONDON Winter.
She was familiar with most clients I think. She would not allow an inarticulate jew in during the scare.
Kosminsky-Cohen opened the door via the broken window, cut off her clothing and burned it. The sheet was wrapped around the arm to restrain Kelly.
|
James D. Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diomedes
Post Number: 21
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Hello Everyone,
Looks like a chemise to me. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Hi,
Not only was her clothes reported to be by the fireplace but also her boots, this has all the hallmarks of kelly drying off her clothing on a wet evening or a drizzily morning.
I wish to goodness that the police had informed the public every piece of evidence they acquired, for instance the previous evening kelly was wearing a jacket [ proberly the famous Black velvet one] and a hat.
What was she wearing when Hutchinson saw her?.
Also Mrs Maxwell claimed she saw her hours after her persumed death wearing a maroon wrap around.
Question .
As it was raining that morning at 8am and the maroon wrap around was found in Kellys room.
Was It damp?.
Al the police had to do was to ask Hutchinson what Kelly was dressed in at 2am, if it was the same hat and jacket she had worn a few hours previous, and her shawl was damp. it would prove Maxwells story as accurate.
if it was a shawl that she was wearing at 2am, it would still prove Maxwells recount. as she stated she had not seen kelly wearing it for some time.
The police although they did the best they could were not over observant, but that is my opinion.
Regards Richard. |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Hi all
Here are links to two pictures which i think probably depict the layout of the room quite accurately, broken backed chair and all;
this one is a sketch from the casebook
../4922/8675.jpg
and this one is a 3d annimation you can play to look around the room , which i recently found
http://jfiles00.tripod.com/explore/animations/13millers/kellysroom1.htm
Debra
|
Dag
Police Constable
Username: Dag
Post Number: 1
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 8:17 am: |
|
As an aside, I notice that one piece of 'evidence' Euan Macpherson adduces in support his claim that William Bury was the Ripper is the observation that both Mary Kelly and Ellen Bury (his wife) were wearing chemises when they were murdered ('The Trial of Jack the Ripper', p. 188). Given the popularity of the chemise (or night chemise) in the 1880s, I'm not sure this is an especially persuasive argument. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1682
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 8:51 am: |
|
Hi Dag
I agree that, as you say, the "evidence" Euan Macpherson cites in support his claim that William Bury was the Ripper, the observation that both Mary Kelly and Ellen Bury (his wife) were wearing chemises when murdered, is not persuasive. It is about as cogent an argument as saying a painter (e.g., Walter Sickert) who paints a murdered woman on a bed, or paints a woman just lying on the bed, had to have been the Ripper. One seedy bedroom looks much like another and a lot of painters of Sickert's school and era chose that sort of subject matter. They were artists not killers. 
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page