The coat at Miller's Court window

[DRoy]

Bridewell,

I think I misinterpreted your previous post. So you're saying the killer set the coat up that way? Very plausible! I reiterate my interesting idea comment.

I'm not sure how Bowyer & McCarthy could miss the coat though.

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

The coat covered one of the breaks in the window, and this was November In London we are talking about here, so no need to figure this coat has some mysterious origins...hung to ensure room warmth would be sufficient.

Best regards

[DRoy]

Michael,

Have you read the entire thread or just the last few posts? Perhaps you can enlighten everyone and answer some of the points brought up through the entire thread?

There is no proof as to the time when the coat was hung. Do you have proof somewhere? The coat was only in the room one night, the night of the murder so what did MJK use to keep the London cold out from say September up to Nov 8th or did she just freeze? Can you please also confirm why there is a difference in everyone's testimony as to what was covering the window? Can you please explain why you accept the coat was hung presumably by MJK instead of reasons suggested here such as it was hung by the photographer to help with the lighting in the room or the killer hung it to stop anyone from opening the door, etc? What evidence do you have that nobody else does?

Thanks
DRoy

[Bridewell]

Bridewell,

I think I misinterpreted your previous post. So you're saying the killer set the coat up that way? Very plausible! I reiterate my interesting idea comment.

I'm not sure how Bowyer & McCarthy could miss the coat though.

Cheers
DRoy

Thanks DRoy, but I'm not saying the killer did set the coat up that way, only that it's a possibility which should perhaps be considered. I postulated it as a possible explanation for McCarthy fetching a pick-axe to the door when there was, ostensibly, no need to to so.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael,

Have you read the entire thread or just the last few posts? Perhaps you can enlighten everyone and answer some of the points brought up through the entire thread?

There is no proof as to the time when the coat was hung. Do you have proof somewhere? The coat was only in the room one night, the night of the murder so what did MJK use to keep the London cold out from say September up to Nov 8th or did she just freeze? Can you please also confirm why there is a difference in everyone's testimony as to what was covering the window? Can you please explain why you accept the coat was hung presumably by MJK instead of reasons suggested here such as it was hung by the photographer to help with the lighting in the room or the killer hung it to stop anyone from opening the door, etc? What evidence do you have that nobody else does?

Thanks
DRoy

Hi DRoy,

Here is an excerpt from the Daily News on November 12th, 1888...

"The clue on which the police on the first discovery of the crime founded their strongest hopes of discovering the criminal - the finding of a pilot coat in the victim's room - seems to have utterly broken down, as it is now pretty certain that the garment in question was the woman's own property, or at any rate left in her charge by one of her many acquaintances."

Regarding Maria Harvey,... we have the items she left in that room..." She left an overcoat, two dirty cotton shirts, a boy's shirt, a girl's white petticoat and a black crepe bonnet in the room".

In addition to the pilot coat there were muslin curtains covering that window, the ones that Bowyer brushed aside to look into the room.

Now if youd read Jons post, #8 on the thread, you will see that Maria Harvey all but claims the coat....."I left with her 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.

[Coroner] Have you seen any of these articles since? - Yes; I saw the black overcoat in a room in the court on Friday afternoon."

Maria stated she saw the overcoat that she had left with Mary in that room. She did not say that she hung it by the window, however. That part is a simple matter of deduction...if Maria left it with Mary, then Mary hung it by the window.

As to what they used before that coat to stem the cool air, thats something I wouldnt speculate about because we really have no idea what went on in that room before November 8th. Perhaps Barnett used to put his own coat there until he left at the end of October....but thats speculation of course.

Many, many of the questions addressed in these threads can be answered using the existing data and common sense DRoy.

Best regards

[DRoy]

Michael,

I know what the papers say about the coat; I know what Harvey said; I know what was stated at the inquest; I know what Dew said. The problem is they don't match.

To be honest, I didn't quote your entire post because I have no idea what you're attempting to point out when you quote the Daily News, Harvey & the inquest. All any of that does is prove she left a coat in MJK's room and that it was found in the very same room the next morning.

Maria stated she saw the overcoat that she had left with Mary in that room. She did not say that she hung it by the window, however. That part is a simple matter of deduction...if Maria left it with Mary, then Mary hung it by the window.

No proof Mary hung it there. Could have been anyone that visited her room after Harvey and up to Dew's mention of it the next morning.

As to what they used before that coat to stem the cool air, thats something I wouldnt speculate about because we really have no idea what went on in that room before November 8th. Perhaps Barnett used to put his own coat there until he left at the end of October....but thats speculation of course.

My point was that you're already speculating that the coat was hung for the purpose of keeping out the cold.

Many, many of the questions addressed in these threads can be answered using the existing data and common sense DRoy.

True. However, I've yet to find existing data that answers my questions and common sense tells me that something isn't right when nobody seems to tell the same version.

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

Michael,

To be honest, I didn't quote your entire post because I have no idea what you're attempting to point out when you quote the Daily News, Harvey & the inquest. All any of that does is prove she left a coat in MJK's room and that it was found in the very same room the next morning.

Cheers
DRoy

Hi DRoy,

What I was attempting to do was address the comments you were making in post #5 and demonstrate the the coat was Harveys clients and that she stated she later saw the same coat hanging by the window.

Blinds, Muslin or crepe curtains, whether the coat was hung there for warmth or for the same reason most of us would do it, its likely the coat hook was there....roughly, behind the door. I believe there is case being made for some mysterious reason for the conflicts...its witnesses...they have a tendency to describe things differently.

We do not have the police inventory of everything found in the room, but we do know that the coat and the washed clothing found there was Maria's.

Best regards,

[DRoy]

Michael,

I've agreed witnesses sometimes are mistaken a/o forget. In this case I don't think anyone forgot since Bowyer and McCarthy both started giving statements to the press immediately. Cox's story was being shared by McCarthy very quickly as well. Dew obviously didn't share his story for a long time since he wasn't allowed to speak to the press. The coat covering the broken window seems to first be mentioned in the Sunday times on Nov 11 by a reporter.

Using available reports and common sense as you've recommended, are you saying that you believe one newspaper reporter because Dew seems to back the reporter up 50 years later? That has more weight than Bowyer, McCarthy and Harvey even though they were important enough to testify at the inquest?

I can understand Cox being mistaken about it being blinds and not a curtain. That makes sense.

I can understand if rags were used to cover the hole in the window as reported by some papers...but I think it makes more sense that it may have been so previously but not on the morning of the murder.

The Sunday Times article was not written by the reporter that comments about the coat so it's a second hand story. I believe it makes more sense that the writer of the story got two things confused...that of the broken window and the coat being found in the room which was still an important clue as far as the press knew. While Dew backs up the coat hanging in the window, I would say it makes more sense that he either used the Sunday Times report as a reference since he couldn't remember anymore or he just misremembered.

This of course is just my opinion. In using the available reports and what I consider to be common sense, I can't help but think either the coat wasn't in the window when Bowyer first looked in but was when Dew arrived 15 minutes later...or the coat was never covering the window but was in the room.

Cheers
DRoy

[Phil H]

I can't help but think either the coat wasn't in the window when Bowyer first looked in

Well, it might have been, or something else might have been taken to be the coat. Can we be certain of such fine points?

but was when Dew arrived 15 minutes later...

Well, unless you are putting Dew's arrival after room was entered, what is your contention here - that after Bowyer discovered the body someone entered the room? Or that someone, in the room but unseen when Bowyer looked in, left (having moved the coat)?

or the coat was never covering the window but was in the room.

Is there any doubt that the coat was in the room? I have addressed several possibilities to explain it being moved. I doubt anyone on the day saw it as so central to their investigations that it could not be moved. Hanging it from the curtain rail may have been the simplest means of getting it out of their way and as i have said it may also have been moved at the photographer's behest.

I think we need to be very careful about getting bogged down in detailed speculation about something we can never be certain of.

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Correct me if I am wrong, but did not Mrs Harvey say..''I saw it in a room'' which does not suggest that[ as a fact] she saw it in Kelly's room, she would not have been allowed in room 13 , whilst the police were there, during the investigation.
Was the coat taken out of the room by the police, and she viewed it elsewhere?
I am not certain that Dew was ever at the scene, his version of the events do not fit the reports.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Was the coat taken out of the room by the police, and she viewed it elsewhere?

Thats a good point Richard, to let the doctors get on with their task, the police may have removed any portable evidence to another room in the court to be identified by witnesses.
Those pre-inquest statements that we are familiar with must have been written in Millers Court (not in Kellys room). The interviewing (until 5:30 pm) must have taken place in another room.

I am not certain that Dew was ever at the scene, his version of the events do not fit the reports.
Regards Richard.

You may notice that we are told Inspector Beck returned with McCarthy & Bowyer, but that on arrival, he:
"....sent for the doctor, he gave orders to prevent any persons leaving the court, and he directed officers to make a search."

Apparently several officers must have accompanied Insp. Beck to Millers Court. One of them could have been Dew.

.

[DRoy]

Well, it might have been, or something else might have been taken to be the coat. Can we be certain of such fine points?

Not certain Phil, that's why I'm here discussing it. Trying to find answers.

Well, unless you are putting Dew's arrival after room was entered, what is your contention here - that after Bowyer discovered the body someone entered the room? Or that someone, in the room but unseen when Bowyer looked in, left (having moved the coat)?

Could be either of those

Is there any doubt that the coat was in the room? I have addressed several possibilities to explain it being moved. I doubt anyone on the day saw it as so central to their investigations that it could not be moved. Hanging it from the curtain rail may have been the simplest means of getting it out of their way and as i have said it may also have been moved at the photographer's behest.

I don't think anyone is disputing the coat was found in the room. The dispute is whether it was found covering the broken window.

I think we need to be very careful about getting bogged down in detailed speculation about something we can never be certain of.

True Phil. However I think we need to be careful about just accepting certain evidence and certain versions of events.

DRoy

[DRoy]

Richard & Jon,

Maria's comment about the coat being seen in a room not specifically mentioning it was MJK's room has been mentioned a few times earlier in this thread. I would agree that she most likely did not get to enter 13 Miller's Court so most likely did not see the coat there.

Regarding whether Dew was the first officer there or not as he contends or whether he was there at all only makes it more difficult for me to accept the coat covering the window story.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Richard & Jon,

Maria's comment about the coat being seen in a room not specifically mentioning it was MJK's room has been mentioned a few times earlier in this thread. I would agree that she most likely did not get to enter 13 Miller's Court so most likely did not see the coat there.

DRoy.
We notice that Julia Venturney said, "I knew the man who I saw down stairs (Joe Barnett) he is called Joe." Her room was on the ground floor. So she was being interviewed in an upstairs room, somewhere.

Regarding whether Dew was the first officer there or not as he contends or whether he was there at all only makes it more difficult for me to accept the coat covering the window story.

His words are probably not the exact truth, but Insp. Beck did say he called Constables from their beat, presumably while on his way from the station to Dorset St.
Whether Dew was one of them, or was making it up (his role), we will never know.

.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

Daily News, 10th November 1888—

Inspector Beck and Sergeant Betham, 31 H, who were in charge of about forty constables who had been held in readiness in anticipation of a possible Socialist disturbance attending the Lord Mayor's Show, at once proceeded to the scene of the murder, running to the house as quickly as they could. By this time the news had spread so rapidly that over a thousand persons were gathered in the street, and these were rapidly cleared away from the court and the side of Dorset street adjoining, while the inspector entered the house [court?].

The forty constables were fortuitous.

Regards,

Simon