The wrong door.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Have not started a thread for ages, so here goes.
Mrs Prater, claimed to have seen Mary Kelly, at 9.pm on the 8th, she came down the passage, dressed in Jacket , and bonnet.
They exchanged a few words, and both went in opposite directions with the words ''See what tonight brings'' [ or words to that effect].
We know that Kelly was reported never to wear a hat, but as Mrs Harvey's bonnet was left with Kelly that evening, it would give reliability to Praters observation.
At 130 am Friday morning , Mrs Prater returns to Millers court, she exchanges words with McCarthy, and informs him she was waiting for ''her young man'' to turn up, but she was going up to her room.
At 9.pm she appeared to be on the lookout for a earner, therefore it would suggest, that she had struck lucky, but for some reason he did not accompany her back to the court.?
I have great reservations about the reliability of Mrs Cox. we have her following Kelly into the court, with a blotchy faced man, we have then an account years later, which was completely different, she was then standing at her door. and the man had turned into a ''fine looking gentleman'', she also described Kelly wearing different clothing at 1145.pm then she wore out less then three hours before.
It is a pity we never had a description of what Kelly was wearing when seen by Hutchinson, also if we disregard Cox's account, she may not have returned home at all, by the time she encountered Hutchinson[ who I believe].
I believe the following could have happened.
Kelly had managed to get a few drinks,and had become tipsy, she may even have had a client /or two, but still needed money, she encounters Hutchinson, and Mr A, and accompanies him back to Millers court , enters the room , and has a transaction. whilst Hutchinson waits across the road.
Hutchinson moves away , after some forty five minutes, and some time after so does Mr A.
McCarthy's shop closes up, and around 3.45 am , the man that Mrs Prater had seen earlier in the evening, arrives at the court, hoping to gain entry to her room, when all was quiet.
She had informed him . her room was through the door in the passage, he enters the first door, and soon realises, that this was not so, so carries on , and finds Kelly's door, and finds it unlocked, he enters, surprises Kelly. and she utters ''Oh Murder''. and although he soon realises it is the wrong person..it was a pleasant bonus..
A completely different scenario, but ticks a lot of boxes..
Regards Richard.

[Abby Normal]

Hi,
Have not started a thread for ages, so here goes.
Mrs Prater, claimed to have seen Mary Kelly, at 9.pm on the 8th, she came down the passage, dressed in Jacket , and bonnet.
They exchanged a few words, and both went in opposite directions with the words ''See what tonight brings'' [ or words to that effect].
We know that Kelly was reported never to wear a hat, but as Mrs Harvey's bonnet was left with Kelly that evening, it would give reliability to Praters observation.
At 130 am Friday morning , Mrs Prater returns to Millers court, she exchanges words with McCarthy, and informs him she was waiting for ''her young man'' to turn up, but she was going up to her room.
At 9.pm she appeared to be on the lookout for a earner, therefore it would suggest, that she had struck lucky, but for some reason he did not accompany her back to the court.?
I have great reservations about the reliability of Mrs Cox. we have her following Kelly into the court, with a blotchy faced man, we have then an account years later, which was completely different, she was then standing at her door. and the man had turned into a ''fine looking gentleman'', she also described Kelly wearing different clothing at 1145.pm then she wore out less then three hours before.
It is a pity we never had a description of what Kelly was wearing when seen by Hutchinson, also if we disregard Cox's account, she may not have returned home at all, by the time she encountered Hutchinson[ who I believe].
I believe the following could have happened.
Kelly had managed to get a few drinks,and had become tipsy, she may even have had a client /or two, but still needed money, she encounters Hutchinson, and Mr A, and accompanies him back to Millers court , enters the room , and has a transaction. whilst Hutchinson waits across the road.
Hutchinson moves away , after some forty five minutes, and some time after so does Mr A.
McCarthy's shop closes up, and around 3.45 am , the man that Mrs Prater had seen earlier in the evening, arrives at the court, hoping to gain entry to her room, when all was quiet.
She had informed him . her room was through the door in the passage, he enters the first door, and soon realises, that this was not so, so carries on , and finds Kelly's door, and finds it unlocked, he enters, surprises Kelly. and she utters ''Oh Murder''. and although he soon realises it is the wrong person..it was a pleasant bonus..
A completely different scenario, but ticks a lot of boxes..
Regards Richard.

so the man prater was waiting for is mary kellys murderer?

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
I am suggesting that was a possibility .
Obviously one has to cast aside the singing allegedly heard as untrue,although it would still be possible for Cox to have been telling the truth, and Blotchy existed.
The wrong door is still a option.
Regards Richard.

[Pierre]

Mrs Prater, claimed to have seen Mary Kelly, at 9.pm on the 8th, she came down the passage, dressed in Jacket , and bonnet.
They exchanged a few words, and both went in opposite directions with the words ''See what tonight brings'' [ or words to that effect].

You have got this wrong. What is your source? According to the earliest sources, the witness statements that the police took from the witnesses on the 9th, Prater says nothing about speaking to Kelly and nothing about her clothes.

Same thing at the inquest. According to the inquest papers, Mrs Prater said nothing about speaking to Kelly and nothing about her clothes.

We know that Kelly was reported never to wear a hat, but as Mrs Harvey's bonnet was left with Kelly that evening, it would give reliability to Praters observation.

According to the same two primary sources Prater did not do such an observation.

At 130 am Friday morning , Mrs Prater returns to Millers court, she exchanges words with McCarthy, and informs him she was waiting for ''her young man'' to turn up, but she was going up to her room.

According to the witness statements from the 9th that the police took, she spoke for a short time to McCarthy but did not state anything about speaking to McCarthy about a man.

In the inquest papers she says she spoke to no one. She adds in these papers that she was waiting for a man she "lived with".

At 9.pm she appeared to be on the lookout for a earner, therefore it would suggest, that she had struck lucky, but for some reason he did not accompany her back to the court.?

What is your source? Prater only mentioned she went out about 9 p.m. (source from the 9th) or about 5 (inquest) and said nothing about what happened.

I have great reservations about the reliability of Mrs Cox. we have her following Kelly into the court, with a blotchy faced man,

Why do you have great reservations about this? This statement was made by Cox both in the source from the 9th and in the inquest source. This gives us a higher reliability.

we have then an account years later, which was completely different, she was then standing at her door. and the man had turned into a ''fine looking gentleman'', she also described Kelly wearing different clothing at 1145.pm then she wore out less then three hours before.

That is an unreliable source.

It is a pity we never had a description of what Kelly was wearing when seen by Hutchinson,

We probably do have it. Hutchinson stated at the inquest that he saw Kelly at 02.00. Cox stated she saw Kelly a quarter to twelve the same night (statement made closer in time, on the 9th, and therefore more reliable).

Kelly was wearing a linsey frock, red knitted crossover around shoulders, had no hat or bonnet on.

also if we disregard Cox's account, she may not have returned home at all, by the time she encountered Hutchinson[ who I believe].

We don´t want to disregard two congruent primary sources.

I believe the following could have happened.
Kelly had managed to get a few drinks,and had become tipsy, she may even have had a client /or two, but still needed money, she encounters Hutchinson, and Mr A, and accompanies him back to Millers court , enters the room , and has a transaction. whilst Hutchinson waits across the road.
Hutchinson moves away , after some forty five minutes, and some time after so does Mr A.
McCarthy's shop closes up, and around 3.45 am ,

the man that Mrs Prater had seen earlier in the evening, arrives at the court, hoping to gain entry to her room, when all was quiet.

What man?

She had informed him . her room was through the door in the passage, he enters the first door, and soon realises, that this was not so, so carries on , and finds Kelly's door, and finds it unlocked, he enters, surprises Kelly. and she utters ''Oh Murder''. and although he soon realises it is the wrong person..it was a pleasant bonus..
A completely different scenario, but ticks a lot of boxes..

I am afraid it doesn´t tick any boxes. Sorry, but thanks for the ideas.

Kind regards, Pierre

[packers stem]

Richard is correct about Prater mentioning the 9pm conversation.
The Star on the 10th

[Rosella]

Mrs Prater said a lot of things. She appears to have given interviews to several newspapers including The Irish Times, to which she said that Mary was looking forward to the Lord Mayors Show.

There are certainly things that don't add up, I agree. If Mrs Prater was waiting for her young man and he was living with her why did she barricade the door when she later went to sleep? Surely that would guarantee a row when her defacto did come home and wanted to get in?

If the 'young man' was a client why would he be shy about going to Prater's room? Unless he was perhaps very young, I can't imagine the sort of men these poor women had as clients being too bashful.

I similarly have problems with Mary going to sleep in her room when alone without at least locking her door. If men were roaming about the court in the early hours of the morning (as we know Bowyer was in the habit of doing) then that's the least she could have done.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
What I have suggested is pure speculation, like nearly all theories, but the fact that there were two doors in close proximity, as you entered the passage, could have been confusing.
I am right about the jacket , and bonnet observation by Prater, and these two items were found in the grate.
I am also right in Mrs P having a conversation with McCarthy, in which she states, she was waiting for her young man, but he has not showed, so I am going up.
The fact that both her and Kelly were out trying their luck, suggests that P was not in a permanent relationship.
The very fact that Mrs P, speaks to Kelly at 9pm, on the 8th, and observes her wearing a jacket and bonnet, two items found burnt the following day, suggests accuracy, especially as she could not have been mistaken on day, as Mrs Harvey left her bonnet with Kelly on the Thursday.
If that is accurate, then we have to explain,how Mrs Cox happened to see Mary at 1145 pm, wearing completely different clothing.?.
What I am suggesting is regardless of contrasting statements, we have Mrs P expecting her ''Young man'' to join her, which at 130 am, had not happened.
Why is it not possible, that when all was quite in Millers court, person /persons unknown, entered the passage, and if had not been acquainted with the area, entered the wrong door , either by entering door one first, and realising that is not what was expected, or going straight into Mary's room, and striking lucky.?
Regards Richard.

[Rosella]

Hi Richard,
He could indeed have 'struck lucky' as you say. However that presupposes that Mary, after Blotchy Face or Astrakhan Man left her, simply rolled over in bed back to sleep and didn't bother about her door being unlocked. I'm not being difficult, but I just simply can't accept a scenario in which a young and attractive woman wouldn't take precautions against strange men breaking into her room, even if she was tipsy.

Mary was young, pretty, living alone without a male, in a slum district where drunkenness was rife, in a Court off one of the worst streets in that slum. She was located in a dark rooming house which had a passageway to Dorset St through which males (young and old, drunk and sober) could and probably did come at all hours of the day and night, not to mention Thomas Bowyer who seemed to keep very late hours in that Court.

Yet, unlike her friend, who barricaded herself in her room (and what does that say about the neighbourhood) Mary cannot even be bothered to get up and lock her door? I'm sorry, I just can't see it!

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rosella.
Just a couple of points.
It was likely that Mary left the door on the latch, she was tipsy, under the weather, and had entertained .
If for instance,Mr A, or Blotchy had left her room, and simply pulled the door to, it would have remained easy to enter, especially if Mary had fallen asleep.
Mrs Cox does not take note how Kelly gained access, but if she followed her in the court, she surely would have seen the window trick,
I suggest that the door was on the latch then, and remained so during the night.?
It is true Mrs Prater was in habit of blocking her door, but with Kelly we appear to have a more carefree character.
Only a day before she had remarked to Mrs McCarthy, ''about the murderer being a concern'', and if Hutchinson is honest, we have her parading the streets at 2.am. and then we have her transporting a well dressed man back to her room.this seems rather careless to me.
Regards Richard.

[Pierre]

Richard is correct about Prater mentioning the 9pm conversation.
The Star on the 10th

Hi,

So you believe that a newspaper from the 10th has more reliability than the witness statements that the police took from the witnesses on the 9th?

What assumption do you base that on?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=richardnunweek;371834]Hi.

What I have suggested is pure speculation, like nearly all theories,

Pure speculation is no good for research about the murders. You could set up a scale of validity where you estimate how speculative different theories and different elements (assumptions and hypotheses) in those theories are.

I think the most speculative elements and theories are the ones that are not at all drawing conclusions from the earliest sources. The later the sources are, the more speculative the elements and theories. And that might be fun if you want to use the sources for you own vivid imagination but the problem is that the results become less and less exciting the more speculative they get, since they will be less reliable and valid. You get closer and closer to what you call "pure speculations" and then we might as well write fairy tales. They may be more intriguing than reality but considering their low reliability and validity they become utterly boring, since they say nothing about what really did occur.

but the fact that there were two doors in close proximity, as you entered the passage, could have been confusing.

I am right about the jacket , and bonnet observation by Prater, and these two items were found in the grate.

From later sources which are not reliable. And there is no evidence for the speculative jacket and bonnet to have been "found in the grate". That may very well have been some other items. But if you want to believe that just because you "feel it is intriguing", so be it.

I am also right in Mrs P having a conversation with McCarthy, in which she states, she was waiting for her young man, but he has not showed, so I am going up.

No, not in the original primary sources. No man is mentioned in these. You can read The Ultimate Ripper Sourcebook (Evans & Skinner). It has the original sources in transcriptions.

The fact that both her and Kelly were out trying their luck, suggests that P was not in a permanent relationship.

Please. A lot of prostitutes had more or less "permanent relationships" in Whitechapel 1888. So it suggests nothing.

The very fact that Mrs P, speaks to Kelly at 9pm, on the 8th,

If you present that assumption you should also present your sources together with reflections on their reliability. Otherwise we can not draw any conclusions from the hypotheses you make.

and observes her wearing a jacket and bonnet, two items found burnt the following day, suggests accuracy, especially as she could not have been mistaken on day, as Mrs Harvey left her bonnet with Kelly on the Thursday.

We know nothing more from Maria Harvey than what is stated on the 9th and at the inquest. It was a black bonnet with black strings. Abberline says nothing about finding that item in the grate. And how do you know that Maria Harvey was married? There is no such indication in the original sources.

If that is accurate, then we have to explain,how Mrs Cox happened to see Mary at 1145 pm, wearing completely different clothing.?.

It is not accurate - and that is why you reflect on the need of finding an explanation to the statements of Cox, which were made both to the police on the 9th (extremely close in time and therefore primary source) and at the inquest (inquest papers in original and therefore of high reliability). So you must decide whether you should "believe" the police papers or the newspapers to be accurate.

What I am suggesting is regardless of contrasting statements,

So you mean that you just ignore the academic and world wide known and accepted rules for source criticism?

we have Mrs P expecting her ''Young man'' to join her, which at 130 am, had not happened.
Why is it not possible, that when all was quite in Millers court, person /persons unknown, entered the passage, and if had not been acquainted with the area, entered the wrong door , either by entering door one first, and realising that is not what was expected, or going straight into Mary's room, and striking lucky.?

Perhaps you could write a novel about it. But do you really want to know what happened in the past?

Kind regards, Pierre

[richardnunweek]

Hi Pierre,
Mrs Prater, would not have to recall every detail of that evening/morning to police, just because the meeting at 9.pm was not recorded in a statement, does not imply untruth.
Correct me if I am wrong, but were you not initially saying to the boards, that we have been interpreting the case wrongly. and if one looks at the case in a different way, we will understand the puzzles..?
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Pierre,
The Times Nov 12th,,remains of velvet, and a bonnet in the grate, which they police believed were burnt because they were bloodstained.?
Kelly often wore a Black velvet jacket.[ my words].
Whilst I appreciate, that reports from newspapers are notoriously unreliable. that is how 99% of us , have learnt the case over the years, those and witness statements.
Regards Richard.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,
Mrs Prater, would not have to recall every detail of that evening/morning to police, just because the meeting at 9.pm was not recorded in a statement, does not imply untruth.
Correct me if I am wrong, but were you not initially saying to the boards, that we have been interpreting the case wrongly. and if one looks at the case in a different way, we will understand the puzzles..?
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

Absence of a statement in a text does NOT imply presence of a statement in the past.

We all need to remember this when we analyse the sources. It will help a lot, since we will then not draw conclusions from nothing.

And if you think that interpreting the case wrongly allows for ANY interpretations, the risk of interpreting the case wrongly again increases.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=richardnunweek;371842]Hi Pierre,

The Times Nov 12th,,remains of velvet, and a bonnet in the grate, which they police believed were burnt because they were bloodstained.?

OK Richard. So why would the Times from the 12th be more reliable than the witness statements from the 9th and the original inquest papers? Please tell me. I really want to know.

Kelly often wore a Black velvet jacket.[ my words].

Oh. You begin to sound like Mrs Maxwell.

Whilst I appreciate, that reports from newspapers are notoriously unreliable. that is how 99% of us , have learnt the case over the years,

I understand.

those and witness statements.

Witness statements are in at least two types of sources: original police sources and/or original inquest sources - and newspaper sources. The first type of sources are the most reliable.

Kind regards, Pierre