Blotchy

[richardnunweek]

Hi Curious,
If the killer wished to protect his own clothing, then surely the men's pilot coat covering the window would have sufficed.
The coat was a black velvet jacket, so would not have afforded much protection, so one still wonders why these two items [ Jacket and bonnet] became bloodstained?, indeed why would they be burnt by the killer, would they give a clue to their identity?
For them to have become soiled with blood , they would have either had to be worn by the killer, or been on the bed when the attack took place, the first theory would indicate all sorts of speculation..., the latter a more plausible scenario , however that would suggest that either Kelly was undressing when attacked , having taken off all her clothing except a chemise, but why then was her other clothing not have been bloodied?
Or taking the other view by the police [ the same report] that they also believed the murder happened in daylight, one could speculate that she was about to get dressed when her killer entered the room, and the jacket and bonnet were laid on the bed.
So why did the killer burn them?..possibly seeing the bloodied items the fiend, realized that if left on the bed in that condition it would indicate that the murder did not occur during the hours of the night as it would not suggest that, an important reason if one had a night time alibi...that should please Heinrich.
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

weather

Hello Velma. If I recall properly, Christer indicated it was less incommodious, hence an open coat would not have been out of place.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Hello Velma. Well, the best answer is to read the article. Its nuances deserve more than a short blurb from me.

Notwithstanding, a short version includes the question, "If it was a cold rainy night, why was A-Man's coat opened enough for Hutch to identify his accoutrements?"

(Oh, where's that bloody Christer when you need him? heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

ah, since you and I have had this discussion before, I know I have read the article, but it is completely out of my head at this moment.

and do we know the weather of the night before?

[lynn cates]

theory

Hello Velma. Well, the best answer is to read the article. Its nuances deserve more than a short blurb from me.

Notwithstanding, a short version includes the question, "If it was a cold rainy night, why was A-Man's coat opened enough for Hutch to identify his accoutrements?"

(Oh, where's that bloody Christer when you need him? heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Hello Velma. Since Richard discussed the possibility that MJK had dressed up for a meeting, I wondered if her meeting was with precisely BM?

I am also quite gung ho on Christer's theory that Hutch spotted A-Man the night BEFORE MJK died.

Cheers.
LC

gotcha. On what is the latter theory based? Other than Hutch's story, is there any indication from any other source that A-Man was lurking around the day before?

I can see MJK dressing up in an effort to attract a long-term fella because of her past history -- Barnett, Fleming, Morganstone, etc.

I know your partiality to Red Jim for Blotchy, of course, but can see other reasons for her dressing respectably -- the desire for a long term man in her life, for instance.

[lynn cates]

expatiation

Hello Velma. Since Richard discussed the possibility that MJK had dressed up for a meeting, I wondered if her meeting was with precisely BM?

I am also quite gung ho on Christer's theory that Hutch spotted A-Man the night BEFORE MJK died.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Hello Richard. Now this is the kind of discussion I am delighted to see.

Is it possible that her meeting with Blotchy were the one for which she dressed?

Would it make a difference if Christer is right about the night of the A-man meeting?

If my two theses are correct, could the sightings then be made to harmonise?

Cheers.
LC

Morning, Lynn,
This is a cryptic message, and more detail would make for a better opportunity for discussion, me thinks.

[curious]

And last but not least, why did the police believe the clothes Prater saw Kelly in as 'burnt because of them being bloodstained'?.
Its a pity Peter Falk died..I am sure Colombo would get to the bottom of all this.
Regards Richard.

Could her coat and hat have been used as housewives use smocks or housecoats? Perhaps donned by whoever was doing the slicing and dicing in that room in order to protect their own clothing and hair from flying blood, etc. That way, when the person exited the room, his/her own clothing was clean.

[lynn cates]

2 theses

Hello Richard. Now this is the kind of discussion I am delighted to see.

Is it possible that her meeting with Blotchy were the one for which she dressed?

Would it make a difference if Christer is right about the night of the A-man meeting?

If my two theses are correct, could the sightings then be made to harmonise?

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hello Lynn,
The clothing difference would suggest confusion , either on the part of Prater, or Cox, the former has to be the most accurate , simply because she said she[ Kelly] was wearing her jacket and 'bonnet', the latter item was only left with Kelly that evening by Mrs Harvey who stated' I shall leave my bonnet then'
prior to that, it has been commented that Kelly never wore a hat.
Also the remark made by Prater ''I don't even own them'[when describing the items] rings true.
The Blotchy account also has a ring of truth about it , however the different clothing described is a worry, and could apply to a previous night, as it lacks a time pointer, unlike Praters account who appears via the bonnet to have strong claims .
If both parties were right , then the alternative is, that initially Kelly went out in her smartest clothes complete with Harvey's bonnet, which may have been a planned event, or was a desperate act to attract a man of some substance, because of her plight, and because a prearranged meeting failed to occur, or nobody was around, returned home to dress down , and then returned to the streets..
I would like to have the clothing description which Hutchinson would surely have been asked about ie, Mary's clothes, he must have been asked , especially as he described Mr A in so much detail.
It would clarify matters to say the least..
Was she dressed in Cox's description . or was she still wearing her Smart attire, is that the reason she attracted the smart Mr A?
And last but not least, why did the police believe the clothes Prater saw Kelly in as 'burnt because of them being bloodstained'?.
Its a pity Peter Falk died..I am sure Colombo would get to the bottom of all this.
Regards Richard.

[Heinrich]

Not talking to me now, Heinrich?

Have I touched a nerve, or are you working on making answer C) sound even remotely credible?

Sorry, Caz, I did not think you had meant to be serious.
I do not believe Mary Cox but I do not know why she gave false testimony.

Heinrich
To blindly discount a witness because there story does not fit your suspect to the point you are doing has lost you any credibility IMHO.

More than once, Abby, I have stated that my disregard of Mary Cox's story about Blotchy Carroty is not dependent on my belief that Joseph Barnett murdered Mary Kelly. Simply put, I do not take her at her word and there is no supporting evidence for her yarn.

Please go start another thread-this one has been totally derailed.

I did not start this thread, Abby. The subject is Blotchy Carroty whom I consider a bogus concoction and I stated so. As a courtesy I have answered everyone who made a comment about my opinion. Almost everyone has kept on-topic and most have been mannerly.

[Abby Normal]

Heinrich
To blindly discount a witness because there story does not fit your suspect to the point you are doing has lost you any credibility IMHO. Cox testimony about Blotchy should in no way even diminish Barnetts candidicy for her murderer as he could have killed her anytime after Blotchy left that evening so I cant even fathom why you are trying to discredit her and going to such ridiculous lengths to do so.

Please go start another thread-this one has been totally derailed.

And this is coming from someone who considers barnett a viable suspect. Good Lord.

[caz]

Not talking to me now, Heinrich?

Have I touched a nerve, or are you working on making answer C) sound even remotely credible?

Love,

Caz
X

[Heinrich]

... One final time: I have no faith whatsoever in her testimony BUT I have seen no reason to disbelieve it. And you have given me none.

"No faith whatsoever", you say. Well that makes several of us in agreement after all.

[Heinrich]

Cox was clearly having a bit of fun, thinking that whatever story she gave the police, they would instantly dismiss it as uncorroborated twaddle, especially in view of her supposed criminal record. Imagine her horror when they took her seriously! But she was now in too deep, and had to persist with the story.

Very possible.