Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[Malcolm X]

she could have eaten back at 11pm and died 5 hours later, or gone out again with blotchy as he was leaving, but returned home alone with food at around 1AM.... eaten and gone to sleep.

maybe Blotchy gave her money for sex as he left with her, and this was enough to get her a quick meal and return home.

but this really screws up GH waiting outside from 2am, because if she's already gone to sleep, and JTR doesn't know her at all, what the hell has attracted him to waiting outside, because millers court is now dead quiet.

if JTR doesn't know her, he must have either heard her singing earlier on, or he saw her earlier with blotchy.......or he saw her at 2am, but not this LA DE DA bullshit !

but if JTR is Fleming then all of this is different, i'm only refering to a 4am break in from a JTR that doesn't know her at all.

SORRY, Fleming at 2am is still a problem, because he needs to know that she's at home and also not at home with ANOTHER CLIENT sleeping beside her, or even a new boyfriend.

to BE SAFE with a break in at 4am, JTR had to see her alone earlier on and to make sure that she was going to sleep alone as well.... THIS IS A FACT

All of this is a huge mystery, but unfortunately the only stuff that seems to make sense is GH

[Wickerman]

I'm curious about why you think Cox had the time wrong instead of Prater?

Because Prater makes reference to a potential witness, she went into McCarthy's shop. That is a point for the police to verify. Whoever was serving behind the counter would be able to confirm her time.
We don't know that they did, certainly, but Cox makes no reference to anyone or anything to establish her times, so on balance Prater gave the story most likely to be verifyable.
There are no certainties, what I am suggesting is that if there is an inconsistency my money's on Cox's story being the problem.

Also, VanTurney could have been dreaming she was awake . . . that happens too. Deep asleep, but you're wearing yourself out.

Hm, Cox could have dreamt she saw Blotchy....

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

she could have eaten back at 11pm and died 5 hours later, or gone out again with blotchy as he was leaving, but returned home alone with food at around 1AM.... eaten and gone to sleep.

Digestion times, Malcolm, digestion times.

maybe Blotchy gave her money for sex as he left with her, and this was enough to get her a quick meal and return home.

Yes, Blotchy gave her money, Kelly left home to get drink & supper which is why I think her room was quiet at or shortly after 1:00 am.
She was possibly seen outside the Britannia between 2-3:00, and/or certainly seen by Hutchinson. Subsequently also seen returning up the passage by Sarah Lewis.
The sightings of Lewis & Hutch mutually support each other, so given both the known & circumstantial sightings, plus the relatively short digestion times of her meal, we need place Kelly outside Millers Court, and/or at a chandlers shop sometime just before 2:00 am.

SORRY, Fleming at 2am is still a problem, because he needs to know that she's at home and also not at home with ANOTHER CLIENT sleeping beside her, or even a new boyfriend.

For Fleming or even Barnett to be her killer we need to invent another intruder, not supported by any evidence.

to BE SAFE with a break in at 4am, JTR had to see her alone earlier on and to make sure that she was going to sleep alone as well.... THIS IS A FACT

Kelly was seen several times before midnight drinking with a "well-dressed" man, so yes in this first liason he may have learned of her situation.

"At eleven o'clock last night she was seen in the 'Britannia,' at the corner of this thoroughfare, with a young man with a dark moustache. The young man appeared to be very respectable and well dressed."
Morning Advertiser, 10 Nov.

She was seen before midnight with a well-dressed man, she was seen after midnight with a well-dressed man. Blotchy may have been an interlude, assuming the well-dressed men were both the same. Or, there were several available around the Britannia that night.

Regards, Jon S.

[Garry Wroe]

Yes, Blotchy gave her money ...

For all you know, Jon, the arrangement between Kelly and Blotchy might have been warmth and shelter in exchange for a share of the beer.

... Kelly left home to get drink & supper which is why I think her room was quiet at or shortly after 1:00 am.

She was near-incoherently drunk at a little before midnight. Since there is no reliable evidence to indicate that she left her room thereafter, it is far more probable that she simply drifted into a drink-induced sleep at one o'clock or thereabouts.

She was possibly seen outside the Britannia between 2-3:00, and/or certainly seen by Hutchinson.

She was not 'certainly seen by Hutchinson'. The only certainty regarding Hutchinson is that his account was discounted by investigators. Let us not forget either that Hutchinson claimed that Kelly wasn't drunk at the time of their alleged encounter, an utter impossibility given the depth of Kelly's insobriety two hours earlier.

Kelly was seen several times before midnight drinking with a "well-dressed" man ...

These were unconfirmed and almost certainly erroneous press claims, Jon. The fact is that we have no idea as to Kelly's whereabouts during the several hours immediately preceding her encounter with Mary Cox.

[Ben]

You beat me to it, Garry. Spot on.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

The digestion issue should not be construed as any sort of evidence that Kelly left her room in the small hours, and as I've mentioned on other threads, sleep and alcohol can slow down digestion. We have neither "need" nor reason to "place Kelly outside Millers Court, and/or at a chandlers shop sometime just before 2:00 am." Kelly was almost certainly not seen outside the Britannia after 2.00am, and it is unlikely in the extreme that she was seen at all by Sarah Lewis that night. There is nothing to support the contention that the "in drink" woman seen by Lewis was Kelly.

For Fleming or even Barnett to be her killer we need to invent another intruder, not supported by any evidence.

No, that's absolutely not the case at all.

If Fleming or Barnett was the killer, he could have entered the dwelling as an intruder (i.e. when Kelly was sleeping), a client who returned with her a la Blotchy, or as a visitor who knocked on her door in the small hours. The case for Fleming or Barnett having been responsible is most assuredly not reliant on an "intruder"-type scenario. Having said that, there are good reasons for concluding that Kelly met her end at the hands of an intruder. There is no reliable evidence that she left her room after she was seen by Mary Cox, and the majority of serial offenders "break in" to their indoor crime scenes rather than assume a false guise and enter legitimately.

Kelly was seen several times before midnight drinking with a "well-dressed" man

No, she wasn't.

We're back to the notorious press nonsense that circulated in the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder. You're quoting from a 10th November, when the very worst of it was doing the rounds. If there was any suggestion that Kelly was seen drinking with a well-dressed man after the Mary Cox sighting, the detail would certainly have appeared at the inquest. But not so amazingly, it didn't. The "well-dressed man" silliness is most commonly attributed to Thomas Bowyer, and yet when you read Bowyer's actual inquest evidence, it is clear that he last saw Kelly in the court on Wednesday afternoon.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

For all you know, Jon, the arrangement between Kelly and Blotchy might have been warmth and shelter in exchange for a share of the beer.

Garry, for all you know Blotchy didn't exist.
Are Cox's claims any more reliable to you than Hutchinson's? If so, by what "confirmed" measure?

Cox did not even hear the cry of 'murder', and she did not say Kelly was incoherent, she said she didn't know Kelly was drunk until she spoke.
" I did not notice she was drunk until she said good night."

But, apparently Cox understood Kelly's words clear enough.
"Good night, I am going to have a song."

So, "near-incoherent" is not an accurate description is it, just more exaggeration as is often the case in Hutchinson debates.

She was not 'certainly seen by Hutchinson'.

Not if you choose to call witnesses liars, in this case Hutchinson. So, based on your denial of Hutchinson's story "you think" his sighting was not certain, thats all, but thats just your opinion.

The only certainty regarding Hutchinson is that his account was discounted by investigators.

No, the description he gave is the only aspect which can be called into question because future publications of this description did not appear.
There is no basis for calling into question his meeting Kelly.

Let us not forget either that Hutchinson claimed that Kelly wasn't drunk at the time of their alleged encounter,

And she wasn't, being tipsy is consistent with only, at worst, possibly slurring her speech to Cox. But Cox understood her clearly.
Kelly was not staggering, Cox implied as much. You like to overplay how intoxicated Kelly was because it serves your purpose.
You might forget that these women were very much used to drink, being entertained every night(?) was how they picked up clients.

These were unconfirmed and almost certainly erroneous press claims, Jon.

And Cox's claims were confirmed by who?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

......and it is unlikely in the extreme that she was seen at all by Sarah Lewis that night. There is nothing to support the contention that the "in drink" woman seen by Lewis was Kelly.

Hi Ben.
Well, you keep denying the Daily News account of Lewis watching a couple was up the passage as unconfirmed, yet that is precisely what the Star reported as part of Hutchinson's story. Likewise in the police account they went "up the court together", as I have repeated many times, Lewis confirms Hutchinson in so far as that portion of his story.

If there was any suggestion that Kelly was seen drinking with a well-dressed man after the Mary Cox sighting, the detail would certainly have appeared at the inquest.

It was before, she was seen at 10:30 - 11:00 pm, then, we get the Blotchy story at 11:45 pm, and Kelly later seen out after that.

Lets face it, we could all jump on this tiresome "witness is lying" bandwagon and insist you prove Cox was not lying, not trying to muscle in on the action.
Not trying to get her 15 minutes of fame, except she forgot to include the "murder" claim, how come?
Prater didn't even see Cox leave when she claims to have left, so who confirms Cox in any way?

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Hi Jon

Garry, for all you know Blotchy didn't exist.
Are Cox's claims any more reliable to you than Hutchinson's? If so, by what "confirmed" measure?

Indeed, Coxes claims are more reliable than Hutch's. To begin with, she didn't come forward after the inquest, and did not remember the color of Blotchy's underpants.

Not if you choose to call witnesses liars, in this case Hutchinson. So, based on your denial of Hutchinson's story "you think" his sighting was not certain, thats all, but thats just your opinion.

No, Jon. That was also the opinion of the investigators, or so it seems.

No, the description he gave is the only aspect which can be called into question because future publications of this description did not appear.
There is no basis for calling into question his meeting Kelly.

There is (see the above comment). And nobody saw Kelly in the streets at such a time. Nobody except Hutch. Nobody saw Astrakhan Man either.

And Cox's claims were confirmed by who?

One could ask "And Mrs Long's claims were confirmed by who ?", "And Marshall's claims were confirmed by who ?", etc etc....

[Rya]

In the case of Kelly, the fish and potatos in the stomach cavity seems to me a non-starter as evidence as to her time of death. Such fare could be found at odd hours in the neighborhood, or so it seems; plus she could, in fact, have brought the food or some portion of it back to her room practically anytime on November 8 and ate it cold some hours later that evening or early morning before her murder. The location of the food in the stomach combined with the looseness of the term "partially digested" could mean an hour before, or even fifteen minutes before. The whole business only becomes meaningful if you can locate a vender who sold it to her that evening or morning, or (much better) when you can find a witness who watched her eat it shortly before the body was found. Otherwise, it provides no strong clue in forming a credible timeline.

Yet all this business about "confirmed by who" raises a separate issue that I have always wondered about in this murder. Why the overall paucity of details as to this victim's whereabouts and associations in the twelve hours or so prior to her death? When I think of how detailed our knowledge is of the timeline in a few of the earlier cases, it makes me wonder why so few people saw Mary--who seemed to have lots of friends and associates in the immediate area--on the night and morning in question. And this despite the apparent comings and goings in the court at all hours. The statements that Abberline collected on the afternoon of the crime are brief and mostly useless; the inquest was pretty much a disaster in staging a coherant narrative of the evening's events. The probable best witness (Maxwell) was the one no one found they could believe. There seems to have been no serious (public at least) attempt to verify the dead woman's identity.

Mind you, I don't subscribe to the old conspiracy theories, which I'm happy to leave in the dustbin. But I do wonder about the depth of contempt the local residents in many of these murder locations had for the police, and the degree to which some of them may have refused to cooperate with officers' inquiries.

[harry]

Ho w far behind Kelly,was Cox,When Kelly entered Millers Court?

[Malcolm X]

unfortunately Wickerman keeps quoting this junk after the 10th of Nov, it's tabloid rubbish, gossip and tittle tattle, yet he keeps refering to it, as if it's the God spoken truth

you have to use your common sense with regards to the effects of Booze on the human body and the things you've experienced yourself in life, from countless parties/ sessions down the pubs and holidays abroad.

``Cox passed and said "Goodnight." Somewhat incoherently, Kelly replied "Goodnight, I am going to sing." A few minutes later Mrs. Cox hears Kelly singing "A Violet from Mother's Grave" (see below). Cox goes out again at midnight and hears Kelly singing the same song.``

there you go, MJK was drunk, but he wasn't as drunk as her, he gave her a sullan look as if to say ``clear off``, how drunk she was we cant tell, she could have been very drunk indeed, because when you are, you can still talk... just about !

but if she was say, only a bit drunk..... then after a few more pints, (depending on the size of the pail) she would have been blotto, and dont forget that she might have got far more drunk even if she stopped drinking right then, because she might have finished her last drink only 10 mins ago.

[Ben]

Agreed all round, Rya, particularly with your first paragraph. Welcome to CB!

Hi Jon,

Well, you keep denying the Daily News account of Lewis watching a couple was up the passage as unconfirmed

I don't deny it as "unconfirmed". I deny it as wholly false, and while I attribute this to journalistic misreporting rather than outright invention, it is no less wrong for that. Sarah Lewis did not see anyone in the Miller's Court passage.

Lets face it, we could all jump on this tiresome "witness is lying" bandwagon and insist you prove Cox was not lying, not trying to muscle in on the action.

I've asked you this before, but surely you don't seriously dispute that a greater importance should be attached to police statements and inquest testimony over unsourced press snippets? You always seem to be defending the latter, while at the same time calling into question the far more reliable testimony offered by such obviously genuine witnesses as Joseph Lawende and Mary Cox. As everyone should accept, the evidence of Mary Cox is vastly superior to the silly nonsense involving Kelly and a well-dressed drinking companion, especially since the latter was refuted at the inquest by the witness to whom it was attributed by the press.

Mary Ann Cox's statement read as follows:

"About a quarter to twelve last night I came into Dorset Street from Commercial Street, and saw walking in front of me Mary Jane with a man, they turned into the Court and as I entered the Court they went in doors, as they were going into her room, I said good night Mary Jane, she was very drunk and could scarcely answer me, but said good night, the man was carrying a quart can of beer"

Garry's "near incoherent" is thus a 100% accurate description.

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

she stopped singing at 1am, well this might be when she finally passed out blind drunk.... she was probably singing because she was still just about ok, but slowed down and eventually collapsed in bed...........thus quiet at 1am.

i can almost guarantee you that she didn't enter her room and start sobering up, but carried on drinking, because that's just the way a binge drinker is.....FACT.

he wont stand by not drinking, if he's got a guest that is, no bloody chance and i wouldn't either, you're after the booze; you want to get pissed......

this is tremendously important, because this is exactly what MJK was like..... constantly getting evicted, getting drunk with Joe, not the first time she was heard singing, broken window, loud when drunk but fine the rest of the time, this is not a social drinker, this is a weekend binge drinker, which means getting blind drunk.

[Malcolm X]

due to this behaviour, it looks like she didn't go out again, not even close to going out.

so JTR has to be either Blotchy, or GH, but which i'm not sure