the key

[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.

[Rubyretro]

Exactly, Claire.

[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.

[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.

[Robert]

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

[Heinrich]

In what way do you find Mrs Cox's statement "incredible" ?

It sounds fabricated, Rubyretro. For example, she says Mary Kelly was singing for an hour and a half at least, even mentioning a particular song. C'mon, give is a break.
Then she describes a short shabby man with a blotchy face and a carroty mustache, carrying a pot of ale. Please. She never even mentioned this character until the coroner asked her if Mary Kelly was alone. She also gives contradictory testimony by saying that Mary Kelly "banged the door" and a few sentences later after conjuring-up the mystery man, she says, "The man closed the door." No, Rubyretro, if anyone was drunk that night, it was probably Mary Ann Cox herself. Her testimony should not be taken seriously without a corroboration.

....
It would make sense if the killer burned some of his own clothes because they were bloodstained and he didn't want to be caught with them or to leave them behind for possible identification.

Indeed, when the police interviewed Joseph Barnett the day after the murder, they did not find loads of bloodstains. LOL

[Archaic]

I still can't get my head around why the police believed the jacket and bonnet were burnt'' because they were "bloodstained'' ... what significance?

Hi Richard.

I agree, for the killer to burn the clothes because they were "bloodstained" makes no sense. My God, the bed, floor, table and walls were bloodstained too!

It would make sense if the killer burned some of his own clothes because they were bloodstained and he didn't want to be caught with them or to leave them behind for possible identification.

Maybe the killer even took some article of clothing that had been in the room with him when he left, and burnt the rest.

Best regards,
Archaic

[curious]

Hi ,
First of all the jacket worn at 9pm seen by Prater, was Kelly's ''own'' black velvet jacket [ burnt in fire], the bonnet was that of Mrs Harvey's which she left for Mary's use, with the words 'I have left my bonnet'.[ also burnt]
One could assume therefore, that Mary was intending, to either create a favourable impression, or had pre-arranged a meeting with someone.
The very fact that after two hours she had returned to her room 'alone' to apparently dress down, may suggest that the ''favourable impression'', or the ''Intended meeting'' did not happen.
The motive being that she did not wish to spoil her respectable outfit, does not fit the weather at 11pm [ when Harvey saw her] also if she was '' drunk'' at midnight, she must have been out of any downpour, by being in a pub..
I still can't get my head around why the police believed the jacket and bonnet were burnt''because they were bloodstained'' ... what significance?
Regards Richard.

Hi, Richard,
Sorry, I did not go back and check out the times when I was offering the "maybe they got wet" scenario.

Your line of thinking leads to some interesting speculation.

By checking out the information about Kelly here on Casebook, I found:

Mrs. Carthy said that Kelly had left her house and gone to live with a man who was in the building trade and who Mrs. Carthy believed would have married Kelly."

c. 1886: Kelly leaves Carthy's house to live with a man in the building trades. Barnett says she lived with a man named Morganstone opposite or in the vicinity of Stepney Gasworks. She had then taken up with a man named Joseph Fleming and lived somewhere near Bethnal Green. Fleming was a stone mason or mason's plasterer. He used to visit Kelly and seemed quite fond of her. A neighbour at Miller's Court, Julia Venturney says that Kelly was fond of a man other than Barnett and whose name was also Joe. She thought he was a costermonger and sometimes visited and gave money to Kelly.

By 1886 she is living in 'Cooley's Lodging House' in Thrawl Street, Spitalfields and it is here that she meets Joseph Barnett.

Here we have 3 times that Kelly left her lifestyle to live with a man, one that Mrs. Carthy thought might have married her. Looking at this pattern, it appears that she preferred living with a man to prostitution.

That is re-enforced by what she told Lizzie Albrook: "About the last thing she said to me was 'Whatever you do don't you do wrong and turn out as I did.' She had often spoken to me in this way and warned me against going on the street as she had done. She told me, too, that she was heartily sick of the life she was leading and wished she had money enough to go back to Ireland where her people lived. I do not believe she would have gone out as she did if she had not been obliged to do so to keep herself from starvation."

Now, to your observation of her wearing the black velvet jacket and bonnet to make a favourable impression -- very astute.

Of course anything we come up with is pure speculation.

One explanation is that one of the women got the night wrong.

But if they both saw Kelly the same night, perhaps she went out to try to meet a new man knowing that Bowyer would be coming by for the rent the next day.

She needed to look respectable, maybe to meet someone new. Someone she did not want to realize (just yet) that she was a prostitute.

She could have been stood up or the fella she met was not ready just to move in together.

When that did not work, she went home, then had to go out to try to make a little money. This time she was wearing her "working" clothes.

Darn it, Richard.

This speculation has led me into unwelcome territory. I have my doubts that both Liz Stride and Mary Kelly are Ripper victims, BUT this possibility is too similar between the two not to look at, don't you think?

curious

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
First of all the jacket worn at 9pm seen by Prater, was Kelly's ''own'' black velvet jacket [ burnt in fire], the bonnet was that of Mrs Harvey's which she left for Mary's use, with the words 'I have left my bonnet'.[ also burnt]
One could assume therefore, that Mary was intending, to either create a favourable impression, or had pre-arranged a meeting with someone.
The very fact that after two hours she had returned to her room 'alone' to apparently dress down, may suggest that the ''favourable impression'', or the ''Intended meeting'' did not happen.
The motive being that she did not wish to spoil her respectable outfit, does not fit the weather at 11pm [ when Harvey saw her] also if she was '' drunk'' at midnight, she must have been out of any downpour, by being in a pub..
I still can't get my head around why the police believed the jacket and bonnet were burnt''because they were bloodstained'' ... what significance?
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

No. There is no corroborating evidence for this incredible tale.

In what way do you find Mrs Cox's statement "incredible" ?

[curious]

Hi,
As stated Mrs Harvey claims to have seen Kelly, shortly after 11pm ,going ''home alone'', its a pity she does not describe the clothing Mary was wearing...
At 9pm Mrs Prater states, she spoke to Kelly at the passage entrance, describing that Mary was wearing a jacket and bonnet, yet Mrs Cox describes her wearing different clothing, when she claims to have seen her with Blotchy.. some time after Harvey's sighting.
Question.
Did Kelly return home alone just after 11pm to change her clothing, and if so why?
Did she intend to meet someone that night , who did not show?
Regards Richard.

Maybe she was dressing for success.

If she went out wearing borrowed coat and hat, but was not doing any business, perhaps a change of clothing was in order -- her "lucky" outfit.

Wouldn't you think that if she went home, she would have removed the coat and hat?

Then, if she decided to go out again, might grab up a different wrap.

curious

[Heinrich]

Sorry, Heinrich, but that's not sound logic. His admission is rather less self-incriminating than Prater's, or Mary Ann Cox's, or poor Mrs Pickett whose husband stopped her from going to shut Mary Jane up when her singing got too irritating, given that all those incidents occurred after Barnett had gone.

I do not believe it was a woman who killed and mutilated Mary Kelly in such a way. The act is one of a man bent on revenge.

It beggars belief that there is a suite of people (Prater; Cox; Pickett; even Hutchinson, God help us) who independently testify to having seen her between 9pm and 3am, but that Barnett is more implicated because there is another person to testify that he saw Kelly earlier in the evening.

There is no one to corroborate their statements which, standing alone, amount to little if anything.

....
Oops, Mrs Cox saw Kelly with Blotchy about 11:45pm, good enough?

No. There is no corroborating evidence for this incredible tale.

"As far as has been at present ascertained, the murdered woman was last seen alive shortly after eleven o'clock on Thursday night by Mrs. Harvey, a young woman who was on intimate terms with her, and who lives in New-court, Dorset-street. Mrs. Harvey says Kelly was at that time going home alone."
Star, 10 Nov. 1888.

Ok, so we know the Star was wrong, again, about the last time Kelly was seen alive, but these were early days.

Yes, I am with you on this, Jon.

All's well that ends well, now you can rest Heinrich.

Having one murder solved to my satisfaction means only that it is time to move on to the next.

....
Question.
Did Kelly return home alone just after 11pm to change her clothing, and if so why?
Did she intend to meet someone that night , who did not show?

Unsubstantiated sightings of Mary Kelly after she was seen with Joseph Barnett are not to be trusted, Richard.

[curious]

Hi,

Question.
Did Kelly return home alone just after 11pm to change her clothing, and if so why?




Did she intend to meet someone that night , who did not show?
Regards Richard.

Apparently it started raining about 1 o'clock. Is there not some discussion that she was wearing her friend's coat and hat, not her own? Maybe she did not want to ruin her friend's clothing and so maybe she just changed wraps to wear in the rain.

As Claire says, or who did. There is some thought that Eddowes was meeting someone, isn't there?

[claire]

Did Kelly return home alone just after 11pm to change her clothing, and if so why?
Did she intend to meet someone that night , who did not show?

Or who did.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
As stated Mrs Harvey claims to have seen Kelly, shortly after 11pm ,going ''home alone'', its a pity she does not describe the clothing Mary was wearing...
At 9pm Mrs Prater states, she spoke to Kelly at the passage entrance, describing that Mary was wearing a jacket and bonnet, yet Mrs Cox describes her wearing different clothing, when she claims to have seen her with Blotchy.. some time after Harvey's sighting.
Question.
Did Kelly return home alone just after 11pm to change her clothing, and if so why?
Did she intend to meet someone that night , who did not show?
Regards Richard.