Did Mrs Cox have the right day

[Jdombrowski89]

I believe Cox is right in stating what she said/did. As far as weather conditions go:

Weather conditions reported for the General London area:

8 November (Thursday)
Max Temp - 46.3 degrees
Min Temp - 36.2 degrees
Amount of Rain - [Not reported]
Amount of Cloud Cover - [Not reported]
Remarks: Dull cold day; rain at night

9 November (Friday)
Max Temp - 46.3 degrees
Min Temp - 38.9 degrees
Amount of Rain - [Not reported]
Amount of Cloud Cover - [Not reported]
Remarks: Wet till 11A.M, then overcast

Weather Conditions for Whitechapel:

8 November (Thursday)
Max Temp - 44.5 degrees
Min Temp - 36.2 degrees
Amount of Rain - 0.16 in
Amount of Cloud Cover - 100%

9 November (Friday)
Max - 46.0 degrees
Min - 39.0 degrees
Amount of Rain - N/A
Amount of Cloud cover 100%

Sourced from here on Casebook:

http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/weather.html

From the Inquest, The Daily Telegraph, 12 November 1888:

[Coroner] Did she say anything ?
[Cox] - 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.

Cox only mentions the rain once And although Prater claims she saw Kelly wearing a jacket and a bonnet, Cox claims Kelly was wearing a pelerine, which is a short cape made of fur/cloth. Temperatures, as seen above, dropped to the mid-30s that night so just because she wore a pelerine doesn't mean the jacket wasn't underneath. It would be understandable for, with the lowering conditions, Kelly to have a cape on. Or, like anyone else, she likely changed her clothes. Afterall she was not seen between 9-11:45. Personally neither women give evidence that contradicts each other. And their descriptions are rather vague. Had it not been raining that night I think the foreman, or Coroner Macdonald would've noted it.

My impression is that Hutchinson's statement is false, somewhat because he had been spotted by Sarah Lewis around 2:30am, and possibly in fear of being suspected, doctored up why he was standing across Dorset Street. Just my two cents.

Best,
JD

[Wickerman]

I don't think we can accuse Cox of having the wrong day, but the wrong times.

My impression is that Hutchinson's statement is false, somewhat because he had been spotted by Sarah Lewis around 2:30am,

Then it can't have been false if part of it was substantiated by another person (Lewis).

So, you mean it was partly false. I think you are now in the same window of discontent as most others sit. The question which is most debated is, what part was false, and why?

Regards, Jon S.

[Jdombrowski89]

Jon,

Yes thats what I meant. My apologies. I believe Hutchinson was roaming around Whitechapel and decided to loiter around dorset street. When Sarah Lewis comes in around 2:30 she spots someone who is most likely Hutchison across from the entrance to the court. After the murder he gets scared, believing he could be implicated as the murderer and comes up with his statement, falsifying that he saw MK in the company of an unknown male. That would be the likeliest scenario to me.

JD

[Wickerman]

Hi Justin.
Cox's story was not corroborated by Prater who actually said she heard no singing nor saw a light at the times Cox claimed she witnessed both.
Cox never indicated how she knew what the time was and, she obviously did not carry a watch. Prater had been in the shop talking with Mr McCarthy, and, because she said she was waiting for a male friend it is quite reasonable for her to have inquired about the time to McCarthy.
A timepiece was likely in his shop.

Cox may have incorrectly guessed the wrong times.


I cannot envisage Hutchinson stepping forward to sit in front of Abberline if he suspects the police are looking for someone who looks like him.
If Lewis's description of the loiterer does not look like him, then why come forward?
So, when you think about it, neither argument is credible for him coming forward.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I cannot envisage Hutchinson stepping forward to sit in front of Abberline if he suspects the police are looking for someone who looks like him

If Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis and was concerned that he would later be identified as such, it is perfectly credible that he should come forward and attempt to legitimize his presence there before he was tracked down and interrogated as a suspect. It all depends on what he was actually doing there, of course. If he had nothing to hide and perhaps an alibi for the generally accepted time of the Kelly murder, he could afford to rest on his laurels secure in the knowledge that he could innocently account for his movements if and when the coppers came a' knockin. If, on the other hand, he did have something to hide, there was a greater incentive for him to be proactive and establish his role as an innocent witness before he was tracked down and bombarded with awkward questions. It is simply human nature to look more favourably upon an individual who approaches the police voluntarily as a witness, rather than one who is dragged in as a suspect and is then forced to explain himself.

Hi Justin,

I agree entirely that there is no reason to think Mary Cox confused her times.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi JD,
I accept that the jacket may have been under the pelerine , however that still goes against Praters description, but what about the bonnet?
She could hardly mistake that surely , and Kelly would have been wearing that item on her head.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
If Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis and was concerned that he would later be identified as such, it is perfectly credible that he should come forward and attempt to legitimize his presence there before he was tracked down and interrogated as a suspect.

Ben.
The police are not going to track down every "stout" male (how old?, how tall?) wearing a "black widewake hat". When the police fail to find anyone to fit a detailed description given by Lawende, why on earth would you think "stout man in black widewake hat" is of any use.

There is nothing about such a vague description to compel anyone to go to the police, that is a strained argument Ben, it does not work.
And, if you are prepared to accept Hutchinson coming forward to justify his presence at that time & location this also suggests you admit Kelly was out on the street.

Regards, Jon S.

[Jdombrowski89]

Cox's story was not corroborated by Prater who actually said she heard no singing nor saw a light at the times Cox claimed she witnessed both.
Cox never indicated how she knew what the time was and, she obviously did not carry a watch. Prater had been in the shop talking with Mr McCarthy, and, because she said she was waiting for a male friend it is quite reasonable for her to have inquired about the time to McCarthy.
A timepiece was likely in his shop.

Cox may have incorrectly guessed the wrong times.

I cannot envisage Hutchinson stepping forward to sit in front of Abberline if he suspects the police are looking for someone who looks like him.
If Lewis's description of the loiterer does not look like him, then why come forward?

Jon,

That is true, however we can consider this, from the Inquest:

[Coroner] Could the witness, Mary Ann Cox, have come down the entry between one and half-past one o'clock without your knowledge ?
[Prater] - Yes, she could have done so.

Now Mary Ann Cox came back at one o'clock, entering Miller's Court. She states she heard Mary Kelly singing and there was still light coming from her room. Cox states at that time it was raining, which is why she went inside "for a minute" to warm her hands. She leaves and would not return for about two more hours. Now upon leaving the court is around the time that Elizabeth Prater returns from being out (she had left around 5 p.m. the day before, Thursday). Prater says its possible they could have missed each other and I don't see why there's any reason to question that.

Cox never did state how she knew the time, but I'm assuming she probably had a clock in her room. If not, Christ Church was just around the corner.

A few minutes after one, Prater states she "returned to it at about one a.m. on Friday morning. I stood at the corner until about twenty minutes past one. No one spoke to me. McCarthy's shop was open, and I called in, and then went to my room."

So we have a time frame of lets say, a half an hour. Prater enters, and because of the thin partition, would be able to distinctly hear and see from Kelly's room. She sees/hears nothing. It's possible that in this time frame MK was murdered, especially since throughout the rest of the night nobody reports seeing light coming from No. 13. Now Cox states this about the light coming from No. 13:

"There was a light in the window, but I saw nothing, as the blinds were down."

We know Kelly had a coat, or clothing acting as 'blinds' covering the windows, along with the rag stuffed inside the broken windowpane. We also know that the killer must've burned clothing and other items, creating a 'great fire' inside as I don't see why MK would burns clothes, that presumable belong to Maria Harvey, in a fire. It doesn't fit 'her character' So either I think we can assume that Cox heard Kelly singing, or she was mistaken in hearing her sing. Regardless I believe around 1:00-1:30 is important because either the murderer was in the process of mutilating MK or he was just starting.

As far as Hutchinson, at the Inquest Sarah Lewis reported:

"at 2.30a.m. on Friday. It is the first house. I noticed the time by the Spitalfields' Church clock. When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one."

This was in in the Daily Telegraph on 13 November (Inquest was the previous day, on 12 November). It's very plausible, I think, that Hutchinson possibly read the newspaper and saw that someone noticed him. Let's say he was out looking for a prostitute or just out and about. Now, it would be somewhat troubling for someone to tell police "During the early morning hours of November 8, I was looking for a prostitute or just walking around...near Dorset Street, where hours later a body was discovered."

I'm not saying that's why he was there, but think of how suspicious that would have been. Which is why I'm saying for the first part of his statement, where he claims to have come across MK and the 'Jewish' looking man, could be fabricated. Because I have trouble with a jovial MK laughing at a man, entering Miller's Court and supposedly entering her room because...

Prater would've noticed this! This is, after all, a woman who was awaken by her cat. Those walls and the floor were not of the best 'privacy standards' and Prater has stated she could hear any conversations.

"The partition was so thin I could have heard Kelly walk about in the room."

"I should have heard the singing distinctly."

That tells me this is a woman accustomed to hearing things from Kelly's room. And the fact that nobody reports lights coming from No. 13 after 1am would tell me that, with the 'large quantity of women's clothing that had been burnt." that MK was dead before 1/130am.

If Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis and was concerned that he would later be identified as such, it is perfectly credible that he should come forward and attempt to legitimize his presence there before he was tracked down and interrogated as a suspect. It all depends on what he was actually doing there, of course. If he had nothing to hide and perhaps an alibi for the generally accepted time of the Kelly murder, he could afford to rest on his laurels secure in the knowledge that he could innocently account for his movements if and when the coppers came a' knockin. If, on the other hand, he did have something to hide, there was a greater incentive for him to be proactive and establish his role as an innocent witness before he was tracked down and bombarded with awkward questions. It is simply human nature to look more favourably upon an individual who approaches the police voluntarily as a witness, rather than one who is dragged in as a suspect and is then forced to explain himself.

Hi Justin,

I agree entirely that there is no reason to think Mary Cox confused her times.

Ben,

I completely agree.

Hi JD,
I accept that the jacket may have been under the pelerine , however that still goes against Praters description, but what about the bonnet?
She could hardly mistake that surely , and Kelly would have been wearing that item on her head.
Regards Richard.

Richard,

It's possible that MK came back to her room between 9:00-11:45. And remember that between that time frame it's likely MK never ventured far and came back, and brought the bonnet back. Remember that after Abberline sifted through the remnants of the fire, he reported finding "a portion of a brim of a hat'.

She could have gone out plying her trade, realizing that the bonnet wasn't hers, and simply return back to No. 13, leaving it there and then gone back out to the Britannia. Remember she left in No. 13:

"two men's dirty shirts, a little boy's shirt, a black overcoat, a black crepe bonnet with black satin strings, a pawn-ticket for a grey shawl, upon which 2s had been lent, and a little girls white petticoat."

Regards,
JD

[Cogidubnus]

Ben.
The police are not going to track down every "stout" male (how old?, how tall?) wearing a "black widewake hat". When the police fail to find anyone to fit a detailed description given by Lawende, why on earth would you think "stout man in black widewake hat" is of any use.

There is nothing about such a vague description to compel anyone to go to the police, that is a strained argument Ben, it does not work.
And, if you are prepared to accept Hutchinson coming forward to justify his presence at that time & location this also suggests you admit Kelly was out on the stre

Hi Jon,

So Hutch knows he's been spotted by a witness...how, pray, does he know EXACTLY what that witness saw and exactly what she has told the police...how does he know, in any case, that the police haven't held back some descriptive details? He doesn't...

So Ben's argument isn't perhaps so strained after all...

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

So Hutch knows he's been spotted by a witness...how, pray, does he know EXACTLY what that witness saw and exactly what she has told the police...how does he know, in any case, that the police haven't held back some descriptive details? He doesn't...

So Ben's argument isn't perhaps so strained after all...

All the best

Dave

These arguments are based on the premis that Hutchinson's source was the testimony of Sarah Lewis. Yet fail to explain adequately exactly how this comes about.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fleetwood Mac]

One problem with Wideawake Man being the killer is this:

In the event he's on the prowl looking for a victim, why does he not engage Sarah Lewis in conversation?

You would have to argue that he was specifically targetting Mary Kelly, and that to me seems highly unlikely.

[Wickerman]

One problem with Wideawake Man being the killer is this:

In the event he's on the prowl looking for a victim, why does he not engage Sarah Lewis in conversation?

You would have to argue that he was specifically targetting Mary Kelly, and that to me seems highly unlikely.

The impression I get from Lewis is that the loiterer was across the road, not within talking distance. Lewis does claim to have seen him stand outside Kelly's door, in the court, but the room Lewis visited (No. 2) was an upstairs room so she might have seen him standing there from an upstairs window?

Regardless, I don't get the impression she was ever close enough to talk with him. If she had been then the description she gave might have been more detailed.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Jon,

That is true, however we can consider this, from the Inquest:

[Coroner] Could the witness, Mary Ann Cox, have come down the entry between one and half-past one o'clock without your knowledge ?
[Prater] - Yes, she could have done so.

Hi Justin.
Yes, that came from the Daily Telegraph. The Times does not carry that exchange, however if we look at the official report from the GLRO the meaning is a little different.

"Mary Ann Cox could have passed down the court during the night without me hearing her"

This (above) tends to suggest a different context for the exchange, so which is the correct one?

If Prater was standing at the end of a 3ft wide passage from 1:00-1:20 am then clearly she could not have helped but notice if Cox tried to get passed her. So Cox could have exited after 1:20, however Prater also ends her statement with this:
"I went to bed at half past one - I did not hear any singing - I should have heard any one signing in the deceaseds room at 1 oclock, there was no one singing".

Prater is quite emphatic about that.

Cox never did state how she knew the time, but I'm assuming she probably had a clock in her room. If not, Christ Church was just around the corner.

These women were borderline destitute a clock is a luxury to pawn, not have standing around when you actually have no need for such an item.

So we have a time frame of lets say, a half an hour. Prater enters, and because of the thin partition, would be able to distinctly hear and see from Kelly's room. She sees/hears nothing. It's possible that in this time frame MK was murdered, especially since throughout the rest of the night nobody reports seeing light coming from No. 13.
.
.
Regardless I believe around 1:00-1:30 is important because either the murderer was in the process of mutilating MK or he was just starting.

True, but this is also not the last time Kelly is seen outside. So, this is too early for her to be murdered.

As far as Hutchinson, at the Inquest Sarah Lewis reported:
.
.
This was in in the Daily Telegraph on 13 November (Inquest was the previous day, on 12 November). It's very plausible, I think, that Hutchinson possibly read the newspaper and saw that someone noticed him.

I'm not sure what you mean here Justin, Hutchinson told his story on the evening of the 12th, before the papers printed Lewis's story on the 13th.

I'm not saying that's why he was there, but think of how suspicious that would have been. Which is why I'm saying for the first part of his statement, where he claims to have come across MK and the 'Jewish' looking man, could be fabricated. Because I have trouble with a jovial MK laughing at a man, entering Miller's Court and supposedly entering her room because...

Prater would've noticed this!

Thats a good point, Prater might have heard this. So, if you think Kelly was already dead why then is this loiterer (Hutchinson?) standing where he is at about 2:15 am?
Who is he watching up the court and why does he then stand by Kelly's door? and then take up a 30-45 minute vigil across the road?

And here's another unpopular point. Mrs Kennedy also tells us she saw Mary Kelly out again about 3:00 am, after Hutchinson had left the scene.
If this is true, Astrachan was not her killer either.

Sarah Lewis only saw one man and one woman outside the Britannia about 2:30 am, but she saw Hutchinson.
Mrs Kennedy saw one man and two women about 3:00 am outside the Britannia, one being Mary Kelly, but makes no mention of seeing Hutchinson.

Kennedy's & Lewis's visitation to Millers Court appear to have been about 30-45 minutes apart, they witnessed a slightly different scene.

No matter what personal preferences exist there is some reason to believe that Mary Kelly was out on the streets after Blotchy, and maybe even after Astrachan!
With such slender evidence we cannot be sure what actually transpired that night.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The impression I get from Lewis is that the loiterer was across the road, not within talking distance. Lewis does claim to have seen him stand outside Kelly's door, in the court, but the room Lewis visited (No. 2) was an upstairs room so she might have seen him standing there from an upstairs window?

Regardless, I don't get the impression she was ever close enough to talk with him. If she had been then the description she gave might have been more detailed.

Regards, Jon S.

He could quite easily have walked over to the other side of the road as she came down the street.

That's assuming he was on the other side of the road. Could be argued both ways from the inquest testimony. Taking Lewis literally (from the inquest), he was at court entrance on her side of the road.

[Wickerman]

He could quite easily have walked over to the other side of the road as she came down the street.

That's assuming he was on the other side of the road. Could be argued both ways from the inquest testimony. Taking Lewis literally (from the inquest), he was at court entrance on her side of the road.

Yes he could have been on the same side of the road at some point.
In her pre-inquest statement Lewis comments:
"...when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset St."

And at the Inquest:
"...-- When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House."

And:
"...-- The man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for some one to come out,..."

But then The Echo provides us with this:
"...She saw a man at the entrance to the court. He was not talking to anyone. "

The St. James Gazette states:
"...She saw a stout looking man standing at the entrance to Miller's court."

Then the Daily News adds:
"...In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing."

I initially assumed the detail in the Daily News, above, was a misinterpretation except that Hutchinson actually claimed to walk up to Kelly room.
"...I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

Clearly, Hutchinson would be unable to see a light or hear any noise from standing out in the street so he must have walked right up to her window as he claimed.
However, Lewis was not in the court by this time otherwise they would have rubbed shoulders. I can only assume Lewis saw this shadow of a figure through a window?

Regards, Jon S.
P.S. it appears the Cox discussion has run its course