"Murder...!" cry

[Michael W Richards]

Again, for those who haven't absorbed what they might have read a few thousand times....there are NO sounds of scuffle, no sounds of footsteps, and no sounds at all after the cry out. So, ...no, there was no scuffle accompanying the call out, or immediately following it.

If the camels would take their heads out of the sand they may see or read something that can help with these sorts of issues.

[Wickerman]

I cant believe that this isn't an obvious conclusion....

It isn't obvious for two reasons.
First, Kelly had no money so she had no means of making a fire or wasting anything of value to make a fire.
Second, the poor slept in their clothes, Prater even mentions this, but so do other witnesses.
Also, sleeping in your clothes saves wasting kindling/paper, or whatever, to make a fire.

Kelly was undressed, consistent with her entertaining, hence the fire - more for the client than for her.

.....she came in barely able to speak at 11:45, she sang off and on for over an hour, and by 1:30 her room was dark and quiet.

You easily dismiss other witnesses, but put all your faith in Cox.
Why?
Cox's story conflicted with Prater, one of them had to be wrong. Plus, no-one in any pub close by remembered seeing Kelly with a "blotchy" character.
Cox's story remains uncorroborated, except that another witness heard her singing. But, that does not mean she was drunk, and it doesn't mean she was with a man (blotchy), also, it does not mean she didn't go out again.
All that is your own belief clouding the issue for you.

[Observer]

"As if from my door" from the Witness in the court, and "as if from the courtyard" by then witness upstairs. If she opened her door to see who was knocking...the knock that woke diddles?...then you have your answer.

Anyone else claim to have made that call? Anyone else who could not have claimed the call?

None of the witnesses heard a knock at the door. Where did you get that from?

[Observer]

Again, for those who haven't absorbed what they might have read a few thousand times....there are NO sounds of scuffle, no sounds of footsteps, and no sounds at all after the cry out.

And no sounds of anyone knocking on Kelly's door.

[Observer]

I cant believe that this isn't an obvious conclusion....she came in barely able to speak at 11:45, she sang off and on for over an hour

Barely able to talk, and then sang off and on for over an hour? Really?

[Abby Normal]

Barely able to talk, and then sang off and on for over an hour? Really?

your not serious with this are you?

[jason_c]

Barely able to talk, and then sang off and on for over an hour? Really?

Im going to say this flippantly, or at least semi-flippantly; but if I expected anyone to be able to sing for an hour in such circumstances it would be an alcoholic Irish prostitute.

[Observer]

Im going to say this flippantly, or at least semi-flippantly; but if I expected anyone to be able to sing for an hour in such circumstances it would be an alcoholic Irish prostitute.

haha nice one Jason. Perhaps the witnesses who heard the song recognised it by the tune, sort of, and not the words

[Wickerman]

"Barely able to talk" is another of Michael's misleading arguments.
Cox made no such claim, what Cox did say was "I did not notice she was drunk until she said 'goodnight' ".
Considering Cox walked behind Kelly obviously she was not staggering, or bouncing off the walls as she came up the passage.

Also, I'm not sure how you can sing if you are barely able to talk.
Maybe Michael knows.

[Observer]

"Barely able to talk" is another of Michael's misleading arguments.
Cox made no such claim, what Cox did say was "I did not notice she was drunk until she said 'goodnight' ".
Considering Cox walked behind Kelly obviously she was not staggering, or bouncing off the walls as she came up the passage.

Also, I'm not sure how you can sing if you are barely able to talk.
Maybe Michael knows.

Precisely Wick.

[Michael W Richards]

From our witness folder here;

"Mary Kelly was apparently very drunk and could barely answer, but managed to say goodnight in return. Shortly afterwards, she was heard singing in her room. Cox went out shortly after midnight and returned about 1.00am by which time Kelly was still singing. Cox went out again just after 1.00am and returned at 3.00am and by this time all was quiet in the court and there was no light on in No.13. She stated that after that, she heard no noise for the rest of the night"


From the witness;

"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.

[Coroner] What was the colour of the coat ? - A dark coat.

[Coroner] What hat had he ? - A round hard billycock.

[Coroner] Long or short hair ? - I did not notice. He had a blotchy face, and full carrotty moustache.

[Coroner] The chin was shaven ? - Yes. A lamp faced the door.

[Coroner] Did you see them go into her room ? - Yes; I said "Good night, Mary," and she turned round and banged the door.

[Coroner] Had he anything in his hands but the can ? - No.

[Coroner] Did she say anything ? - She said "Good night, I am going to have a song." As I went in she sang "A violet I plucked from my mother's grave when a boy." I remained a quarter of an hour in my room and went out. Deceased was still singing at one o'clock when I returned. I remained in the room for a minute to warm my hands as it was raining, and went out again. She was singing still, and I returned to my room at three o'clock. The light was then out and there was no noise."

Absolutely consistent with what I said earlier. The knock on the door, or window for that matter is deduced from the fact that the cat awoke Elizabeth just prior to the cry out, indicating some form of audible disturbance. Ive suggested many times here that the cry out and Mary Kelly being the one to have made it make perfect sense, in the context of someone being woken in the middle of the night with what is very probably a sore head.

Ill defer to Cox and her recollections rather than some other witnesses who claim to have seen Mary Kelly alive after 11:45pm Thursday evening, because of her established relationship with Kelly and the fact she passes that room several times. As for what Kelly had for making a fire, well we know there was one in that hearth at some recent point, and we know that remnants of clothing were found in it.

The issue isn't whether this makes perfect sense or not however, in this forum its whether or not people will use logical extrapolations of data to carry a storyline to its conclusion. Someone cried out at nearly 4am, only 2 witnesses can be proven to have known Mary if only for their proximity to her for some time, and the medical suggestion regarding time of death is in the middle of the night, not 10am. That plus Diddles creates a plausible scenario...including the fact that she was in a love triangle of sorts at that point in time, and she had the room to herself for only a few days. The opportunity for lover B, or anyone for that matter, to pop by to see her is clear.

Its almost certain that the killer gained access to the room by invitation, not forced entry or some catlike stealth.

[Michael W Richards]

The witness folder here has the evidence to support my assertions, and the logical interpretation of the known data then leads to a possible conclusion that explains all the various elements of the evidence such as it is.

My suggestion is to address 2 things: When the actual killer arrived, and the means of access to the room. Its almost certain by the evidence that the killer was allowed to enter, there was no forced entry or catlike stealth indicated. In fact Mary was facing away from the window and door when her throat is cut.

The suggestion fits, and puts the weight of belief in witnesses we can be sure actually knew Mary Kelly at all. Because those witnesses didn't see Mary alive after 11:45 Thursday evening.

NOTE: Apologies for the repetitive themes, I thought the first post was endlessly hung.

[Observer]

From our witness folder here;

"Mary Kelly was apparently very drunk and could barely answer, but managed to say goodnight in return. Shortly afterwards, she was heard singing in her room. Cox went out shortly after midnight and returned about 1.00am by which time Kelly was still singing. Cox went out again just after 1.00am and returned at 3.00am and by this time all was quiet in the court and there was no light on in No.13. She stated that after that, she heard no noise for the rest of the night"

Lets stick with the witness statement Michael.

From the witness;

[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.

[Coroner] What was the colour of the coat ? - A dark coat.

[Coroner] What hat had he ? - A round hard billycock.

[Coroner] Long or short hair ? - I did not notice. He had a blotchy face, and full carrotty moustache.

[Coroner] The chin was shaven ? - Yes. A lamp faced the door.

[Coroner] Did you see them go into her room ? - Yes; I said "Good night, Mary," and she turned round and banged the door.

[Coroner] Had he anything in his hands but the can ? - No.

[Coroner] Did she say anything ? - She said "Good night, I am going to have a song." As I went in she sang "A violet I plucked from my mother's grave when a boy."

Absolutely consistent with what I said earlier.

No it's not, you posted that Kelly was "barely able to speak". From the evidence supplied by Cox it's clear that she was able to speak coherently.

The knock on the door, or window for that matter is deduced from the fact that the cat awoke Elizabeth just prior to the cry out, indicating some form of audible disturbance. Ive suggested many times here that the cry out and Mary Kelly being the one to have made it make perfect sense, in the context of someone being woken in the middle of the night with what is very probably a sore head.

That's just your interpretation Michael, it's not based on any evidence. There are umpteen possible reasons as to why the cat walked across Prater and awoke her. In effect it's pointless speculation.

Its almost certain that the killer gained access to the room by invitation, not forced entry or some catlike stealth.

Again pure supposition, totally unqualified by the known evidence. It's unreasonable to use words like "almost certain" in this instance. It's an issue that will never be resolved.

[Michael W Richards]

No it's not, you posted that Kelly was "barely able to speak". From the evidence supplied by Cox it's clear that she was able to speak coherently.

There is at least one press acoount that claims Mary Ann characterized Mary Janes demeanor in that way.

That's just your interpretation Michael, it's not based on any evidence. There are umpteen possible reasons as to why the cat walked across Prater and awoke her. In effect it's pointless speculation.

Correct, and since its explains the sequence that took place, by the known data, its logical speculation.

Again pure supposition, totally unqualified by the known evidence. It's unreasonable to use words like "almost certain" in this instance. It's an issue that will never be resolved.

There is no evidence that suggests the room was entered forcibly, the windows ere found locked and so they may well have been all night long, and there is no way a killer slid under the door.

Speculation using known and accepted evidence, by known and accepted friends, isn't "unqualified" in the slightest.

[Observer]

First of all there is no way I can multi-quote you in my post as you've buggered up the multi-quote function in your post. I'll need to quote you in the conventional manner. My original post in bold.

No it's not, you posted that Kelly was "barely able to speak". From the evidence supplied by Cox it's clear that she was able to speak coherently.

"There is at least one press acoount that claims Mary Ann characterized Mary Janes demeanor in that way"

And the official witness testimony implied otherwise. I leave other posters to draw their own conclusions.

That's just your interpretation Michael, it's not based on any evidence. There are umpteen possible reasons as to why the cat walked across Prater and awoke her. In effect it's pointless speculation.

"Correct, and since its explains the sequence that took place, by the known data, its logical speculation"

No it's not, because there is no evidence that anyone knocked on Kelly's door, thus prompting the kitten to waken Prater.

Again pure supposition, totally unqualified by the known evidence. It's unreasonable to use words like "almost certain" in this instance. It's an issue that will never be resolved.

"There is no evidence that suggests the room was entered forcibly, the windows ere found locked and so they may well have been all night long, and there is no way a killer slid under the door"

And what if Blotchy murdered Kelly? Also what if the killer knew about the broken window, and the method Kelly used to enter the room? Before you say it, I know I'm also speculating, the big difference between you and I is the fact that I am not using the words "almost certain".

Speculation using known and accepted evidence, by known and accepted friends, isn't "unqualified" in the slightest.

Yes it is in this instance. There's no way using the available evidence that you can speculate it's "almost certain" That the killer was invited into the room.