Oh, murder!

[RockySullivan]

No-one later claimed to be in that courtyard at that time of night. Only 1 courtyard occupant could not later claim that call.

Regards Pierre

Bowyer claimed to be in the courtyard around that time.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
She was tired she was drunk. she was not feeling well, she was in a deep sleep, and she awoke suddenly with a reoccurring dream..its that simple. Blotchy had gone, Mr A , may well have been present[ debatable ]..otherwise he left at dawn, leaving Kelly alive.
She was awoken by a knock on the door at 7.30 am , by Catherine Pickett, and ventured out at 8 am, to fetch milk, seen by Lewis,and Maxwell, who remarked it was unusual to see her up so early, she said she had ''The horrors of drink''.
She met her killer at 8 45 am, made arrangements for a visit, he did not wish to be seen walking to her room,with her, so he came ten minutes or so later, by that time she was down to her chemise, he walked in the unlocked door, and it was then she met her death....
She may/may not have known her killer, if this scenario is right , most likely not.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Yes Bowyer was fetching water , around the middle of the night, saw nothing suspicious.I feel we are putting too much on the estimated T.O.D.
Richard.

[Abby Normal]

Hi.
She was tired she was drunk. she was not feeling well, she was in a deep sleep, and she awoke suddenly with a reoccurring dream..its that simple. Blotchy had gone, Mr A , may well have been present[ debatable ]..otherwise he left at dawn, leaving Kelly alive.
She was awoken by a knock on the door at 7.30 am , by Catherine Pickett, and ventured out at 8 am, to fetch milk, seen by Lewis,and Maxwell, who remarked it was unusual to see her up so early, she said she had ''The horrors of drink''.
She met her killer at 8 45 am, made arrangements for a visit, he did not wish to be seen walking to her room,with her, so he came ten minutes or so later, by that time she was down to her chemise, he walked in the unlocked door, and it was then she met her death....
She may/may not have known her killer, if this scenario is right , most likely not.
Regards Richard.

a reoccurring dream? OOOOkkkaaay.

so the next morning after already going to the pub once, drinking and vomiting she heads back out to the pub and is solicitating a man for sex?
If shes already tried to drink that morning and vomiting shes in no shape to go back the pub and or solicite for sex.

remember she wanted to go to the lord mayers show also.

theres also the small problem of the lack of time for her to meet a man, walk back to her place, stoke a huge fire get murdered and massively mutilated and the man to leave scott free before shes discovered by Bowyer.

then there is the small problem of TOD which tallys with a middle of the night murder around the times her screams are heard.

The lack of common sense on this thread is simply amazing.

[Abby Normal]

Bowyer claimed to be in the courtyard around that time.

yup. a direct quote from him as a matter of fact in one of the papers.

[Abby Normal]

Yes Bowyer was fetching water , around the middle of the night, saw nothing suspicious.I feel we are putting too much on the estimated T.O.D.
Richard.

of course you do because it doesn't fit your theory.

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Pierre;361338]

As for the cry out at around 3:45am, a few things we need to bear in mind;

The phrase was often used as an exclamation in that district, not as a cry for help.

So if it wasn´t a cry for help - what might it have been?

No-one later claimed to be in that courtyard at that time of night. Only 1 courtyard occupant could not later claim that call.

But if they were there and didn´t claim to be, what could the reason for that have been?

Using both descriptions it seems logical that the voice did in fact originate in the courtyard.

We can´t listen to sounds from the past.

Using the descriptions made by Prater it seems logical to assume that room 13was dark and quiet at that time, necessitating an earlier or later visible fire.

This is a very important question. We can assume that the fire was burning when the killer was in the room. So when could that have been?

Prater said:

"I should have seen a glimmer of light in going up the stairs if there had been a light in deceased's room, but I noticed none...

I went to bed at half-past one and barricaded the door with two tables. I fell asleep directly and slept soundly.

A kitten disturbed me about half-past three o'clock or a quarter to four.

I went asleep, and was awake again at five a.m. I passed down the stairs, and saw some men harnessing horses."

Don´t you think this leaves us with a space of three hours, from 1.30 to 4.30, where the killer could have murderer Kelly, lit the fire and performed the mutilations?

And if you think so, then we do have a problem with the hypothesis of the victim screaming "Oh, murder!" at 3.30/3.45, don´t we?


Regards Pierre

Hi Pierre
No we don't. Why do we have to assume the killer was done and gone by 4:30? he could have still been in the room when prater knocked at 5:00.

also, The fire may have already been lit earlier in the night and had burned down and then restoked and made large by the killer later.

[Abby Normal]

All killers are not alike, nor are the kills within the Canonical Group. But group them for your own pleasure.

The Assumption Squad doesn't like it when reality pokes its head in.

the only "reality" to any of your posts is that you will inevitably say "canonical". lol.

[packers stem]

a reoccurring dream? OOOOkkkaaay.

so the next morning after already going to the pub once, drinking and vomiting she heads back out to the pub and is solicitating a man for sex?
If shes already tried to drink that morning and vomiting shes in no shape to go back the pub and or solicite for sex.

remember she wanted to go to the lord mayers show also.

theres also the small problem of the lack of time for her to meet a man, walk back to her place, stoke a huge fire get murdered and massively mutilated and the man to leave scott free before shes discovered by Bowyer.

then there is the small problem of TOD which tallys with a middle of the night murder around the times her screams are heard.

The lack of common sense on this thread is simply amazing.

Hi Abby
Common sense answer is that the nervous wreck that was Barnett at the inquest was lying about the body being that of Kelly and that the sighting and the TOD were both correct

[MysterySinger]

Pierre says
"Don´t you think this leaves us with a space of three hours, from 1.30 to 4.30, where the killer could have murderer Kelly, lit the fire and performed the mutilations?

And if you think so, then we do have a problem with the hypothesis of the victim screaming "Oh, murder!" at 3.30/3.45, don´t we?"

- I'm not following the argument I'm afraid. I don't see anything there that rules out a victim shouting "oh, murder!" at 3:30/3:45 - quite the opposite really.

[MysterySinger]

Abby says
"Why do we have to assume the killer was done and gone by 4:30? he could have still been in the room when prater knocked at 5:00."

Agree he doesn't have to have been done and gone by 4:30 but wasn't aware that Prater knocked for Kelly at 5am. I thought the first one to knock was Pickett at 7:30 when she went to borrow a shawl.

[packers stem]

The low cry of 'oh murder' is likely to be an exclamation of discovery
Can't for a second imagine the victim shouting that....human beings can scream for a reason

[Wickerman]

From the Star on Nov 10th:

"The opinion is entertained by some of the Scotland-yard officers that the missing organ has been burnt in the fireplace in the murdered woman's room. There is a mass of ash and rubbish under the grate, among which are portions of a coat and hat; and the police intend EXAMINING THE ASHES with the assistance of Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, for the presence of any fatty matter, or any trace of burnt flesh. The whole of the rubbish, in fact, will be carefully sifted and scrutinised, because if the burnt coat should happen to be part of the murderer's clothing a clue of some sort, meagre enough, perhaps, but better than nothing at all, would be supplied."

The missing organ may have incited the sieving Jon, but it doesn't explain why they would need to sieve twice.

Cheers

Hi Michael.

The last line of the paragraph you quoted above advises the reader when the ashes will be investigated.

"The investigation of the ashes is expected to take place during the course of this afternoon."

We did read that parts of items were picked out of the grate/ashes, on Friday, but we do not read that the ashes were also sifted on that day, the sifting appears to have been saved for Saturday afternoon.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby
Common sense answer is that the nervous wreck that was Barnett at the inquest was lying about the body being that of Kelly and that the sighting and the TOD were both correct

Hi packer
Lying about the body being Kelly?

Sorry packer. The common sense answer is that it was the body of Kelly and Barnett had a preexisting condition that made him appear nervous Or that he was nervous because he was just at an inquest or that he was devasted because her death, or that, just possibly he was nervouse because he was her killer.

This thread is devolving into pure and utter nonsense.

[c.d.]

the only "reality" to any of your posts is that you will inevitably say "canonical". lol.

Now that is just classic. I laughed out loud at that one.

c.d.