The coat at Miller's Court window

[DRoy]

Phil H,

I nominate you to give it a go!

Cheers
DRoy

[Phil H]

Sorry mate, not a priority for me at present. You try it!!

Phil

[Sherlock Holmes]

If it was as you say Eddowes my last question in my last post still remains to be answered why did she walk toward Mitre Sq? Wasn't that in the opposite direction to her house? Was she still drunk when released or was she stone cold sober?

Mr Holmes

[Phil H]

If, as you say, Mr Holmes, you have been studying this case for many years, I am surprised that you are unaware that these points are at the very heart of the Eddowes enigma.

I suggest you read up on the background to Kate's arrest; what she said about Jack; her use of an interesting alias, among other things?

Dis she think she knew Jack and was going to confront him?

Where did she get the money to get so drunk? Where had she been all day?

Why did her partner apparently tell an odd tale after her death?

I think if you use the SEARCH button above you should find the answers easily enough here on Casebook.

Phil

[Edward]

Curtain, blinds, coat ...

Hello All –

I’m wondering. From the perspective of Bowyer and McCarthy outside of the room, they would encounter in turn, a broken window, a curtain (blinds) and then the coat. If one imagines that the curtain is hanging just inside the window, and the coat hanging inside the room on the other side of the curtain.

If each of them reached through the broken window, and moved the curtain aside, they might have not seen the coat due to the curtain covering it. It’s probable that the coat was not as large as the curtain, and probable that it did not cover the entire window. Perhaps when it was pushed aside, the curtain covered (hid) the coat from their view. This could explain why Bowyer and McCarthy did not mention the coat. From their perspective, the coat was not visible.

Edward

[Phil H]

Entirely plausible, Edward. We will prbably never know.

My view is that people, by and large, described accurately what they saw. However, as I have said, circumstances may have been different at different times.

Many old house had a "picture rail" built into the wall at about two/three feet down from the ceiling. This was a shaped horizontal beading which could take picture hooks without damaging the walls. If MJK's room possessed such an original feature, the coat might have been suspended from that, or from the curtain rod of pole (the latter more plausible).

Phil

[DRoy]

Edward,

Very plausible solution.

However, Dew and a reporter from The Times both state the coat was there. Dew said he moved the coat, not a curtain in order to see inside the room. The reporter said the coat was covering the broken window and we can only assume the reporter did not get anywhere near as close to the window as Bowyer and McCarthy.

Phil H,

I'm sorry Phil, I'm still not sold they are just describing what they saw. It can't be that easy. Rags, coat, blinds and a curtain. How can so many people get it wrong? Is it easier to believe that a couple of these witness statements may be correct and the rest of them wrong or is it easier to believe that what was covering the window changed between the first witness statement and the last statement and therefore at least a couple of the witness statements are true?

DRoy

[Phil H]

Rags, coat, blinds and a curtain. How can so many people get it wrong?

They don't have to "get it wrong". They report what they saw, but are referring to different times of day and things changed between times.

So for instance, the coat is there - it is moved, to let in light, to be taken away, to be examined, whatever. Now people can see in. So the broken panes are stuffed with rags. Someone who saw the window at (say) 1.30pm saw and says one things; by 2.30pm thing are seen differently.

Is it easier to believe that a couple of these witness statements may be correct and the rest of them wrong or is it easier to believe that what was covering the window changed between the first witness statement and the last statement and therefore at least a couple of the witness statements are true?

It may be easier, but IMHO (and that of the academic world) it is not good practce nor the proper way to use evidence. Nor is such a rationalisation of inconvenient reports more likely to be true. One cannot dismiss evidence just because it is inconvenient, or we do not fully understand it.

Phil

[Bridewell]

Originally Posted by 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 late

Perhaps he needed to use a pick-axe because the coat was so positioned that it was impossible to access the door latch through the window. If so, that could be the reason for putting the coat where it was in the first place.

[Bridewell]

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.?

The burning of bloodstained clothing doesn't necessarily mean that the bloodstaining was the motive for the burning, surely? Apologies if I have misunderstood your meaning.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Bridewell,
According to a belief the police had[ according to The Times] these pacific items were burned because they were ''bloodstained''.
Reference to only the velvet jacket and bonnet.
Naturally the burning of any clothing would not normally create an impression that they were burnt for a reason bloodstained or not, but according to the police they were rid of 'because they were bloodstained'.which creates an impression that the killer had good reason for doing so.
I made suggestions to why he/she would have had reason in a previous post.
why would a killer who created much blood in despatching his victims be concerned about a soiled jacket and bonnet....and how did these items get bloodied?.
Regards Richard.

[Bridewell]

Apologies, Richard. I've just re-read your earlier post and understand what you're driving at. Interesting.

[DRoy]

Phil H,

They don't have to "get it wrong". They report what they saw, but are referring to different times of day and things changed between times.

We know at least the rough times...Cox commenting on the blinds which was around 11:45pm on Nov 8 and whenever Dew arrived (apparently shortly after 11:00 am on Friday morning Nov 9 commenting on the coat. Yes Phil, some got it wrong for sure. Between Cox's sighting and when her body was found we can be pretty sure about a couple things...there were no blinds a/o no rags plugging the window.

Bowyer said he lifted up the curtain. He surely should have known if there was a coat there as well or if what he lifted up was a jacket, not a curtain. Dew said the coat was used to block the cold air and he had to push it aside to see in the room.

If we accept Dew's and the reporter's story that the coat was indeed hanging in the window then it could mean it was hung after Bowyer and McCarthy looked through the window. Yes Phil things change as you note, however if it changed within this time then it is not as nonchalant a change as you make it sound.

DRoy:

Is it easier to believe that a couple of these witness statements may be correct and the rest of them wrong or is it easier to believe that what was covering the window changed between the first witness statement and the last statement and therefore at least a couple of the witness statements are true?

Phil H:

It may be easier, but IMHO (and that of the academic world) it is not good practce nor the proper way to use evidence. Nor is such a rationalisation of inconvenient reports more likely to be true. One cannot dismiss evidence just because it is inconvenient, or we do not fully understand it.

Sorry Phil, wrong choice of words on my part; I did not mean "easier" in the literal sense. I'm not sure what you mean by inconvenient reports? I haven't ignored reports, nor have I supported some reports over others. I'm relying on three witness statements given at the inquest and Dew's comments which was supported by a reporter.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Bridewell,

Perhaps he needed to use a pick-axe because the coat was so positioned that it was impossible to access the door latch through the window. If so, that could be the reason for putting the coat where it was in the first place.

Interesting idea! Since the coat was left by Harvey on Nov 8th evening, I'm not sure that MJK or whomever could have "rigged" something like that together so quickly. Then this theory would have to also involve the key conspiracy as well.

Cheers
DRoy

[Bridewell]

Bridewell,

Interesting idea! Since the coat was left by Harvey on Nov 8th evening, I'm not sure that MJK or whomever could have "rigged" something like that together so quickly. Then this theory would have to also involve the key conspiracy as well.

Cheers
DRoy

DRoy,

I'm not sure why. If the killer knew that the only way of opening the door was by reaching through the broken window pane, he would know that making such an action impossible would, effectively, lock the door. No need to be part of any conspiracy; just needs to know that the key is missing - something MJK could easily have told him herself.