Did Mrs Cox have the right day

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
With the subject [ albeit briefly] concerning Hutchinson, maybe having his days mixed, how about a new twist?
Did Mrs Cox have the right day?
Around 1145pm on the evening of the 8TH she claims to have followed Kelly into the court with the man known as Blotchy, she was then wearing a Linsey frock and a red knitted crossover shawl pulled around her shoulders..
Less then 3 hours earlier, Mrs Prater saw Kelly at the passage when they were both heading out in different directions, Kelly was then wearing a jacket and bonnet., to which Prater remarked later ''I don't even own them''.
It is almost certain that Prater was telling the truth , as the bonnet she saw Mary wearing was not available until that evening, when Mrs Harvey said to her ''I shall be leaving my bonnet''.
Having established that , we must ask the question.
Why did Mary Kelly not have the same clothing on when Cox claimed to have seen her?
Did she see Mary the previous evening ?
That being the case, Blotchy is eliminated from inquiries.
There is little doubt that Kelly was heard to be singing that night, as Catherine Picket was annoyed at 1230 AM, and was restrained from complaining by her husband.
But according to residents it was Kelly's habit to be noisy , and sing after nights in the pub.
So why not the previous night?
Its not like the 8TH was a one off at the pub, Mrs Harvey stayed on the Mon day/Tuesday that week, but not the wednesday evening, so she could have brought back Blotchy then.
How else do we explain the different outfits?
It seems most likely, as Mrs Harvey brought round her bonnet to Mary on the evening of the 8TH, and she left her room wearing her jacket[ which she owned... a black velvet one, which was cut and burnt in the fire] and the bonnet[ Kelly never owned one] she intended to impress..but to who?
Possibly the young man she was seen with?
So why would she return home, to remove these items, and go back out, which must have happened, for Cox to have seen her in different clothing..
I believe that, as this has never been looked at properly. a thread should be started.
And why we are at it.
Suggestions how, and why, the jacket , and bonnet appear to have been blood stained, and why the police believed they were burnt because of it?
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Cox went in and out of the rain, Richard, on two occasions, I believe. "It was no raining hard" was what she said about on of them.

And it did not rain the night before.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman,
I accept that Cox said that at 1am it was raining, but do we know for ''certain'' that on the previous night it was not. even for a time.?
Also, according to Prater, she stood at the court entrance at 1am, for 30 minutes, before venturing for a ten minute chat with McCarthy in his shop.
She mentions no rain, or hearing Kelly singing.whilst Cox witnessed both.
The idea of this thread, is to try to make sense of the different clothing seen by two different people, in a relative short space of time.
Its surprising is it not how people can be in the same spot , and not see each other, a bit like Hutchinson and Lewis.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

In my meteorologist contacts when researching Hutchinson and the wrong day premise, I was told that the night before was a perfectly dry one. The clothes thing is an anomaly, but women will change clothes.

And I am not in the slightest surprised by Hutchinson not seeing Lewis, as you will appreciate!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Gawd...

[Sally]

Perhaps somebody misremembered the clothing? More likely than the day, I think.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman.
I have no meteorologist contacts, but I do know we cannot state for ''''certain''' that it did not rain in Dorset street ,at 1am on the 8TH in the year 1888.[ even briefly]
Regarding women changing clothing...I can vouch for that like most men, however that solution is the easy way out in this case..
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"I have no meteorologist contacts, but I do know we cannot state for ''''certain''' that it did not rain in Dorset street ,at 1am on the 8TH in the year 1888."

The weather on the morning before was overcast, but dry. That remained throughout the day, and it was not until after midnight the next morning, the murder morning, that rain started to fall over London. That was what I was told, and of course, as there were clouds about, I guess that they COULD have produced a shower over Dorset Street. But the better bid is that this was not so - and Cox speaks of rain in periods, some of it hard - just like the weather report said for the murder morning.

Sally:

"Perhaps somebody misremembered the clothing?"

Perfectly feasible.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sally,
Mrs Prater could not have misremembered the day , as the bonnet was not around the previous day, only one remains of a bonnet was found in room13, the one that Harvey left, that being, the one Prater saw at 9am, on the eve of the 8TH, on Kelly's head
My point is that being the case, how can Mrs Cox give such a detailed description of Kelly's clothing, which did not match Praters in any way?
Did Mary Kelly return home to dress down, was it indeed raining, and she was concerned she might ruin her best, especially if she was intending to wear them in the morning to the Lord mayors show..
Was this why the fire was lit...to dry clothing.
I don't understand why she should be concerned about the rain in a pub, and by the time she walked home to change , they would have got wet anyway.
Mystery folks.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Hi Richard

My point is that being the case, how can Mrs Cox give such a detailed description of Kelly's clothing, which did not match Praters in any way?
Did Mary Kelly return home to dress down, was it indeed raining, and she was concerned she might ruin her best, especially if she was intending to wear them in the morning to the Lord mayors show..
Was this why the fire was lit...to dry clothing.

It would seem to be the simplest explanation. Most people, unless wealthy, didn't have many clothes - so keeping her best to impress makes perfect sense. And indeed, the next day was the Lord Mayor's Show.

Fisherman - a generalised picture of the weather in London during any one night in 1888 will not suffice to tell us anything for certain. It can only be a guide. In this country, the weather is temperamental. An unusually wet Autumn could have produced a shower at any given moment, given that there were, in fact, clouds.

Perhaps it is different in Sweden?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Fisherman - a generalised picture of the weather in London during any one night in 1888 will not suffice to tell us anything for certain. It can only be a guide. In this country, the weather is temperamental. An unusually wet Autumn could have produced a shower at any given moment, given that there were, in fact, clouds.

Perhaps it is different in Sweden?"

We tend to rely more on meteorological reports in retrospective, I think. Otherwise no.

Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
So what have we got ..?
It might have rained ,it might have not.
Either one of the two witnesses could have misremembered the clothing, even though the bonnet would suggest Prater didn't. leaving Mrs cox needing to go to the opticians ,
As for deciding to return back to her room to change clothing...why?
No mention of the curious reasoning by the police, that the jacket and bonnet[ seen by Prater] were burnt by the killer, because they were bloodstained..and the murder happened in daylight.
Why? were those items incriminating, and why?
Lots of important points to puzzle over.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"It might have rained ,it might have not."

Let´s not forget that the meteorologists reports said that it did not rain. And that was not a guess - it was the result of looking into the rain measuring units. Of course, the odd squish MAY have fallen over Dorset Street, but the much safer bid is that the reoccuring, sometimes heavy rain that fell upon Mary-Ann Cox was the very rain that was reported as reocurring and sometimes heavy - and belonging to the murder morning.

It´s not af it is a fifty-fifty option.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman.
O.K it rained at 1am, even though Mrs Prater does not mention it, albeit she may have sheltered inside the passage whilst waiting for her ''young man'', even though she saw nobody [ including Cox] or heard any singing echoing down the passage.
But only one hour later, we have Hutchinson not mentioning rain, and 'A man's' top coat undone, and Kelly [ who was concerned about getting wet ??] walking along Commercial street, casually soliciting and strolling back to Dorset street, and upon reaching the court stood and kissed[ what in the rain?]
Then are dear old Hutch stands on his 45 minute vigil opposite the court..
In the pouring rain?
I still maintain my original post, suggesting that Cox was mistaken, has some merit.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"only one hour later, we have Hutchinson not mentioning rain, and 'A man's' top coat undone, and Kelly [ who was concerned about getting wet ??] walking along Commercial street, casually soliciting and strolling back to Dorset street, and upon reaching the court stood and kissed[ what in the rain?]
Then are dear old Hutch stands on his 45 minute vigil opposite the court..
In the pouring rain?"

But the night BEFORE the murder, it did not rain. If THAT was the night Hutchinson referred to, then he would NOT speak of any rain. If THAT was the night Hutchinson referred to, wy would A man button his coat? If THAT was the night Hutchinson referred to, anybody could casually walk up and down Commercial Street andf hang around against lampposts, If THAT was the night Hutchinson referred to, Hutch could have stood all night long outside Kelly´s place and still be bone dry.

And since I think that this was exactly what happened, I really don´s see any problem at all in Hutchinsons´story. He walked the streets all night afterwards, remember? Do you do that on a rainy, blustery night? He never saw Lewis, who must have passed under his very nose, remember? But he saw a PC in the distance...?

The answer to these riddles is a very easy one - and it covers ALL the anomalies.

"I still maintain my original post, suggesting that Cox was mistaken, has some merit."

I won´t take that away from you, Richard. There is maybe the off-hand chance, but it is so small that I can´t grasp it, I´m afraid.

The best,
Fisherman