the key

[Robert]

Heinrich, Cox mentioned the man in her police statement of Nov 9th.

[Robert]

"She never even mentioned this character until the coroner asked her if Mary Kelly was alone."

Mary Ann Cox stated: I live at No. 5 Room, Miller's-court. It is the last house on the left-hand side of the court. I am a widow, and get my living on the streets. I have known the deceased for eight or nine months as the occupant of No. 13 Room. She was called Mary Jane. I last saw her alive on Thursday night, at a quarter to twelve, very much intoxicated.
[Coroner] Where was this ? - In Dorset-street. She went up the court, a few steps in front of me.
[Coroner] Was anybody with her ? - A short, stout man, shabbily dressed. He had on a longish coat, very shabby, and carried a pot of ale in his hand.


Yes, Heinrich, she should have mentioned him all of 45 seconds before she did. Or, even better, she could have mentioned him before taking the oath, to keep the really impatient happy.

[claire]

I think the speculation that the Cox testimony is 'incredible' is rather far-fetched.
First, the singing: this was also mentioned by Mrs Pickett. It may not have been the only song she sung, but it may have been all of a similar sort, and the OAV song was the only one Cox recognised.
Secondly, anyone who's answered questions at an inquest or before a jury will know you only answer what you are asked.
I find this insistence that Barnett's testimony was the only one that was corroborated odd. Not least because he and Maria Harvey are at odds about it--he doesn't mention Harvey by her name. Indeed, it seems that all of the other testimonies are of a piece: the time at home, the singing, the time when all went quiet. What do you think, that they all had a wee chat in the morning and decided on a little BS to tell the police? Why? It makes no sense.

[Rubyretro]

Exactly, Claire.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It would indeed, have made sense for the killer to have burnt some of his clothes to avoid being caught with them, or leave them behind for possible identification.
Is that the answer all along.. look at all the facts.. its Mary Kelly, either the killer, or a murderous assistant.
The jacket she wore earlier that night, how did it get bloodstained?
Was she wearing it, or was it on her bed.
If the former.. did the killer remove it after killing her, but no other clothing was bloodstained.. if the latter and it was on the bed when she was killed, why apparently cut it up and burn it??
Colombo would have loved this case, there are clues galore in the Millers court murder.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
My imagination is once again ''running amok''.
What have we got?
Kelly's common law Barnett, leaves the dwelling on the 30TH, she appears to have sleepovers on several nights, but not on the 8TH, but possibly on request borrows Harvey's bonnet, she is seen wearing her velvet jacket, and the bonnet 9pm [ 8th], she is seen returning to her room alone around 11pm, but appears to have ventured out again wearing different clothing, to finally return home with blotchy around midnight, and then ventures out again at 2am, to meet Hutchinson, followed by Mr A.
We unfortunately have no record of the clothing Mary K was wearing at 2pm, if we assume that it was the same clothing seen by Mrs Cox, then her jacket and bonnet would have been in room 13, when the couple returned there, and to have become bloodstained must have been on the bed...
But Why burn those two items?, the killer had no reason to commit that act [ as assumed by the police] unless of course the clothing belonged to the killer , or accomplice, and believed the bloodstained jacket might incriminate them.
or may give a clue to when what time the murder happened.
The very fact that Mary K was seen after medical opinion believed she died, the coincidence that the murder happened, when she had a night with no planned sleepovers, the changing of outfits on the eve of the 8TH, the report of a couple in Dorset street laughing at the reward poster[ thought to have been Kelly by witnesses] , The report of a young man and and a respectably dressed woman , with another standing by, apparently encouraging the former female to accompany him, who seemed reluctant, the whole episode with the Hutchinson sighting, which could have been acted out for his benefit..
Other points..
Kelly's bad dream ..which she told a court resident about shortly before her death... the subject of the dream'' That she was being murdered'', then on the night of her death.. She would ''Do away with herself''...
and on top of that complete disfigurement of the body..
Regards Richard.

[curious]

Hi,
the report of a couple in Dorset street laughing at the reward poster[ thought to have been Kelly by witnesses] , The report of a young man and and a respectably dressed woman , with another standing by, apparently encouraging the former female to accompany him, who seemed reluctant,

Hi, Richard,
enough to run several imaginations amok.

I am unfamiliar with the above information.

Is it here on casebook?

If not, where can I find it in order to study it more?

Thanks,

curious

[Wickerman]

..... unless of course the clothing belonged to the killer , or accomplice, and believed the bloodstained jacket might incriminate them.

When all is said and done, I do agree that the most likely identification for the burnt clothing is that it belonged to the killer.
However, against this we have Abberline identifying the burnt remains as suggestive of women's clothing.

- The killer could not leave wearing his clothes IF they were bloodstained. He did not want to run the risk of being seen in the streets in bloodstained clothes.

- He could not leave them behind as they may help identify him, especially if he was known to be seen with Kelly just prior to entering Millers Court.
Therefore, his only option was to burn those few items.

Against this, we might ask, what about the rest of his clothing?, which equally may help to identify him, bloodstained or not, if seen leaving Millers Court dressed as he was when he entered?
He couldn't burn everything he wore.

On the one hand it makes sense that the burnt clothing would be mens clothing, yet indications are that they were womens, theirin lies the dilemma.

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

I don't really see the point of the killer burning his clothing in order to evade suspicion, yet leaving the Court with Kelly's heart in his pocket.

[Wickerman]

I don't really see the point of the killer burning his clothing in order to evade suspicion, yet leaving the Court with Kelly's heart in his pocket.

Isn't the jury still out on that point also?

[Robert]

Jon, I guess the jury is out on just about every point - except of course that Barnett was the killer.

[Lechmere]

I doubt the killer burnt his own clothes otherwise he would have attracted attention to himself when he vacated the murder scene. Where would he hide the knife - in his butt cheeks? Let's not speculate about the heart.
If he was concerned about blood he could have at least partially undressed – maybe that’s why he fed the fire – to create warmth.

[Heinrich]

Jon, I guess the jury is out on just about every point - except of course that Barnett was the killer.

Yes, Robert. If we take everyone's testimony as unimpeachable, correct in every detail (including self contradictions), and all of equal value, we end-up with absurdities and such a mishmash of bogus claims that we would not know to this day who killed Mary Kelly, and be as much in the dark as the Whitechapel citizens of 1888. Identifying the killer demands developing a theory which is supported by contemporaneous documentation and stands the test of logic. There is no suspect with more evidence against him from his own and others' testimonies, our knowledge of his relationship with Mary Kelly, the circumstances surrounding his movements on the night of the murder, and his familiarity with 13 Miller's Court than Joseph Barnett.

[Wickerman]

I doubt the killer burnt his own clothes otherwise he would have attracted attention to himself when he vacated the murder scene.

What I meant was that it is possible that an item or two of his was burned in the fire. Perhaps his waistcoat?, shirt? or something he was wearing which was too bloodstained to hide from view. I don't mean all his clothes.
And, for all we know a womans hat may have been thrown on the fire for whatever reason, the wireframe, seen by Abberline might have been the only indication Abberline used to make his determination that 'all' the items were of a womans atire, he may have been wrong, but we can't second guess him on that.

Still, if we assume any of the clothing belonged to the killer we might have to abandon one avenue of speculation about how she died.
As she was found essentially undressed, and her clothes apparently had not been torn off her then she must have undressed herself. Any client she had with her is unlikely to have remained fully clothed, so as she was undressed, then perhaps, so was he, when the attack commenced.

If that is the case then, how would his clothing become bloodstained?
No matter what we suggest, we always end up with more questions.

Regards, Jon S.

[Lechmere]

He may have killed her then undressed before the actual ripping.
I don't think it's that important unless you have a suspect to promote.
She could have undressed while he watched or they could have got undressed together.
Or she may have been undressed already if you prefer to speculate that he didn't enter the room with her.
It depends on your suspect and I would suggest there is absolutely nothing we know regarding the evidence of Kelly's position in the room or on the bed, nor of the material in the fire that can substantiate any particular proposition.