A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[lynn cates]

I'll take a pail of pale.

Hello Jon.

"If so, you must agree the police were 'not' looking for a pail, they already had one."

But could they not have easily checked that pail? Surely it would retain a characteristic odour? And there are pails and pails. If I recall properly, there was a typical lid for the beer carrying kind.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Hi Jon

I was thinking more along the lines of Blotchy intending to abort his idea of killing Mary Kelly full stop. That is, when he left the room he did not intend to come back, but intended to find another victim. He knew he had been seen entering Kelly's room, but decided to take the risk that Cox would not be able to identify him again. And as time wore on he decided that Kelly was too good a target to leave, thus he returned and killed her.

Total speculation of course, as you say, we'll never know the answer.

By the way, I also think JTR was drinking in different bars on his murdering meanders. As you know when under the influence, dutch courage takes over, and risk taking comes to the fore.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

There is a slight discrepency regarding the vessel Blotchy carried as he entered Kelly's room.

From the inquest

Cox stated, when asked about the man she saw with Kelly.

"A short, stout man, shabbily dressed. He had on a longish coat, very shabby, and carried a pot of ale in his hand."

The coroner questioned her further asking

" Had he anything in his hands but the can ? "

It's possible that the coroner pressed Cox for a more detailed description of the vessel,(not reported in the newspapers) arriving at his description a "can". I would tend to agree with this description, and I would guess that the vessel had a handle.

Above, in Greg's post is a barman, standing at a bar with pails on the bar. It's apparent they were filled with beer to be taken away to be drank at home. Think of a paint can though, it's a similar shaped vessel, but is refered to as a can. I think Blotchy carried a similar vessel to the one pictured above.

Regards

Observer

[Wickerman]

Blotchy enters the room fully intending to kill Mary Kelly, but as you imply has second thoughts based on the fact that Cox has sighted him. He stays a while and Mary sings as they drink the beer they have brought into the room. He then leaves and tries to find his luck somewhere else. After looking about for a while, he draws a blank, the cold night and the fact that a lunatic is abroad does not help his situation. With the blood lust rising in him Kelly now seems like a good idea. He knows she is alone, she told him as much. He knows that the door to her room is open, he left it so. And that woman, she didn't get a really good look at him anyhow. He returns.

Hi Observer.

Ok, thanks for that. Do you see a problem there?

Blotchy is in the same predicament because Mrs Cox has not seen him leave.

In order to clear himself he has to know the witness, Cox, see's him leave, only then can he return presumably unseen by anyone, and kill Mary.

Now if he went to Cox's door and knocked, "hey, I'm leaving now you nosey cow", then he creates an alibi of sorts, but as it is he could slip in and out half a dozen times and it wouldn't make a difference. Cox saw him arrive with Kelly, and did not see him leave while she was still alive.

I don't think he's any better off for returning later.
but still, if he's drunk I guess he's not thinking clearly anyway...

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi,
Blotchy almost certainly did not kill Mary Kelly, for one thing she was [ confirmed in a police statement] seen alive two hours later by Hutchinson.
Mr A being the killer has more credentials ,
.
.
So it comes down to Mr A being the killer of Mary Kelly, and it was a premeditated act, the outfit was a sham, and also what he had promised .
Was he known to Kelly, apart from a recent pick up, I would suggest yes.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard.
On the surface yes, that has been the traditional interpretation - A-man was the killer.

What has always troubled me about this is that Mrs Kennedy subsequently claimed to seeing Kelly outside the Britannia with, or near to, another couple.
The time was given as 3:00 am.

"Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before."

"Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday."


Sarah Lewis passed this same couple outside the Britannia, but did not include a third woman (Kelly?), but her time was given as 2:30 am.

Lewis and Kennedy were two separate women who passed the Britannia half an hour apart, but were both heading for the same address in Millers Court.

Hutchinson said he left the street as the clock struck 3 o'clock.
Kennedy said she passed the Britannia about 3 o'clock. One report gives "at" 3:00, all the rest give "about" 3:00.
Given that Kennedy made no reference to hearing or seeing the clock at this time she could have been guessing.

Hutchinson leaves Dorset St. as the clock chimes. A-man and Kelly both exit Millers Court minutes later, they separate, and Kelly walks up to the Britannia where she see's a couple standing there.
Mrs Kennedy walks passed all three and continues down to Millers Court.

A-man was not the killer, he has gone on his way.

As for A-man, how can he be inferred based on a different description?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Sarah Lewis acknowledges seeing three people, a couple passing up the court watched by a man standing outside - consistent with Hutchinson's claim of watching A-man and Kelly walk up the court.

Lewis witnessed the scene.
"...He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."
Daily News.

In her inquest testimony Lewis is only reported as saying:
"....another young man with a woman passed along"

In the press we read, variously:
"Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink."

"Further on I saw another man and woman."

"A young man went along with a young woman."

In no case do we read "where" they passed along, except in the Daily News which completes the picture - Lewis saw them pass along the passage, up the court.

Thats what I mean Lynn about the existence of this A-man and Kelly walk up the court, Lewis saw a couple walk up the court watched by this third man - deemed to be Hutchinson.

It would be great if Lewis had been pressed to describe the couple but as the passage was dark she probably only saw two silouettes, she did not know Kelly personally anyway. This is sufficient to confirm Hutchinson's story of the existence of Kelly with a client at that hour.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Greg.
This is all well and good but consider this.

You do agree the police inquired for those pot-boys to see what happened to this container - yes?

You also agree a pail was found in the room which the police used to carry away the organs - yes?

If so, you must agree the police were 'not' looking for a pail, they already had one.
They were looking for a beer container that was not found in the room, so they were not looking for a pail, which was found in the room.

All these tenants likely had a pail to carry water from the pump in the yard.

Regards, Jon S.

[GregBaron]

Growlers my boys...

Hi guys,

I'm not sure if this is a semantic point or if we are in disagreement here. I remember the term pail. I'm not sure where it came from, perhaps we meant pot but check the link below to get an idea what I'm talking about....Seems it says steel pails....These may not have been the size of a cleaning bucket but it was a big sloshing hunk of beer in my book...

http://www.swagbrewery.com/blogs/beer-facts/7186122-beer-fact-8-growlers-used-to-make-noise

Greg

[Observer]

On the other hand, if he did exist..

If you had been spoken to by Mary's neighbour, and seen quite clearly under the lamplight, would you go ahead and murder the woman you were seen entering the room with?.

Probably not. I have entertained this thought for some time now, but unlike yourself I think it possible that Blotchy was the murderer.

Blotchy enters the room fully intending to kill Mary Kelly, but as you imply has second thoughts based on the fact that Cox has sighted him. He stays a while and Mary sings as they drink the beer they have brought into the room. He then leaves and tries to find his luck somewhere else. After looking about for a while, he draws a blank, the cold night and the fact that a lunatic is abroad does not help his situation. With the blood lust rising in him Kelly now seems like a good idea. He knows she is alone, she told him as much. He knows that the door to her room is open, he left it so. And that woman, she didn't get a really good look at him anyhow. He returns.

I think it's a possinility that the man sighted by Sarah Lewis was Blotchy, and he entered the room shortly after the sighting, and murdered Mary Kelly. Hutchinson? An opportunist who became aware of the sighting of Sarah Lewis, and decided it was due time he was granted his 15 minutes of fame.

The cry of "oh murder" ? Another incident not associated with the murder of Mary Kelly.

Also, carrying a pot of beer with you to a murder seems a little bizarre. Its a detail that Cox would hardly make up if it was not true,
Regards, Jon S.

Indeed

Regards

Observer

[lynn cates]

existence

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Well, we are in accord that Blotchy, if he existed, did not murder "MJK." But I'm not sure he existed.

As for A-man, how can he be inferred based on a different description?

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Blotchy almost certainly did not kill Mary Kelly, for one thing she was [ confirmed in a police statement] seen alive two hours later by Hutchinson.
Mr A being the killer has more credentials , however he simply was not dressed for a kill, although he was dressed for the following days events, something that Kelly was keen to attend.
It is because of this, it is very possible that she had intended to venture out around 2,am to meet this man at a prearranged spot, Maybe he showed concern in venturing down Dorset street alone dressed in fancy clothes.
However if he was just a admiring beau, and he shared her room who killed Kelly?
If he had made arrangements to escort her to the lord mayors show in the morning..what happened, how come she died,if he did not kill her.?
Logic suggests that Maxwell confused Lizzie Allbrook as Mary, she claims she saw the victim about in the lodging house, Lizzie worked in a Dorset street lodging house , and she also was 20 years old.
The shawl may have been borrowed by Lizzie, it appears that Kelly may have lent that item to Catherine Pickett at times, as she knocked Kelly's door around 745am to borrow it as protection from the rain.
In other words Maxwell was mistaken , [ although she must have realised her mistake later after the inquest].
So it comes down to Mr A being the killer of Mary Kelly, and it was a premeditated act, the outfit was a sham, and also what he had promised .
Was he known to Kelly, apart from a recent pick up, I would suggest yes.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Yes, the police looked high and low--no implement; no pot boys.

But here's a thought I'd like to share. I have made it no secret that A-man's description approximates Millen and Blotchy approximates McDermott. Simon Wood has shown that Millen was in the US at the time. So perhaps A-man was made up? But if so, perhaps so was Blotchy?

Let's not forget that both sightings had NO corroboration.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn.

Well, maybe A-man was made up if A-man was Millen, I'll give you that.

But I think you may guess that I don't see any reason to believe A-man was Millen, and however A-man was dressed, whatever he looked like, he existed because Sarah Lewis confirms as much.

As for Blotchy, well you are spot on, Mrs Cox's story could not be verified in any of the details she gave save one - the singing.
Also, Cath. Picknell did hear Kelly singing about 12:30 or thereabouts, so Kelly was home and singing, but was she alone? - that we will never know.

The existence of Blotchy was never verified.

On the other hand, if he did exist..

If you had been spoken to by Mary's neighbour, and seen quite clearly under the lamplight, would you go ahead and murder the woman you were seen entering the room with?

Also, carrying a pot of beer with you to a murder seems a little bizarre. Its a detail that Cox would hardly make up if it was not true, and if it was true it lessens the chances this character intended to murder Mary when he entered the room. He appears to have been out just socializing, a party animal who cannot bear to be separated from his ale.
This is not a guy who has murder on his mind.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

sightings

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Yes, the police looked high and low--no implement; no pot boys.

But here's a thought I'd like to share. I have made it no secret that A-man's description approximates Millen and Blotchy approximates McDermott. Simon Wood has shown that Millen was in the US at the time. So perhaps A-man was made up? But if so, perhaps so was Blotchy?

Let's not forget that both sightings had NO corroboration.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

We'd have to retrieve the thread. I believe it was Chris Phillips who pointed us to some interesting links. I recall it as being a bucket or pail.

Perhaps someone can find it for us...


Greg

Thanks Greg.

The police inquired about pot-boys, at least that was the term used.
Where does 'pail' come from?
Do you Greg, or Lynn, envisage anyone drinking beer from a bucket?

Ok, look at it this way, the police did not find the pot in the room, yes?


"The statement that the man who accompanied Kelly home was carrying a pot of beer is considered somewhat extraordinary. The can or pot which contained the liquor was not found in the room, and a careful examination of the fireplace and ashes showed that it had not been melted down, as was at first considered probable. If, therefore, the beer was actually taken into the house as described the man must have taken it away with him.
.
.
.
...it is a remarkable thing that the can was not discovered in the room. It is not now believed for a moment that the murderer took it away with him."
Echo, 13 Nov. 1888.

No argument there right?

The container was not found in her room, do we have a list of contents in the room?

Well, yes we do.

What did the room contain?

"....It contained two very old tables, a broken chair, an ancient wooden bedstead, and a dilapidated fender. In a corner there was a pail, and these few articles exhausted the catalogue of the furniture."
Star, 12 Nov. 1888.

So, do you think the police were looking for a pail, if one existed in the room?

What did the police do with this pail?

"... a detective officer carried from the house a pail with which he left in a four-wheel cab. The pail was covered with a newspaper, and it was stated that it contained portions of the woman's body."
Morning Advertiser, 10 Nov. 1888.


To summarize, every news paper report describes the container carried by Blotchy as a Pot of Ale, not a pail.
No Pot was found in the room, but there was a pail, and this pail was used by the police to carry away the loose organs.
The police inquired about "Pots" being picked up by "Pot-Boys", not pails.

Pails have nothing to do with this, there was a pail in the room and the police made use of it.

As a final note, why do you suppose that the police would search the ashes for the "can or pot" brought in by Blotchy?, because these containers are small enough and light enough that they may melt away in a roaring fire.

Clearly they were not looking for another bucket in the ashes (there already was one in the room anyway).
So, if the police thought the killer brought his beer in a pail, they had it, so clearly they thought no such thing.

Blotchy carried a pot, which is a mug or jug.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

well Met

Hello Jon.

"So who established a "pot" meant a pail and not a mug, and by what source?"

Well, the Met were looking for precisely that. They even chatted up the delivery boys. No success.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

incomplete

Hello Greg. Thanks. Now I get it. He did an incomplete job on her.

Cheers.
LC