The last witness

[Graham]

Hi Sam,

The body in Room 13 Millers Court obviously wasn't a suicide, so your argument makes me wonder why Macdonald bothered with Dr. Phillips at all.

The inquest was a travesty.

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

Off-thread, and silly maybe, but your post reminds me of a cartoon in Playboy or some similar skin-mag. Two detectives are in a restaurant kitchen looking at an enormous mincing-machine and a huge pile of bloody minced meat. An arm is sticking out of the top of the machine, and the hand is grasping the handle. The one detective says to the other, "Most determined case of suicide I've ever seen!"

Graham

[perrymason]

Side note...Of course nothing like the flesh fest in Millers Court, suicide can be committed by slitting ones own throat. That possibility would have to be ruled out before Liz could be attributed a cause of death.

My take on this last witness thing is simply that the records show that Mary Ann Cox is the witness of record for Mary Janes last sighting, and Blotchy Man was the last man seen in her company.

So whomever really wants to solve this murder better start looking at anything accepted that happened after 11:45pm on Nov 8th, when Mary goes indoors for the last time...on record.

Cheers all.

[Supe]

Michael,

There is much that stinks about Millers Court and the farcical 1 day Inquest, but I think also with Caroline and George.

Now Caroline Morris and Chris George can be argumentative at times, but to suggest they "stink" is going a bit far in my opinion.

Ooh . . . never mind.

Don.

[Sam Flynn]

So whomever really wants to solve this murder better start looking at anything accepted that happened after 11:45pm on Nov 8th, when Mary goes indoors for the last time...on record.

That's not the case, Mike, because Hutchinson claims he saw her going indoors just after 2 AM, and his statement is on record too. As is Caroline Maxwell's. I see no a priori reason why one should deem Mrs Cox's evidence to be more "accepted" than any of the other witnesses.

Anyone who really wants to solve this murder needs to take account of ALL the evidence. Changing the parameters in the direction one would like them to take is just not cricket.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I agree Sam, Hutchinson and Maxwell are two vital witnesses that arrived after Coxs sighting, the latters account is dodgy to say the least.
She claimed to have followed Mary and Blotchy into the court in her statement, yet apparently informed her neice later in life, that she was waiting at her door in millers court for her husband to arrive home from the pub, and she heard Kelly say 'All right my luv dont pull me along' which indicates that Botchy was leading the way through the narrow passage, which sounds right, however when the couple reached the door to room 13, Blotchy[ in neices version] had turned into a 'Fine gentleman' wearing a tall hat, but not silk...
So what is the truth , if any?
Did she follow the couple along Dorset street into the court, and the man was a shabby dressed blotchy faced man, or was she standing at her door awaiting her husband to return, and observed a 'Fine Gentleman'.?
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

I wouldn't pay any attention to that alleged account by Mrs. Cox's niece. It's second-hand after-the-event hearsay of the worst type, and clearly contradicted Cox's original inquest evidence and police report.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
You feel that it would be unwise to put any faith in the account of the sighting described by Coxs niece, calling it just second hand, and proberly worthless as a likely happening.
When it comes to trying to decipher fact from fiction with regard to witnesses accounts made during that Autumn of Terror, I tend to look for little snippits of credibility in accounts.
For Exsample.
The alleged meeting with Mjk by Prater at the court entrance at 9pm on the 8th iI would give marks of truth, because of two remarks made'She had her coat and bonnet on, I do not own any' and 'She said 'Goodnight my pretty, the name she always called me'
Both those quotes have a ring of truth of a sighting.
Another Exsample.
I was standing at my door waiting for my hubby to come home from the pub, when Mary came down the passage saying 'All right Luv dont pull me along'
He was a real toff, tall hat but not silk'
Again a ring of truth.
Another Exsample.
'She said 'Ive lost my hankerchef' he handed her one, a red one, and gave him a kiss.
That remark obviously comes from Gh, also the description of kelly being accosted by Astracan, and the laughter shared, and the walk back with hand placed on marys shoulder. all has the hallmarks of truth,
And a final exsample.
Caroline Maxwell.
'She said[Kelly] 'I have the horrors of drink' as I have been drinking for some days past, also the pointing to vomit close by.
Also if one takers the wording'Her eyes looked queer, as if she was suffering from a heavy cold' and put that in relation with I have lost my hankerchef', we have a line of form from two different witnesses which could fit nicely with Kellys hangover look.
I hope this makes sense, it is simply the way I attempt to analyse 'Fact from possible fiction'.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Unfortunately, a "ring of truth" is meaningless if the source is dubious or non-existent. For example, where does "Goodnight my pretty" come from, if not from any inquest evidence, police report or even press report? It's not a contemporary source and far from having a ring of truth, it has all the hallmarks of obvious fiction and embellishment. Don't be tempted to think that lots of seemingly trivial or peripheral detail makes the account more plausible. It doesn't. It makes it worse. The image of a "real toff" in a top hat being reprimanded by Kelly for pulling her along is classic "Gladstone bag" syndrome of the order that panders to popular ripper myth. It's like claiming to have seen a monster in Loch Ness with a long neck, three humps and a tartan scarf.

The "lost my handkerchief" account at least derived from a documented primary source, but in that case, the physical conditions simply didn't facillitate the witness' claims. Bear in mind that a "ring of truth" is a deeply subjective entity and a matter for personal interpretation. In this case, for example, I see less rings of truth and more indications of borrowing from earlier witness sightings to make the current one appear more plausible. Your mileage may vary, and probably does.

All the best,
Ben

[perrymason]

That's not the case, Mike, because Hutchinson claims he saw her going indoors just after 2 AM, and his statement is on record too. As is Caroline Maxwell's. I see no a priori reason why one should deem Mrs Cox's evidence to be more "accepted" than any of the other witnesses.

Anyone who really wants to solve this murder needs to take account of ALL the evidence. Changing the parameters in the direction one would like them to take is just not cricket.

Hi Sam,

George Hutchinsons account is on record, its on record as of the 13th... and it was abandoned before Nov 16th. Caroline Maxwells account of record, at Inquest, was not seriously considered from the outset, she was warned about even giving it, as it disagreed with the estimated Time of Death by the senior medical man of these cases, and it suggests a time of death that is in variance with the condition of her corpse.

We also have witnesses that claim they saw men on the grassy knoll behind a fence in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and smoke rising from there when gunshots were heard. Do those accounts also still get to be factored in that case? Seems to me those claims had little impact on the investigations conclusions.

So should George's and Caroline's, when determining what actually occurred involving Mary Kelly after 11:45pm on Nov 8th, 1888. George say he saw Mary Kelly enter again with a man at a time when Mary Ann Cox is still trying to make money. When she comes in around 3am, the courtyard is still dark and quiet, as it had been since before 1:30am. Caroline Maxwell said she spoke with a woman she believed was Mary Kelly, at a time when Bond's finding say her corpse was in room 13.

I dont suggest ignoring the accepted evidence though. Which came from Mary Ann Cox, on Marys arrival home and her companion....and Mrs Praters and Sarah Lewis's statements, hearing a cry out of "oh-murder" at approximately the same hour, ...and Barnett, McCarthy and Bowyer, when they id'd the body.

Might be a wise choice not extending a superior level of credibility to two individuals that we do not know even knew Mary Jane, let alone saw her that night, or the following morning...when we do have people who lived in her courtyard, and had slept in her bed.
Despite the many opinions to the contrary, it is not possible to make a silk purse from a sows ear.

Best regards