The coat at Miller's Court window

[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

[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

[Robert]

I don't know the reasoning behind the pickaxe, but I don't think it would have been a very dramatic business - more a case of prising the door open than bashing it in.

[DRoy]

What we know for sure is that McCarthy opened the door with an axe. He gave statements to the press that he entered the room after breaking it open. Odd that he would be allowed especially considering that at the time he broke open the door, there were many police and doctors present. To all fit in the room seems silly yet he was allowed. We can only assume he would be allowed to do so in order to say what might be missing or "wrong" in the room since all the furniture was apparently his.

I've found one reference in the press where it mentions the key as being found. If I remember correctly, this came out shortlly after the inquest. Whether it's true or not is anyone's guess but if true where was it found? I'm nit suggesting McCarthy is guilty in any way but I do think his actions and testimony seem suspicious. I'm not sold on McCarthy knowing about how to enter her room but he did know the windows were broken.

I still think we are missing something about McCarthy and MJK's room. I still think there is something missing about what was in the window before her body was found and what was in the window after. Something's wrong.

DRoy

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm back and Droy is right. Something IS wrong. I'm not sure what but I know for at fact something is wrong MJK's time of death is of interest to me because I have heard things on this site that suggest that she was locked up for the night. This is fact but there are rumors she walked toward Mitre Sq which if my East End geography is correct is in the opposite direction to her home which leaves me wondering WHY?

[Phil H]

Welcome back, Mr Holmes.

I think you may be getting confused between two cases, however.

I have heard things on this site that suggest that she was locked up for the night.

I think you are mixing up Kate Eddowes and Mary Kelly here. Eddowes was locked up for a while for being drunk, and was released to go to her death. MJK wandered about the Dorset St area for most of the night by all accounts.

This is fact but there are rumors she walked toward Mitre Sq which if my East End geography is correct is in the opposite direction to her home which leaves me wondering WHY?

Again it was EDDOWES who walked towards Mitre square, where she was later found dead. I have seen no suggestion that MJK walked towards Mitre Square on the night of her death - her journeys were to and from 13 Millers Court, and mainly to the pub.

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
What it all boils down to is, we do not know for certain, exactly what was in the immediate interior of the windows.
We have had descriptions of a Muslin curtain.
The holes stuffed with rags.
A man's pilot coat hanging over the window.
A type of blind.
A curtain.
It comes down to what is in one's imaginative guess.
Clearly there was not rags plugging the hole , that Bowyer reached through, as this was not mentioned, he also does not refer to pulling a coat aside[ unless he mistook that for a curtain]
Clearly there was some kind of curtain that could be drawn to use 24/7, one would imagine the water pump would have been used times many times daily by the residents, and McCarthy, assuring that Mary would have at least had a muslin curtain available ?
As for the clothing wore by Kelly when Cox saw her, and the description of clothing witnessed by Prater, they clearly differ...so much so, that it would suggest one of them was ''short of the truth'', either that.. or between 9pm-1145pm, Kelly dispersed of the jacket and bonnet whilst out, or she returned home to change.
I would suggest that those two items, hold some kind of clue to this crime, the Times November 12th clearly gives the distinct impression that these items were burnt ''Especially'' being that they were bloodstained.
This was a reference to the police beliefs.[ along with a daylight murder].
The question remains.
Why would the killer , or accessory, burn clothing because they were bloodstained unless they either gave a clue to the killers identity, or would estimate a time of death.?
Regards Richard.

[curious]

Hi,
What it all boils down to is, we do not know for certain, exactly what was in the immediate interior of the windows.
We have had descriptions of a Muslin curtain.
The holes stuffed with rags.
A man's pilot coat hanging over the window.
A type of blind.
A curtain.
It comes down to what is in one's imaginative guess.
Clearly there was not rags plugging the hole , that Bowyer reached through, as this was not mentioned, he also does not refer to pulling a coat aside[ unless he mistook that for a curtain]
Clearly there was some kind of curtain that could be drawn to use 24/7, one would imagine the water pump would have been used times many times daily by the residents, and McCarthy, assuring that Mary would have at least had a muslin curtain available ?
As for the clothing wore by Kelly when Cox saw her, and the description of clothing witnessed by Prater, they clearly differ...so much so, that it would suggest one of them was ''short of the truth'', either that.. or between 9pm-1145pm, Kelly dispersed of the jacket and bonnet whilst out, or she returned home to change.
I would suggest that those two items, hold some kind of clue to this crime, the Times November 12th clearly gives the distinct impression that these items were burnt ''Especially'' being that they were bloodstained.
This was a reference to the police beliefs.[ along with a daylight murder].
The question remains.
Why would the killer , or accessory, burn clothing because they were bloodstained unless they either gave a clue to the killers identity, or would estimate a time of death.?
Regards Richard.

In the past, I have discussed how often eye witness testimony turns out to be wrong. A friend was telling me just in the last 2-3 weeks about the time his wife was in a horrible car accident that left her in critical condition and near death.

In his memory, the accident (which he came up on in another car) happened in a totally different place from where the police later told him it was. He had difficulty believing that his memory was so wrong. And he ended by saying that's why he will never be a witness to anything.

In the case of MJK and what was covering the window, I wonder if we don't need to take into account that this was a horrific, traumatic event for the witnesses, there is no way of knowing how long they checked out what was in the window nor how closely (in other words, was it a glance and an impression? or was it a long studied look?)

If the police mentioned the windows and what was there, I would be more inclined to accept their version and put the other, conflicting reports down to mistake.

curious

[curious]

As for the clothing wore by Kelly when Cox saw her, and the description of clothing witnessed by Prater, they clearly differ...so much so, that it would suggest one of them was ''short of the truth'', either that.. or between 9pm-1145pm, Kelly dispersed of the jacket and bonnet whilst out, or she returned home to change.
I would suggest that those two items, hold some kind of clue to this crime, the Times November 12th clearly gives the distinct impression that these items were burnt ''Especially'' being that they were bloodstained.
This was a reference to the police beliefs.[ along with a daylight murder].
The question remains.
Why would the killer , or accessory, burn clothing because they were bloodstained unless they either gave a clue to the killers identity, or would estimate a time of death.?
Regards Richard.

Richard,
Are you suggesting that Kelly took off her bonnet and jacket and gave them to someone else?

Therefore, by the items being in the room -- and bloodstained -- it indicates that the person to whom Mary gave the clothing was also in the room. Either as victim or killer?

curious

[DRoy]

Curious,

I agree with you 100% regarding memories. They rarely capture the true event. Also agree that police who are trained to notice and remember would be better witnesses than the general public.

Unfortunately the only officer I can think of that commented on the hanging coat was Dew and there are those that don't appreciate his memory.

When Bowyer moved the "curtain" he at that point didn't have a traumatic event yet in front of him. He was able to remember details like the time and how many times he knocked on MJK's door yet doesn't remember the coat. McCarthy who would have had a traumatic view backs Bowyer's version about the curtain and also doesn't mention the coat. They may both have missed it or both forgot I suppose. But McCarthy also entered the room. It wasn't a big room and didn't have many things in it. You'd suppose he would have checked out the room a bit and then perhaps notice that there was a coat hanging over the window and think to himself "how did I miss that?"

Or did something change during the night or early morning?

DRoy

[Phil H]

There are at least two ways of rationalising or explaining contradictory testimony:

a) it is mistaken (like Curious' friend and the location of the car accident);

b) it is accurate but subject to one of several constraints:

i) time - people saw different things at different times (so Indian Joe may have pushed something aside; later the coat was hung from the window frame - the two things were conflated into Joe moving the coat aside); or, if the police were seeking to stop people looking in, the broken panes might have been stuffed with rags.

Given the nature of photography in 1888, could the coat have been put over the wiindow, or moved from it, to change the amount of light in the room, at the behest of the photographer?

ii) human nature - people see things and make assumptions. We all try to make sense of what we see and may "invent" circumstances, or assume something was there, or what something was, so as to order our thoughts. the trick here would be to see which is an assumption which a fact.

iii) assumptions - different sort. Was the kettle damaged during the murder or had it been melted earlier and left? Did Mary burn the hat and clothes or her killer or someone else - and when? Some evidence that would have been useful to us may have been lost and might have been relevant here - there appears to have been confusion over things like whether MJK's heart was missing; was she naked or wearing a chemise; whether the door NEEDED to be broken in, or was unlocked throughout. Just examples.

iv) back to things changing - it appears the bed was moved to allow photographs. Were some of the body parts moved - aesthetically (I know it sounds weird given the shocking images, but we are talking Victorian sensibilities here). Is the image we see and are so familiar REALLY what the police saw when first entering the room?

v) things were just not mentioned - I find it amazing - as with the backyard/passage at Hanbury St - thatthere is no apparent mention of hand prints, footprints - given the amount of blood - trails of droplets which would have indicated where the murderer moved etc. Were any photographs taken of the other (fireplace) end of the room? One we know was taken of the exterior, so it would be logical to assume more interior shots - that might have told us something of how garments and the kettle were disposed.

vi) language and perceptions - one man's coat over the window is another man's curtain. A curtain becomes a "blind" in a verbal account (individuals are not always exact when communicating orally - they forget words, use another, have always called a "curtain" a "blind" etc).

vii) invention - we know from other cases that people made things up so as to feel, or appear, part of this dramatic event in their lives. Some accounts might be from people who never set foot in No 13, but recounted what they had HEARD.

I could go on, but I am sure you catch my drift.

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hello Curious,
I am attempting to make sense of the police view, that the velvet jacket and bonnet,were amongst the clothing burnt, and specifically those two items were burnt because they were bloodstained.
It makes no reference to the other items burnt in the fire being as such.
If one takes an approach, that in order for the jacket ,and bonnet, to have become soiled with blood they had to either have been worn by the victim at the initial attack, or in close proximity to the body.
Or even worn by the killer [ which would indicate either a woman being responsible , or a cross dresser..]
We have information from two witnesses that Kelly was seen wearing the items in question at 9pm , and not wearing then at 1145pm, which would indicate that she either lent these items to another between those times, or returned home to dress down [ so to speak].
If the former then it points to the person the clothes were given to was in room 13 , either as guest, or killer. if the latter it would suggest that MJK must have left them on the bed, remaining there until she was killed...
If that was the case then a daylight murder would appear the obvious option, and maybe leaving the police the impression that that the killing was in daylight.
One could speculate that the rumour that Kelly lent out the room that night to another female, could have some truth in it, and the clothes were worn by this person when initially killed..hence the burning of them.
But why would the killer do this.....unless the body was intended to represent Mary Kelly, ...and knowing that Kelly was last seen not wearing these, and being blood stained burnt them along with the shirts and petticoat.
Or maybe MJK was wearing them when she was killed, which would indicate a daylight attack, and the killer was without alibi then.
Confusing ..
Regards Richard.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Curious,
I am attempting to make sense of the police view, that the velvet jacket and bonnet,were amongst the clothing burnt, and specifically those two items were burnt because they were bloodstained.
It makes no reference to the other items burnt in the fire being as such.
If one takes an approach, that in order for the jacket ,and bonnet, to have become soiled with blood they had to either have been worn by the victim at the initial attack, or in close proximity to the body.
Or even worn by the killer [ which would indicate either a woman being responsible , or a cross dresser..]
We have information from two witnesses that Kelly was seen wearing the items in question at 9pm , and not wearing then at 1145pm, which would indicate that she either lent these items to another between those times, or returned home to dress down [ so to speak].
If the former then it points to the person the clothes were given to was in room 13 , either as guest, or killer. if the latter it would suggest that MJK must have left them on the bed, remaining there until she was killed...
If that was the case then a daylight murder would appear the obvious option, and maybe leaving the police the impression that that the killing was in daylight.
One could speculate that the rumour that Kelly lent out the room that night to another female, could have some truth in it, and the clothes were worn by this person when initially killed..hence the burning of them.
But why would the killer do this.....unless the body was intended to represent Mary Kelly, ...and knowing that Kelly was last seen not wearing these, and being blood stained burnt them along with the shirts and petticoat.
Or maybe MJK was wearing them when she was killed, which would indicate a daylight attack, and the killer was without alibi then.
Confusing ..
Regards Richard.

Hello Richard, all,

Good post this. Thank you.

I am not sure if this has been mentioned before..I haven't gone back through the entire thread.. but I believe Paul Feldman,amongst others, was pretty particular that the hat/coat scenario was due to Mary Kelly not being Mary Kelly, yet her "friend" had borrowed said clothes.

Now I don't quite know about that specific theory, but as it seems a possibility (strong or weak) that Mary Jane Kelly was not the victim in Millers Court, then from that specific point of view, we ask ourselves again the meaning of the burning of the hat and coat, which was Mary's,apparently, and would possible reason would the killer have to burn specifically those items?

I have slight suggestion.

The face disfigurement was, it seems, an attempt to make recognising said woman difficult. If the hat and the coat were Mary's.... no identification would have been possible through the clothing either.
If that sounds a little too complicated, try this...
The killer tried to obliterate all that Mary Kelly was. In and out. Now would a killer be more or less likely to do that if he
A) Didn't know her?
B) Hadn't intended to hide the signs of identification?

All of which leaves me,personally, to think that Mary Kelly was an INTENDED victim...but the woman killed in Millers Court wasn't known personally enough to have been recognised as her NOT being Mary Kelly, by the murderer.

Which leads me to ask... if Mary was the intended victim, who wanted her dead, who wanted her disfigured to the point of identification being almost impossible, and who would do something without personally recognising her?
That, I believe, is where the clue to the Fenian suspicion may or could be.

Speculation of course..but worth a think, perhaps?


Phil



PS. After all, wood burns especially well in a fireplace too, does it not?

[DRoy]

Phil H,

All good points...especially the one about hanging the coat for the photographer. Never heard or thought of that before!

My only additional comment regarding witnesses is this...am I wrong in thinking that we should take the word of witnesses until such time that their statements be proven to be a fabrigation/faulty/misremembered/etc?

If so, and factoring in what you've said in your last post, what are we left with? Who's statement is right? who's is an outright lie? who misremembered?

Examples: Do we accept Dew because he was a policeman? If so, why accept Dew in this case and discount so many of his other remembrances? Since both Bowyer and McCarthy's versions are close, choose which of the following they may be...traumatized, blind, unobservant, forgetful, deceitful, etc.

This was the purpose and the questions I tried to find answers to when trying to establish what the true story of the jacket was. So far, in my opinion, there is very little to establish much of anything to do with the coat as fact.

It's the small silly details like the coat that makes me think we're all missing something because nobody really cares or notices a small detail like that. There could be a clue in there somewhere though...

Cheers
DRoy

[Phil H]

Well, I'm a great fan of the "matrix".

Create a grid with the names of witnesses across the top and various criteria along the side: police; supported by another witness; when recorded (almost immediate; some interval; long interval; etc.

For instance Dew may have been a policeman and thus essentially a good reliable, even trained, witness. So he might get a tick for that. But set against that, his memoirs were written many years after the event and thus it maybe less reliable, so a cross for that.

Other criteria might include, do we know the testimony to be factually incorrect in any way? Was the witness in a position to know? Would they have had access to the room? Did they have any "axe to grind"/anything that might have coloured their statements?

That would then allow you to assess which statements might be worth accepting above others.

If you want to be more sophisticated, you can weight criteria; for instance, you could include specific dated press statements and weight them according to closeness to the event/general reliability of the paper etc.

Just some thoughts.

Phil