Mary Jane Kelly
|
Was it Mary Jane
Kelly who was murdered in 13 Miller's Court?
|
|
At what time was
Mary Jane Kelly attacked?
|
|
What happened in 13
Miller's Court?
|
|
Was Mary Jane Kelly
another victim of 'Jack the Ripper'?
|
|
Cutthroat -
a detailed analysis of the neck wounds to the Whitechapel Murder victims
(.PDF File opens in a separate window - Acrobat Reader required)
|
|
Whitechapel murders home page
|
I have seen the body, and I identify it by the
ear and eyes, which are all that I can recognise; but I am positive it
is the same woman I knew.
Testimony
of Joseph Barnett at the Inquest into the death of Mary Jane Kelly on 12
November 1888 as reported in the The
Daily Telegraph 13 November 1888
|
|
On 9 November 1888 the extensively mutilated body of a woman was found
lying on a bed in a lodging room at 13 Miller’s Court, off Dorset
Street, Whitechapel. Her
clothes were folded neatly on a chair but there were indications that
other clothing had burned in the hearth. The woman was a prostitute and
Joseph Barnett, the man with whom she had lived for twenty months,
identified her as Mary Jane Kelly. The couple had spit up a few days
earlier after a row over her allowing the room to be used by other
prostitutes.
Kelly had bled to death from a wound to her neck and
because of the nature of the murder it was immediately linked to others
with similar characteristics. Mary Jane Kelly was considered to be another
victim of Jack the Ripper, but there are
doubts surrounding this assertion.
By relying
principally on crime scene and post mortem information and secondarily
upon other witness testimony it is possibly to explore alternative scenarios
in an attempt to get closer to the truth. Inevitably, delving into the
details elicits rather more questions than answers but
that is the nature of any investigation relating to Jack the Ripper.
|
Was it Mary Jane
Kelly who was murdered in 13 Miller’s Court?
|
Because
the body discovered in room 13 Miller’s Court had such extensive
facial mutilations there was inevitably speculation as to the reliable identity of the woman. Barnett testified that he was only able to
identify her by her ear and eyes, but he was nonetheless
‘positive’ that it was the same woman he knew. John McCarthy, the
lodging house keeper had known Kelly for ten months and also ‘had no
doubt about her identity’. No
relatives of Kelly were located, although it is doubtful that they would
have been able to provide any more reliable evidence of identification. The
police seemed in no doubt that the corpse was indeed that of Mary Jane Kelly.
Inspector Abberline in a written report on the murder said after
the inquest that ‘a number of witnesses were called who clearly
established the identity of the deceased’.
The
situation was, however, confused by two witnesses who claimed to have seen Kelly as
little as 45 minutes before the body was discovered in Miller's Court.
This evidence suggests that Kelly was not killed until between 10.00 am
and 10.45 am on the morning of 9 November and thus much later than the
other Ripper victims. Speculation has also surrounded the possibility
that Kelly returned to her room in the early hours and discovered the
body of another prostitute who was in her room and that she used the
opportunity to escape from her identity.
Unfortunately, wherever
there exists an element of doubt in this business there will also exist
a conspiracy theory or some other distraction in favour of the simple
course of events that is more likely to be the truth.
Witnesses are notoriously
unreliable and mistaken sightings or timings can easily throw an
investigation off course. On balance it seems that there was not an
elaborate deception and that the body in the room in Miller’s Court
was that of Mary Jane Kelly.
|
back
to top
|
At what time was
Mary Jane Kelly attacked?
|
Unfortunately there is no firm evidence
upon which to base the time of Mary Jane Kelly’s death. The initial examination
of the body did not reveal any relevant information; hardly surprising
since it was not examined until almost three hours after it was first
discovered. And the inquest was woefully inadequate in not seriously
addressing the matter of timing although I suspect that the police had
rather more information at their disposal than was made available at the
inquest. There are two possible timings for the murder and these are set
by witness sightings of Kelly during the morning of 9 November. As with
any other witness statements these sighting have to be regarded with
caution since no witness is ever truly reliable, and some may be biased
or even have ulterior motives for deception. The timing of the murder may be relevant
as far as the identity of the killer is concerned, but even before
examining the details it is relevant that daytime murders were not part
of the Ripper's modus operandi, and the fact
that Annie Chapman was murdered just after dawn was an exception that
proved to be far too risky.
The most likely
opportunities for Kelly’s murder were between the hours of 2.45 am and
7.30 am, or much later at between 8.45 am and when he body was
discovered at 10.45 am. There is no way of knowing how accurate the
times stated by witnesses are. Spitalfields church clock chimed on the
quarter hour, so presumably estimated timings were relevant to that, but
in the matters discussed here, a difference of five minutes either way
can be crucial.
There
were various sighting of Kelly on the evening of 8 November and in the
early hours of 9 November:
-
2.00
am: The last reasonably
reliable sighting of Kelly was made by George Hutchinson at 2.00 am.
Hutchinson spoke with Kelly, whom he suggested he knew, and she asked him if he could
lend her sixpence. He had no money so she moved off and spoke with
another man whom she then took back with her to Miller’s Court.
Hutchinson was surprised to see Kelly with a man so well dressed
which is why he took such an interest. His interest ended at around
2.45 am – 3.00 am when he left the scene. Hutchinson was apparently seen
in the vicinity of the entrance to Miller’s court
by Sarah Lewis at 2.30 am; she noticed the time by the Spitalfields
church clock.
-
4.00
am: Lewis reported that she
woke up at 3.30 am (she heard the clock strike) and at around 4.00
am she
heard a female voice cry ‘murder’ and the sound seemed ‘at our
door’. Lewis was staying at number 2, Miller’s Court, just
across the passageway from number 13 and upstairs on the first
floor. Elizabeth Prater who was also awake at the time also reported
a suppressed cry of ‘oh murder’ and described it as a faint cry
coming from the court. It is interesting to note that Prater, who
was directly above Kelly’s room, heard only a faint cry, whereas
Lewis, who was just across the passageway from Kelly’s door, heard
a loud cry. If this cry emanated from Kelly’s room then there is a possibility that the door was open at the time.
No further sound was
heard from Kelly’s room. Lewis remained in the Court until late
afternoon and Prater was up at 5.00 am and in the public house by 6.00
am. She
returned to her room at some unspecified time then slept until 11.00
am when presumably she was woken by the activity surrounding the discovery
of the body. Cox was in her room until at least 6.15 am. There is a
report that at 7.30, Catherine Pickett, a flower seller who also lived in
Miller’s Court, went to Kelly’s room in order to borrow something
but received no response.
Prater is quite
adamant that she heard no sounds other than the cry of ‘murder’ and
in particular she was not disturbed by noises of furniture being moved
around. Interesting to note, however that both Prater and Lewis woke up
or were awake without specific reason at around 3.30 am and it could be that they were
disturbed by noises or activities of which they were not conscious, and
other than for reasons of being disturbed by a cat or just waking up
because they could not sleep.
Cries of ‘murder’
in the middle of the night were probably not a rarity in the environs of
Spitalfields at the end of the nineteenth century, so it is probably
not surprising that because there was only one cry heard by two witnesses,
neither took any particular notice. It is noteworthy that these were
neither screams nor cries for help that would be a more instinctive
response from a woman who was in fear of her life. Evidence from the crime scene quite convincingly indicates that there
was no struggle prior to or during Kelly’s death, thus there would be
no cries for help from the victim. In any event, Kelly was killed by a
deep cut to the throat that would have effectively silenced her, even if
it did not completely sever the windpipe. There is a plausible
possibility that the cry of ‘murder’ was made by someone other than
the victim; another woman who perhaps discovered Kelly’s mutilated
body at around 4.00 am but was not prepared to stay around and left the
scene in panic. Perhaps one
of Mary's fellow prostitutes entered the room and discovered the body
then left for fear of being implicated in some way. With the door open,
light from the gas lamp immediately outside would have illuminated the
otherwise darkened room sufficiently for anyone entering to witness the
scene and would also account for the apparent difference in the volume
of the cry between Lewis and Prater who both heard the cry. There is
evidence that Kelly shared her room with other women, Maria Harvey, who
had stayed overnight with Kelly on more than one occasion, so she would
be well aware as to how the apparently locked door could be opened.
On the basis of this
interpretation of witness reports it would seem likely that Kelly was
murdered some time between 2.45 am and 4.15 am if the cry of
‘murder’ came from the victim or from someone who entered her room;
or between 2.30 am and 7.30 am if the cry was unconnected with Mary Kelly’s
murder.
As already mentioned, there
were also reported sightings of Mary Jane Kelly later on the morning of 9
November by Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis, but
if Kelly was out and about
and not lying dead in her room, then she must have left before 7.30 am when
Catherine Picket reportedly called and received no answer. However, there
were no further sightings of Kelly that morning in spite of the fact
that she would have been on the streets for something like three hours. This
tends to lessen support for the reported sightings by Maxwell and Lewis.
Furthermore, if Maxwell did see Kelly that morning then it is also
likely that Lewis saw her which meant that just thirty to forty-five
minutes lapsed from the reported sighting by Lewis to the discovery of
the body, which is probably insufficient time for Kelly to meet with her
killer, return with him to her
room, undress and fold her clothes and place them neatly
on a chair at the foot of the bed, and for the killer to then indulge in
an act of extreme, though not especially skilful, butchery and slip away
before Thomas Bowyer peered in through the window. Had the corpse been
examined as soon as the police surgeon arrived on the scene at 11.15
am instead of over two hours later at 1.30 pm, the temperature and extent of
rigor of the body would have at least given an idea as to whether the
murder had just been committed or whether the killer had struck much
earlier in the morning. Also, if the woman seen by Maxwell was indeed
Mary Jane Kelly, then because she had just vomited it is fair to assume that
her stomach was empty at 8.15 am and probably also half an hour later when
she was observed outside the Britannia. The body of the woman found in
Miller’s court had a partly digested meal of fish and potatoes in her
stomach, so at some point during the following two hours Kelly must also
have taken a meal.
It is just about possible that
Mary Kelly was still alive at least until 8.45 am and possibly until 10.15
am on the morning of Friday 9 November. In reality, however, it seems far
more likely that both Maxwell and Lewis were simply mistaken and that they saw
someone resembling Kelly that morning. Lewis’s account only ever
appeared in a newspaper and he was not asked to give evidence at the
inquest and Maxwell, by her own admission, had only ever spoken to Kelly
on two previous occasions. Apart from the fact that much has to
happen in a relatively short span of time, any killer who was intent
upon savaging his victim in the manner of that inflicted upon Mary Jane Kelly
would have been foolish to attempt his activities during daylight hours
when the risk of been seen and been caught were far greater than under
the concealment of darkness.
|
back
to top
|
What happened in
13 Miller’s Court? |
Mary
Kelly’s ground floor room in Miller’s Court measured approximately
12 feet by 10 feet with a single point of entry, two windows, one
smaller than the other with broken panes, and a hearth. Within the
room there was a bedstead, two tables, a chair, and a cupboard. Kelly
was a prostitute and used the room for such purposes to earn a few
pennies with which to buy beer and food. She did not regard paying the
rent as a priority. Joseph Barnett had known Kelly for some twenty
months and had lived with her in that room for ten months. Barnett did
not approve of her activities as a prostitute and moved out nine
days earlier to live in nearby lodgings and then to Gray’s Inn Road
the day after Kelly’s murder. At Kelly’s inquest Barnett gave
evidence to the effect that he had moved out ‘because she [Kelly] had
a woman of bad character there, whom she took in out of compassion.'
Barnett saw Kelly the day before her murder, but insisted that their
parting had been on friendly terms.
It probably would not
have taken the killer more than 10-15 minutes to commit his awful crime
from the moment that the knife made the first wound to Kelly's
neck. Judging by reports as to the distribution of blood on the wall and
beneath the bed, the victim had her head to the top right corner of
the bed when her right carotid artery was severed and she
remained in this position while bleeding to death. She would probably
have been
unconscious in less than a minute and although the rate of blood loss would have lessened as blood
pressure dropped, death would have ensued minutes later as the body
exsanguinated. It appears as though the killer surprised his victim, but
even so it would have been necessary for him to restrain her with one
hand, possibly with his right hand over her mouth, while inflicting the fatal
cut to her neck with a knife held in his left hand. An appreciable amount
of the blood accumulated in one place - in the bedding and on the floor
at the top right corner of the bed - which suggests that the killer
waited until his victim had stopped breathing before commencing
mutilation.
The body at this
time would be lying on the right side of the bed from which there
was no access because the bed was, according to Dr Phillips the police
surgeon, ‘close against’ the partition wall. It would make no sense
for the killer to reach across the bed in order to perform the
mutilations, so he pulled the body closer to him so that it was
‘two-thirds over towards the edge of the bedstead nearest the door.’
Without knowing the depth and direction of cuts it is difficult
to estimate the position of the killer when he carried out his work but
it is reasonable to assume that much of his work was conducted from the
left side of the bed.
Evidence from the
crime scene and from the post mortem examination of the body is of
little value in predicting the time of death in this
instance. In view of the unclothed and dissected state of
the corpse, the extreme blood loss, and the broken window, heat loss
from the body would have been rapid but at least any residual warmth and
indications of rigor would have been of some predictive value had the
body been examined immediately upon discovery. The observation at post
mortem examination that the stomach of the victim contained the
partially digested remains of a meal of fish and potatoes could also
have been of some value but only in general terms because food can
remain in the stomach for between 2 and 4 hours depending on a number of
variables. However, since there was no indication as to when the victim
ate this meal then the time of death cannot be extrapolated even in
broad terms.
There is little doubt
that Mary Jane Kelly's killer would have needed some light by which to work,
especially when inflicting the initial wound, which could not be
accurately delivered in total darkness. Even with the curtains drawn it
is possible that enough light entered the room from the gas lamp in the
passageway, directly opposite the door to room number 13. No
door is a perfect fit and some light may also have entered the room past
the curtains since lamplight would also have shone into the Court. The light
level within the room from this source would have been low but the room
almost certainly would not have been in total darkness.
When Cox returned to her room at 3.00 am she saw no sign of a
light from Kelly’s window and heard no sound, but Kelly was probably
inside her room with a man by this time. Cox also heard no cry of
‘murder’ in spite of the fact that she claims not to have slept at all
that night, although her room was towards the far end of the Court.
There are only two
realistic scenarios for how Kelly and her murderer came together; one
involves her meeting the killer and taking him back to her room and the
other involves the killer entering her room while she slept. There were
no reports of noise coming from the room and no indications that a
struggle took place. There were negligible identifiable defensive wounds
to Kelly, apart from a minor superficial cut to the thumb that had bled,
and abrasions to the back of the hand that were not typically defensive
in nature, but could have been inflicted as Kelly put up a reflex
defence. Thus, she was either killed while asleep, or taken by surprise
and instantly overpowered.
Kelly’s position on
the far right of the bed at the time the fatal wound was inflicted tends
to suggest that someone else was on the bed beside her just prior to her
death. But in the case of a premeditated killing it is extremely
unlikely that the murderer would have removed his own clothes just in
case he needed to make a hasty retreat from the room. It could be that
Kelly’s murder was not premeditated even though the killer obviously
carried a knife. Suffice to say that carrying a knife would have been a
common enough practice among some elements of the population of
Spitalfields, and although such does not imply an intention to murder,
it does make the likelihood of a spontaneous over reaction rather more
likely. Kelly and her
murderer may or may not have engaged in sex prior to the attack but it
is fairly likely that Kelly would have slept soundly for a while
considering her drunken state, and this would make her a very easy
target.
A plausible scenario is that Kelly and a client returned to her
room, they undressed and had sex on her bed, Kelly fell asleep with the
aid of the alcohol in her system, and the killer dressed to leave then
killed her. This would have placed her murder some time towards the
later end of the time frame and would fit the absence of any light seen
in the room by Cox at 3.00. The killer would perhaps have needed to dispose of some of his heavily contaminated
clothing before stepping out onto the street, so he burned them in the
hearth. Burning clothing does not provide
a very good light source and I doubt that such was the reason for the
fire in the hearth. After all, a candle was present in the room and by
accounts was less than half used, so if the killer needed additional
light then it is more likely that he worked by candlelight.
Was it possible for a stranger to enter the room and
attack Mary Jane Kelly while she slept? It was certainly possible for
someone to enter the room and kill Kelly in this way, but that person
could not have been a total stranger. Testimony from Joseph Barnett confirmed that the only door to the room had a lock to which
there was no key. The door lock was not a dead lock type of mechanism
that required a key to secure it, but a spring-loaded latch type
mechanism that automatically 'locked' when the door was closed. The lock
required a key to open it and allow entry, but not to secure it. But the
occupants of number 13 did not need a key to gain entry. Inspector
Abberline said at the inquest that; 'Barnett informs me that [the key]
has been missing for some time, and since it has been lost they have put
their hand through the broken window and moved back the catch. It is
quite easy.' Apparently, no one who arrived at the murder scene knew or realised that the door could be opened so easily
via the broken window which is why the door was forced in order to gain
entry. But Barnett and Kelly were surely not the only people who knew how
to unlock the door; Kelly’s fellow prostitutes whom she allowed to use
the room together with several men whom they each took back to the room
must also have know how to gain access. If Mary Kelly was
indeed alone in her room, in a deep alcohol assisted asleep, and without
the additional security of a table in position behind the locked door,
as seemed common practice in that district, then it would be possible for
someone with knowledge to lift the door latch by reaching in through the
broken window and gain access. Light would flood into the room from the
gas lamp on the wall immediately opposite the door and the killer would
have sufficient light by which to inflict a fatal wound to he neck. This
done he could close the door and continue unhindered, with or without
the assistance of a lighted candle. All could be done in relative
silence.
|
back
to top
|
Was Mary Jane
Kelly another victim of ‘Jack the Ripper’? |
Very
little is known about Mary Jane Kelly. Much of the story of her life,
such as there is, came from Kelly herself via her boyfriend Joseph
Barnett. Kelly
was reportedly born in Limerick in 1863 and then she moved from Ireland
to Caernarvonshire or Carmarthenshire in Wales in her early childhood.
Her father, John Kelly, was employed at an ironworks and Mary Jane met
and married a collier circa 1879. Within two or three years of marrying,
Mary Jane’s husband was killed in a mining accident at which point she
allegedly lived in Cardiff and turned to prostitution as a means of
support. She was, according to Barnett, ‘in an infirmary there for eight
or nine months’, although whether she was working there, or a patient is
uncertain. From Cardiff, Kelly moved to London circa 1884 and by account
she worked in a West End brothel during which time she made a brief
excursion to work in France. After a couple of weeks in Paris she
returned to London and moved to the East End.
No single part of this story has been
independently verified. There is no documentary evidence that Kelly or
any of her family lived in Wales or that she was involved in a formal
marriage ceremony. The only fragment of her story to be substantiated
was her involvement in West End brothel since she supposedly returned
there with a former landlady Mrs Buki in an attempt to recover some
expensive dresses that almost certainly not hers to recover. Mary Jane
Kelly is an enigma and although she reportedly received letters from her
family in Ireland, no family member identified her body or attended the
funeral - or at least none was reported to have done so. There is every
possibility that what Kelly told Barnett was a complete fabrication and
we cannot rely upon any aspect of it.
Several circumstances of the murder of Mary Kelly do
not fit well with the other Ripper murders, and elements of the
signature established in other murders are absent from that of Kelly.
These discrepancies have been briefly mentioned in the section
dealing with the interpretation of findings and are discussed at length
in the book By Ear and Eyes.
On
balance of the available evidence it would seem that Mary Jane Kelly was not murdered by
the same man who was responsible for the series of murders that included
Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catharine Eddowes,
and probably also Alice McKenzie and Frances Coles. There are just too
many differences to allow Kelly's inclusion in the series and there are
significant reasons to suggest that she may have been murdered in
mistake for another woman. Indicators in support of this scenario come
from the recollections of the artist Walter Sickert. Although Sickert
clearly had no involvement in any aspect of the murders and no
connection with any of the Ripper victims, he did have information that
he misinterpreted and information that others have since misinterpreted.
This information, considered at length in By Ear and Eyes is crucial
to understanding a complex situation that culminated in the murder of
Mary Jane Kelly by someone wishing to disguise her death among the
series. The murder and mutilation of Mary Jane Kelly was at best a crude
approximation of the Ripper murders and exhibited no anatomical or
dissecting skills whatsoever. Mary Jane Kelly was most likely
murdered by the man who accompanied her back to her room at shortly
after 2.00 am, as
witnessed by George Hutchinson, but
the man was not ‘Jack the Ripper’.
|
back
to top
|
Additional links and
resources |
|
A detailed
examination of the neck wounds to each of the victims was
published in the September 2005 edition of Ripperologist. You
can read the article here as a .PDF file by following the link
below.
Cutthroat
|
Image of Mary Jane Kelly
reproduced by kind permission of the Metropolitan Police
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
home |
Whitechapel |
Whitechapel victims |
interpretation of findings |
how many victims? |
Mary Jane Kelly |
resources |
by ear and eyes |
© karyo magellan 2001-2006
|