the key

[Wickerman]

This makes Joseph Barnett the only person who was last seen in Mary Kelly's company and who admitted as much.

Hi Heinrich, but your suggestion really has no bearing on whether Barnett is guilty or not because Mrs Prater saw Kelly later that night..

"...but the last time I saw her alive was at about nine o'clock on Thursday night. I stood down at the bottom of the entry, and she came down. We both stood talking a bit, thinking what we were going to do, and then she went one way and I went another. I went to see if I could see anybody." Mrs. Prater adds with frankness, "She had got her hat and jacket on, but I had not. I haven't got a hat or a jacket. We stood talking a bit about what we were going to do, and then I said, 'Good night, old dear,' and she said 'Good night, my pretty.' She always called me that. That," said Mrs. Prater, "was the last I saw of her."
Star, 10 Nov. 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

[Heinrich]

Hi Heinrich, but your suggestion really has no bearing on whether Barnett is guilty or not because Mrs Prater saw Kelly later that night..



Regards, Jon S.

No one testified to having seen Mrs Prater with Mary Kelly, Jon, so Joseph Barnett remains the last person seen alone with Mary Kelly and who admitted to this. It is one piece of incriminating evidence against Joseph Barnett which, when taken with other testimony by himself and others, amounts to a stronger case against him than any other suspect.

[claire]

No one testified to having seen Mrs Prater with Mary Kelly, Jon, so Joseph Barnett remains the last person seen alone with Mary Kelly and who admitted to this. It is one piece of incriminating evidence against Joseph Barnett which, when taken with other testimony by himself and others, amounts to a stronger case against him than any other suspect.

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. 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.

And that statement from Maria Harvey isn't exactly watertight.

[curious]

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. 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.

And that statement from Maria Harvey isn't exactly watertight.

And Mary Ann Cox's and Mrs. Pickett's information dovetails or corroborrates each others in that Mary Kelly told Mrs. Cox she was going to sing about 11:45 p.m.

At midnight, Kelly is still singing.

By 12:30, Mrs. Pickett had had enough and intended to go tell her to stop singing, but Mr. Pickett told her to leave the poor woman alone. Can you imagine how annoying it would be for a drunken neighbor singing in the middle of the night? But perhaps that was a more pleasant noise than was usually heard in the Millers Court area.

When Cox returned around 1, Kelly was singing -- still or again -- and the light was on.

When Cox returns at 3 p.m., all is quiet.

In my opinion, these "sightings" fit together like a hand in a glove.

curious

[Wickerman]

Well noted Claire, Curious, but I think it's what Mrs Harvey might say that Heinrich is afeared of, she might throw Barnett under the bus!

I know, Mrs Cox heard Kelly singing, as did others, but they didn't see who she was with, did they? Hmm!

Oops, Mrs Cox saw Kelly with Blotchy about 11:45pm, good enough? - normally, but with the atmosphere that pervades this forum, we might as well all jump on the "Liars" bandwagon, and declare, Cox's evidence screws up a perfectly good alibi,.....here's a thought, we'll dismiss it, she didn't exist!
(Dammit, she appeared at the inquest)
Ok, someone appeared at the inquest using her name?, or, perhaps she was lying, parroting?, any other suggestions?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we have nothing to fear from Mrs Harvey, yes she did leave Barnett at Kelly's place, but she also saw Kelly later, and Kelly was by herself.

"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. More importantly for Barnett, the star witness against him, should she have chosen to take that position, Mrs Harvey, can now stand as part of his defense.
Mrs. Harvey saw Mary Kelly out alone sometime after 11:00pm.

(Psst. Didn't take Kelly long to hook up with Blotchy, did it?)

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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,
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

[Rubyretro]

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

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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