The coat at Miller's Court window

[Michael W Richards]

If McCarthy entered the room then he'd have needed to explain to the police why he needed a pickaxe to open the door just a short while later.

He still needs to explain why he broke into the room when he obviously knew about the method of accessing the spring latch Robert. For Drama? You'd think there was enough drama there already.

Cheers Robert

[Michael W Richards]

But Mary Ann Cox testifies specifically that when she saw MJK go up the alley with Mr Blotchy at a few minutes before midnight, she was wearing a dark skirt and an old maroon crossover/pelerine but no hat.

As she often did, according to more than one source. Dew mentions that about Mary as well, rarely if ever was she seen wearing a bonnet.

That source we can say knew Mary Kelly...she was the last person we know of that spoke with her, and she lived in the same courtyard. Her testimony should not be ignored, for sure.

All the best Chava

[Fleetwood Mac]

If McCarthy entered the room then he'd have needed to explain to the police why he needed a pickaxe to open the door just a short while later.

I would have thought he would have had keys to the premises.

It would seem commercially expedient to have them, as when your tenant does a runner then you don't have to smash the door in and incur the associated expense.

Maybe he just couldn't find them.

[Robert]

If McCarthy entered the room then he'd have needed to explain to the police why he needed a pickaxe to open the door just a short while later.

[DRoy]

Forgot to note that some papers said that the broken windows were stuffed with rags.

I can't help but wonder if something changed in the broken window. Perhaps it was rags but Bowyer removed them to see inside the room. Perhaps McCarthy entered the room and hung the coat up for some reason before joining Bowyer on the way to the police station. Perhaps the police hung it to keep onlookers from trying to get a view of the room/body.

Rags, curtain, blinds a/o a jacket? Surely they can't all be right so which newspaper accounts do we believe? If we believe the inquest reports then we only have a curtain and blinds.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Must admit I've always thought that what Bowyer describes, from the outside, as a curtain which he pushed aside, was in fact the coat, which perhaps, eventually (after several viewings) fell to the floor...just my perception though!

Hi Dave,

It may have fallen but when? The reporter and Dew both state the coat was in the window. So, it couldn't have fell after Boyer or McCarthy moved it.

I don't know how both McCarthy and Bowyer could mistake a coat for a curtain but I guess it is possible. The coat (if hanging) would probabaly not be the same height, width, length, shape, material, color, etc, as a typical curtain. Let's not forget that Cox says blinds were in the window.

If Cox could mistake the coat as blinds, and others mistake it for a curtain...it must be one ugly coat!

Cheers
DRoy

[Cogidubnus]

I wonder why McCarthy or Bowyer didn't mention it at the inquest? McCarthy also doesn't mention it in his other interviews. There are errors in the article so I wonder how much McCarthy actually said

Hi DRoy

Must admit I've always thought that what Bowyer describes, from the outside, as a curtain which he pushed aside, was in fact the coat, which perhaps, eventually (after several viewings) fell to the floor...just my perception though!

All the best

Dave

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
With regard to the puzzle over the different clothing descriptions, we have an alternative possibility , that being ..she discarded her jacket, and the bonnet whilst out , and let someone else have them.
But for what reason?
I keep going back to the police belief that the jacket and bonnet, were burnt by the killer because they were bloodstained.
In order for them to have been so, they would either have been worn by the victim when initially attacked, or having been in very close proximity .
But why would the killer burn them because of it?
Would these garments have provided a clue to the events in room 13, or even a T.O.D?
If one uses imagination, one could surmise many scenarios . maybe the rumour that Kelly lent out her room that evening has a ring of truth, which would lead to the version of Kelly not being the victim being not so unrealistic.
The mind boggles...
Regards Richard.

[Chava]

If Prater sees MJK go out at 9.00 pm and she's wearing a hat, and Cox sees her around 11.45 pm without a hat, and both witnesses are correct, then she must have returned to her room at some time--maybe with a client--and taken it off. But she was out long enough to get good and drunk before she returns home with Mr Blotchy. So did she 'break' and get a client who paid her enough to get drunk? That unknown possible client now knows who she is and where she lives and possibly how she secures her door...

[Wickerman]

I was under the impression that Mary had borrowed the bonnet for the following days parade ?

cheers

moonbegger

Quiet possible, but as Prater saw her wearing a bonnet around 9ish, she must have taken it out for a dry run...
And why leave a 2s pawn ticket with Mary, was Harvey effectively loaning her money?

[moonbegger]

Mary had borrowed a bonnet, but did not wear it all night?

I was under the impression that Mary had borrowed the bonnet for the following days parade ?

cheers

moonbegger

[Chava]

But Mary Ann Cox testifies specifically that when she saw MJK go up the alley with Mr Blotchy at a few minutes before midnight, she was wearing a dark skirt and an old maroon crossover/pelerine but no hat.

[DRoy]

I wonder why McCarthy or Bowyer didn't mention it at the inquest? McCarthy also doesn't mention it in his other interviews. There are errors in the article so I wonder how much McCarthy actually said

DRoy

[Wickerman]

Hi Nemo

I should think that the article was saying that the coat was found over the window on the morning of 9th. It's possible of course that the killer hung it there as an extra precaution against being seen while he was at work. But I don't think the article leaves open any possibility that the police or doctors or someone else hung the coat there after they entered the room. So, according to this source, the coat was found over the window on the morning of 9th.

Agreed Robert, the authorities had no need to hang it up. The Court was cleared of onlookers, and they would need as much light as they could muster.

[Wickerman]

I have recently entertained the idea that it was Albrook that Maxwell saw at the morning sighting, she was around 20 years old, and worked at a Dorset street lodging house, which would fit in with Maxwell's statement''being about in the lodging house''

I'm sure Maxwell mistook this 'person' for Mary, a case of mistaken identity, but an honest mistake nevertheless.

I tend to believe Mrs Prater's sighting, as it describes a bonnet and jacket being worn by Mary, both of these items were burnt ,the police believing because they were bloodstained.

I also believe Prater. And the fact Mary was not known to wear a bonnet, likely because she did not own one. Yet, Harvey admitted to leaving her own bonnet with Mary, then Mary is seen out wearing a bonnet - it does fit.

Then we have Cox claiming to see Kelly about midnight but without the bonnet, was it raining at this time?
Does this call into question Cox's sighting?
Mary had borrowed a bonnet, but did not wear it all night?
Had the bonnet already been burned, accidentally?
Kelly was seen out later, once, possibly twice, and again without the bonnet.