A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Bridewell]

Packer was at least proven to have been where he said he was, and for the reasons he provided, quite unlike Hutchinson.

Lack of proof that he was where he said he was does not constitute proof that he wasn't though, does it?

[DRoy]

Simon,

Hi DRoy,

The sun set at 4.19 pm on November 8th and rose at around 7.10 am on November 9th.

As the gas-lamp was right opposite the door to Room 13, it would have been interesting to know if the lamplighter had seen or heard MJK prior to her morning encounter with Mrs Maxwell.

I guess it would depend how many lamps each lamplighter would be responsible for lighting and distinguishing. Were all lamps lit before dark and then distinguished after sunrise?

Cheers
DRoy

[Simon Wood]

Hi DRoy,

The sun set at 4.19 pm on November 8th and rose at around 7.10 am on November 9th.

As the gas-lamp was right opposite the door to Room 13, it would have been interesting to know if the lamplighter had seen or heard MJK prior to her morning encounter with Mrs Maxwell.

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

As I suspected you have nothing to back up your claim that Kennedy was exposed as a plagiariser beyond your highly convoluted 21st century theorising.

Which century would you prefer me to theorise from, Lechmere?

And I'm flattered and everything, but the reality of the Kennedy situation was first spotted by Philip Sugden, not me. It is no more my original "theory" than Cross-the-ripper is yours I'm afraid.

As you seem to be basing your theory on the Star’s report of 10th November 1888, please allow me to knock that spoke out of your band wagon.

Uh-oh. Fasten your seatbelt, Mr. Sugden. Looks like Lechmere is about to give us a bumpy ride here...

But who was this woman (‘as reported below’) who heard the cry of ‘Murder’? The cry which their reported regarded as ‘a fabrication’? Why it was Mrs Kennedy!

...or not.

Did you read the post where I addressed this very detail? Why no! Here it is again: They (The Star) may have assumed, incorrectly, that Kennedy was the original witness, and that other women had parrotted her account (an issue that was cleared up when Lewis appeared at the inquest and Kennedy didn't). Indeed, they may well have concluded erroneously that the entire "oh murder" account was a fabrication, but what could be more understandable given that the report only appeared in the very immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder, and that "half a dozen" women were gumming up the works by providing a chinese-whispered version of the said "oh murder" account? It is hardly surprising, under those circumstances, that the proverbial baby may have been thrown out with the bathwater.

The striking similarity between the Lewis and Kennedy accounts informs us immediately that the phenomenon described by the Star – that of other bogus witnesses parroting an “oh murder” story – not only happened, but made the papers. Otherwise, we’re left with another one of those absurd “coincidences” that some people seem hell bent on pretending to find plausible. Mrs. Kennedy’s own “oh murder” account was both suspiciously similar to Lewis’ (albeit incorporating a sighting of Kelly herself!) and dropped before the inquest, tying in precisely with the Star’s observation. The only error they appeared to have made was their attempt to identify the original source, which was unquestionably Sarah Lewis, who definitely stayed opposite Kelly on the night of the murder, was interviewed by the police, and was called to the inquest...and not Kennedy.

It would seem that the Star reported caught up with Kennedy in the vicinity of Miller’s Court

No, it wouldn't "seem" that way at all. That is completely presumptuous as I've explained already. We have no indication of where the Kennedy-press interview occurred (although the Star did mention that the "oh murder" account became popular around "the lodging house"). Kennedy might have claimed that she was detained in the court by the police, but in light of the forgoing, it is far more likely that this was yet another detail stolen from Sarah Lewis's account. Even the Star makes clear that "she states" as much. It was clearly not something they ascertained to be true.

And besides Prater who else do you suppose told them of it?

Sarah Lewis, obviously.

By the 14th November, the Star would have known about, and reported, Lewis' inquest evidence. The fact that Lewis did not communicate with the Star (or ostensibly any other newspaper) directly is neither here nor there.

They say it was heard by “several dwellers in the court”.

No, they don't.

Please read the extract properly: "as said to have been heard by several dwellers in the court."

"As said"...in other words, uncorroborated second-hand hearsay (or worse) which probably had no direct communication with the Star's reporters.

And who do you think are the ‘others’ whose evidence suggested to the Star that the murder happened after 3 am?

The only candidates are Lewis and Hutchinson, before they discovered that the latter had been "discredited" (which they did discover shortly thereafter and report the following day - the 15th).

It is fairly clear they were referring to Kennedy.

Kennedy exonerated.

It is completely clear that they weren't.

Kennedy unexonerated.

But thanks for playing.

But that same sketch presents someone of very unmilitary appearance.

No it doesn't.

Hi Jon,

"The more reliable of the two" ...would you like to expand on that?

Certainly. There were two newspaper sketches of the Hutchinson/Astrakhan/Kelly scene, and one is clearly more faithful to the account than the other. The weaker one is more crudely drawn and features various "extras" in the background, including a girl with what appears to be a mud-smeared or chocolate-smeared face. Most odd.

First he claimed he saw no-one and nothing suspicious. Then, four days later, he claimed he served a man & woman, who then stood about in the street.
The police concluded that Packer is not a reliable witness.

Yep, just like Hutchinson, who gave polar opposite details when communicating with police and press. For all his obvious nonsense, Packer was at least proven to have been where he said he was, and for the reasons he provided, quite unlike Hutchinson. If you read the Star's report of the 15th November, you'll notice that Hutchinson and Packer are lumped into the same category under the headline: "Worthless stories lead the police on false scents."

Violenia was sussed out under questioning:
"Subsequently, cross-examination so discredited Violenia's evidence that it was wholly distrusted by the police, and Pizer was set at liberty".

Yep, again just like Hutchinson whose account suffered a "very reduced importance" in light of "later investigations". Thanks for providing that quote, though. Violenia was considered by the police to have lied about being present at a crime scene around the time that the crime in question was committed, and yet he was "set at liberty". Very interesting. I'll save that quote for future debates when they inevitably arise.

And, I still need to know about your reliable press source.

But you ought really to know all about it, because I explained it in patient detail on many threads. If you need a refresher, I suggest you consult the Hutchinson threads.

Meanwhile, my sincere apologies to Droy and his much welcomed attempt to steer the discussion back on track!

All the best,
Ben

[DRoy]

Hi Simon,

As far as I know, nobody asked the lamplighter what he might have seen or heard.

Simon,

Wouldn't the lamplighters be the most common witnesses for every crime that happened after dark? MJK was apparently murdered between 3am and 4am so would the lamplighter still be lighting lamps or is that around the time he'd have to go back out and start distinguishing them?

DRoy

[DRoy]

Hi Michael,

Regarding the issue of whether the door was locked when Mary went out....it would seem by Ms Cox's remarks that Mary had left her spring latch ON, meaning that it wouldnt engage when the door was closed. That seems reasonable if you consider that she went out drinking and wouldnt want to fumble around using the broken pane access method when she returned.

I don't see where Cox is saying anything about the door latch. We also don't know if she went out drinking. We know she was drunk yes but maybe she went out looking for clients and got drunk instead (or both).

My suspicion is that the room was left unlocked a fair bit due to the hassle with the window...which we hear Barnett used to access the room, not Mary.

Hassle? Abberline said this at the inquest "Barnett informs me that it has been missing 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."

Why would the same killer that left carved bodies in public for anyone coming along to easily find, secure the door to room 13?

We've been debating that question a long time Michael!

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Hi Jon,

Seeing as how Mrs Harvey had just brought the coat to Kelly's home, perhaps the only way to keep it clean was to hang it off the end of the curtain rod, or a nail? Harvey was supposed to be in the 'laundry' business, perhaps they had recently washes it (or part of it) and it was hanging up to dry?

Maybe. I do recall reading somewhere that the coat was used to block the cold out because of the broken panes. What about the curtain and blinds?

I'd hazard a guess that's just the reporters poor choice of words.

It was from the inquest so you'd hope it would be as close as possible

In that case, you'd have to wonder if he ever slept..

If I was either the murderer or an accomplice to a murder I don't know how much I'd sleep through the night.

Or maybe she made it up?
If she didn't know their procedure of reaching through the window then she couldn't claim that was what she saw.

I'm not saying she did but something doesn't seem right. You're right, maybe she didn't know the procedure but as someone who testified at the inquest you'd think she'd share as much info as possible since Blotchy was the last known person to be with her.

I had read elsewhere (a long time ago) that many of these types of tenants didn't bother locking the door when they were out, they had nothing to loose. They only locked the door once inside, for safety.
Maybe it's correct or not, I don't know, but that would satisfy the problem.

I read that too, however it doesn't seem realistic especially during the WM. Elizabeth Prater who lived above MJK barricaded the door with two tables and she didn't have broken windows to worry about. Since the room wasn't empty and had Maria Harvey's clothing in it, I think it's unlikely she left her door open.

Just to add one more question to your list. Mrs Cox was asked if the steps she heard at 6:15 might have been a policeman.

Was the Coroner just assuming the police patrolled Millers Court, or did he know for sure they did?
If the police never did patrol the court, Cox could have replied by saying "we never seen no copper down the court all the years I lived there", or something along those lines. Is that because the police did patrol the court?
If they did, where was he?

Interesting point. I'd guess that it would be quite rare for a policeman to go into the court. We are talking about Dorset being one of roughest areas where Elizabeth Prater states that cries of murder are not unusual. There apparently was a row earlier in the evening in the court so even if police did patrol the area I would assume it wouldn't be too often.

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

Regarding the issue of whether the door was locked when Mary went out....it would seem by Ms Cox's remarks that Mary had left her spring latch ON, meaning that it wouldnt engage when the door was closed. That seems reasonable if you consider that she went out drinking and wouldnt want to fumble around using the broken pane access method when she returned.

Which brings up a good point with thread relevance....if Blotchy was let out by Mary, then its probable she would dis-engage the latch, allowing it to lock. If Blotchy let himself out, would he also do that? If the killer found the room open, would he think to ensure that the door locked behind him? If the killer found the room locked and Mary Kelly was unknown to him, would he have found the pane and tried to access the latch himself? If Mary went out after letting Blotchy out, would she set the latch or not?

My suspicion is that the room was left unlocked a fair bit due to the hassle with the window...which we hear Barnett used to access the room, not Mary. Whether Mary opened the door for the killer, or whether he opened it himself... if unlocked,..(unlikely if Mary let Blotchy out), the killer released the latch when he left, locking the door.

Why would the same killer that left carved bodies in public for anyone coming along to easily find, secure the door to room 13?

Cheers

[Sally]

That would suggest the gas was not charged to McCarthy, so the lamp was a city utility?
Does that also suggest Millers Court was not private property, so, could have been patrolled by the police?
With the sign over the passage being a municipal sign I assumed the court was not private property.

Jon

Millers Court was probably not private property - in much the same way that Dorset Street (e.g.) was not private property. So, Millers Court gets a municipal street sign in much the same was as any other street or court. The property within the court, however, would have been (and was) privately owned, in general; as in any other street. The situation is much the same today - property law hasn't changed much in that respect. So, the lamp in the court would most likely have been a public lamp.

[Wickerman]

Thanks Mike.
I'm really fishing for info. hoping someone has researched this. I had thought McCarthy was responsible for that lamp, but thanks to Simon, this does not appear to be the case, unless the gas line source was changed between 1888 and the 1920's.

Regards, Jon S.

[The Good Michael]

That would suggest the gas was not charged to McCarthy, so the lamp was a city utility?
Does that also suggest Millers Court was not private property, so, could have been patrolled by the police?
With the sign over the passage being a municipal sign I assumed the court was not private property.

Hi Jon,

Are you referring to the passage only, or to the court? I would assume that the court, because all the property in it seemed to be owned by McCarthy and a partner (brother in law? Can't remember), would have been the responsibility of the owner, but the passage could have been a public utility. I don't know any of this for a fact, however.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Hi All,

Apparently there was a gas lamp in Millers Court.

What follows are much later reminiscences (20s and 30s), but the mechanics of the operation remained the same.

"Street lighting was by way of gas lamps and the old lamplighter would come every evening carrying his big long pole with the hook on the end, open up the glass panel at the top of the lamp post, and turn on the gaslight, returning in the morning to turn it off again.

"The gas street lights were lit each evening and extinguished in the morning by the lamplighter."

So that's two visits to Millers Court - once on the evening of November 8th, and again on the morning of November 9th.

As far as I know, nobody asked the lamplighter what he might have seen or heard.

Regards,

Simon

Thankyou for that Simon.

That would suggest the gas was not charged to McCarthy, so the lamp was a city utility?
Does that also suggest Millers Court was not private property, so, could have been patrolled by the police?
With the sign over the passage being a municipal sign I assumed the court was not private property.

Thanks, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Apparently there was a gas lamp in Millers Court.

What follows are much later reminiscences (20s and 30s), but the mechanics of the operation remained the same.

"Street lighting was by way of gas lamps and the old lamplighter would come every evening carrying his big long pole with the hook on the end, open up the glass panel at the top of the lamp post, and turn on the gaslight, returning in the morning to turn it off again.

"The gas street lights were lit each evening and extinguished in the morning by the lamplighter."

So that's two visits to Millers Court - once on the evening of November 8th, and again on the morning of November 9th.

As far as I know, nobody asked the lamplighter what he might have seen or heard.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

DRoy.
Just to add one more question to your list. Mrs Cox was asked if the steps she heard at 6:15 might have been a policeman.

Was the Coroner just assuming the police patrolled Millers Court, or did he know for sure they did?
If the police never did patrol the court, Cox could have replied by saying "we never seen no copper down the court all the years I lived there", or something along those lines. Is that because the police did patrol the court?
If they did, where was he?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi DRoy.

What are some more of the odd things said during MJK's inquest that don't quite seem to make sense but could help us establish the access to MJK?

- Bowyer commented on how he had to move the curtain in order to see inside MJK's room yet Mary Ann Cox states that the blinds were down. And what about the coat that Maria Harvey left there and was apparently covering the broken window? Maybe MJK had both blinds and a curtain but since Mary Ann Cox saw blinds at 11:45pm on thursday evening and Bowyer only moved a curtain on Friday morning (no mention of the coat) then perhaps this is a clue about the access to MJK?

Seeing as how Mrs Harvey had just brought the coat to Kelly's home, perhaps the only way to keep it clean was to hang it off the end of the curtain rod, or a nail? Harvey was supposed to be in the 'laundry' business, perhaps they had recently washes it (or part of it) and it was hanging up to dry?

- Regarding Maria Harvey's coat she left with MJK, she is quoted by the Daily Telegraph as saying this about it..."saw the black overcoat in a room in the court on Friday afternoon". Odd thing to say "in a room" since she knows she left it in MJK's room on Thursday. She also stayed with MJK for two nights so she must know what room she was talking about. And was it hanging over the window or not?

I'd hazard a guess that's just the reporters poor choice of words.

- Three witness (the only ones that describe anyone around the scene of the murder) all testify to seeing a "stout" man. Mary Ann Cox testified to seeing "a short, stout man" at 11:45pm Thursday evening. Sarah Lewis describes seeing "a stout-looking man, and not very tall." at 2:30 am on Friday morning. Caroline Maxwell testified to seeing MJK talking to a man outside the Britannia public house at approximately 8:45 am on Friday morning and describes the man as "a little taller than me and stout" (she apparently was between 5'2" & 5'5"). Whether the stout man was the same person or not is speculation but still interesting.

In that case, you'd have to wonder if he ever slept..

- Mary Ann Cox watches MJK & Blotchy enter the room but does not mention anything about them putting their arm through the broken window to unlock the door. Did MJK normally not lock the door when she wasn't home? Barnett makes it sound like they used to lock it hence they used the broken window. Did Cox miss them use the window or did she just not include it in her testimony?....

Or maybe she made it up?
If she didn't know their procedure of reaching through the window then she couldn't claim that was what she saw.

I had read elsewhere (a long time ago) that many of these types of tenants didn't bother locking the door when they were out, they had nothing to loose. They only locked the door once inside, for safety.
Maybe it's correct or not, I don't know, but that would satisfy the problem.

Regards, Jon S.