John Kelly's Boots

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

When did Catherine Eddowes pawn John Kelly's boots?

It has been suggested that, although the pawn ticket was dated Friday 28th September, the pawning actually took place on Saturday 29th September and the date discrepancy was due to [a] a clerical error or [b] the pawnbroker back-dating the ticket in order to increase his profits.

Let's look at the possibility of a clerical error by Joseph Jones of 31 Church Street, a reputable pawnbroker who was mentioned in The Times for assisting police in the return of stolen property.

Each pawn ticket carried a unique number. Tickets were issued in sequential order, with details of the transaction entered into the pawnbroker's Pledge Book.



Here are the various columns contained in a Pledge Book.



We can fill in a certain amount of information in the Pledge Book about the pawning of Kelly's boots.

For Amount of Loan—2s/6d

For No. of Pledge in the Month—eg. 1072

For Name of Pawner—"Jane Kelly"

For Address of Pawner—"6 Dorset Street, Spitalfields"

For Name of Owner, if other than Pawner—

For Address of Owner, if other than Pawner—

For List of Articles Pawned, as described on Pawn-Ticket—"1 Pair Men's Boots"

On the front of the Pawn Ticket the following information would have appeared—

Pawned with [Joseph Jones,] Pawnbroker,
[31 Church Street, Spitalfields]
this [28th] day of [September 1888]
by [Jane Kelly,] of [6, Dorset Street, Spitalfields,]
for the sum of [two] shillings and [six] pence,
[1 Pair Men's Boots]

Plus the unique ticket number [1072]

The opportunities for clerical errors were few, and the penalties for not properly maintaining the Pledge Book were severe and covered by Statute—35 & 36 Vict., cap. 93, sec. 12.

Now lets look at the possibility of the pawnbroker back-dating the pawn ticket in order to increase his profits.

Here is the back of a Pawn Ticket, showing details of fixed costs, interest rates and various other rules and regulations.



The charge for the pawn ticket itself was a halfpenny, and the maximum permissible interest on 2s/6d for one calendar month was a penny [a halfpenny per two shillings or part of two shillings].

Redemption cost of Kelly's boots at any time within one calendar month—2s/7½d.

From this we can see that it would have taken the pawnbroker over one calendar month to make an extra penny profit from back-dating the ticket one day, and in the 1880s most pawned items of clothing got redeemed within four days.

From the foregoing it's clear to me that the pawning of Kelly's boots took place on Friday, 28th September, which makes nonsense of the story about Eddowes and Kelly only having sixpence and her having to stay in the Mile End Casual Ward. They had 2s/6d [30 pennies], more than enough to pay for their lodgings in Flower and Dean Street [8d].

Also, there is one further flaw in the logic of John Kelly's story—

[Mr. Crawford]—"Is it not the fact that the pawning took place on the Friday night?"

[John Kelly]—"I do not know. It was either Friday night or Saturday morning. I am all muddled up. [The tickets were produced, and were dated the 28th, Friday]."

If on Friday 28th September Eddowes set off at "about three or four in the afternoon" to reach the Mile End Casual Ward, how did she pawn Kelly's boots at Joseph Jones, 31 Church Street, Spitalfields, that same night?

Where did Eddowes spend the night of 28th September with 2s/6d in her pocket?

Regards,

Simon

[perrymason]

Hi Simon,

That was the most thorough look at this pawning process that Ive seen, thanks for that.

Now, in Philip Sugdens book, the following describes the dilema they faced on Friday.....

On Friday they woke up destitute. Kelly managed to earn sixpence "at a job", but this was not enough to buy them a double bed for the night at Cooney's, (single beds were 4d a night, doubles 8d.). " Here Kate", said Kelly, "you take the 4d and Ill go to Mile End. Kate would not hear of it. "No", she replied, "you go and have a bed and I will go to the casual ward". She had her way. That night Kelly stayed at Cooney's, and Kate went to Mile End, where she would have to perform such menial tasks such as picking oakum in return for shelter.

They teamed up again at 8 the next morning, Saturday September 29th, ....Kelly looked ruefully at his new boots. "We'll pop the boots', he announced, "and have a bite to eat anyway". "oh no, dont do that", Kate protested, but this time Kelly insisted he have his own way. Kate took the boots to Jones's shop at 31 Church St, and was paid 2s 6d. After buying tea and sugar they had enough left over for breakfast, and ate it in the kitchen at Cooney's.

Now, that certainly seems to indicate that regardless of what date appeared on the ticket, the boots were actually pawned Saturday morning, and Kates tin containing tea found on her might well be the tea that was purchased with the boots money.

What it doesnt explain is why the date was wrong, how Kate got out of the work required at Mile End to be at Cooney's before 8am, and why when Kelly said they spent virtually every night together, he would wait until Tuesday to be concerned about her whereabouts...after denying he knew she was in jail, something he told the manager at the lodging house Saturday night he was aware of, and knowing that two unfortunates were murdered early Sunday morning.

There is much about Kelly that is questionable, his memory, the true nature of his relationship with Kate.....surely a woman who by his account slept beside him nearly every night and was indoors before 10pm doesnt jive with a known part time prostitute who plies her trade at night outdoors, and his lack of concern for Kates whereabouts despite murders being committed on women yet unidentified,...and there is of course the mystery of kate whereabouts and activities before her arrest Saturday night.

I agree...there is a story that is not known here, but I think the issue of the date of the pawning is just the tip of that iceberg.

Cheers Simon.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Michael,

Philip Sugden's research on Michael Ostrog was nonpareil. I doff my cap. In other areas he did a once-over-lightly and, frankly, accepted too much as gospel.

Here's another reason I don't believe Eddowes spent the night of Friday 28th September at the Mile End Casual Ward.

[Coroner]—"When did you see her next morning [Saturday, 29th]?"

[John Kelly]—"About eight o'clock. I was surprised to see her so early . . ."

[Juryman]—"Is not eight o'clock a very early hour to be discharged from a casual ward?"

[John Kelly]—"I do not know."

[Juryman]—"There is [are?] some tasks - picking oakum - before you can be discharged."

[Charity Commissioners—"Women usually pick two pounds of oakum, or else are employed in washing or scrubbing. The task of work is in no case an excessive one, and may usually be finished early in the afternoon, though the casual frequently dawdles over his work and makes it last on till five or six o'clock].

[John Kelly]—"I know it was very early."

In 1871 The Pauper Inmates Discharge and Regulation Act (34 and 35 Vic., cap. 108) provided that "a casual pauper, who is defined to be a destitute wayfarer or wanderer, applying for relief, should not be entitled to discharge himself before 11 o'clock on the morning following his admission, nor before performing the task of work prescribed for him."

LAW TIMES, 17th November 1883—

"The period which has elapsed since the Casual Poor Act 1882 946 & 46 Vict. c. 36) received the Royal assent is too brief to enable any confident prediction to be made as to its success or failure. The Act was passed for the purpose of amending the provisions of the Pauper Inmates Discharge and Regulations Act of 1871, by repealing sect. 71 of that Act, and enacting the following in lieu thereof—

"A casual pauper shall not be entitled to discharge himself from a casual ward before nine o'clock in the morning of the second day following his admission, nor before he has performed the work prescribed for him in the said Act mentioned . . ."

Had Eddowes gone to the Mile End Casual Ward, the earliest she would have been discharged was nine o'clock on the morning of Sunday 30th September, by which time she would have missed her arrest in Aldgate for drunkenness, her cloistering in Bishopsgate police station and appointment with fate in Mitre Square.

But John Kelly had an excuse to explain her early release—

The Times, 5th October 1888—

"When he [John Kelly] saw her so early on the Saturday morning she told him there had been some bother in the [Mile End] casual ward [which in 1888 had accommodation for 10 women], and that that was why she had been turned out so soon. He did not know the regulations of the casual ward at Mile End, and whether she could discharge herself when she liked."

How timely.

So, we have two extremely unlikely and suspect propositions. One explained Eddowes' reason for sleeping at the Mile End Casual Ward; the other explained her early release.

Eddowes was obviously somewhere else on the night of 28th September 1888.

The worst part about this whole fiasco is that the Coroner, the City Solicitor, the City and Metropolitan Police and the world press had their heads up their bums.

They did not ask one question about John Kelly's unlikely story.

Regards,

Simon

[perrymason]

Hi again Simon,

Well presented my friend, and so it would seem that the only way Kate could have been there Saturday at 8am is if she didnt stay in the casual ward Friday night.

Plus you have Kelly going to market Saturday afternoon....what, barefoot? Does anyone say he had extra shoes or boots at anytime? Why doesnt he address that, or someone else ask him what he wore when the boots were gone...not that is the pivotal point at all, but it might have been interesting to hear him address that one.

Ill say it....Kelly definately lied about some of the facts he swore were truthful. Which ones is the key here....would he seek to cover some of Kates tracks, his own tracks, or is he acting out of self preservation by playing this low key, and so casually that he openly admits he may be in error...like on the boots....and as you say, isnt grilled on those kinds of remarks.

There is a great deal of overlapped timings, incorrect recollections, and very questionable witnesses on Double Event night.

My best to you Simon, as always.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Michael,

Overlapped timings and and incorrect recollections . . .?

You are the undoubted Canadian master of understatement, and too decent a fellow to ever suggest that the Whitechapel Murders were anything other than BS.

I wish the mooted late 1891/early 1892 Royal Commission investigation into the WM had been implemented. Soon after the announcement Abberllne resigned from the Metropolitan Police. I bet he must have been crapping himself.

Regards,

Simon

[perrymason]

You're absolutely right about a Royal Commission, I hadnt known they had even considered one. That would have been remarkable reading, though I wonder if any more value than the Warren Commission when all was said and done....hmmm...the Warren Commission.

I can see the headlines at the conclusion, in The Star...

" Commission declares Ripper Killings did not occur.

" It was announced today that the Royal Commission looking into the horrible stories of bloody murders in Whitechapel during the Fall of 1888, the killer having penned his own nickname of "Jack the Ripper", having taken some 18 months to secure testimony and obtain documentation related to the crimes has concluded today that no such murders have occurred, the sun was indeed shining, and her majesty loves us all".

It would have been nice to have it all wrapped up neatly.

Cheers Simon, bon soir.

[Stephen Thomas]

Excellent work, Simon. The date on the pawn ticket is pretty conclusive. Pawn shop workers wouldn't spend all day writing wrong dates on their tickets. Characters like Kelly (and Joe Barnett) would be loth to be seen as 'living off immoral earnings' which was a serious charge in those days, even in ours. But would it not have been a simple matter to establish that Kate had indeed spent Friday night in Mile End Casual Ward?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

A few details from 1889 about Mile End Casual Ward—




Regards,

Simon

[Jon Guy]

Plus you have Kelly going to market Saturday afternoon....what, barefoot? Does anyone say he had extra shoes or boots at anytime? Why doesnt he address that, or someone else ask him what he wore when the boots were gone...not that is the pivotal point at all, but it might have been interesting to hear him address that one.

Hi Michael

Perhaps he simply didn`t throw his old boots away when he bought the new pair on their return journey to London ?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Eddowes' inquest—

[John Kelly]—" . . . I stood at the door [of the pawn shop] in my bare feet."

Regards,

Simon

[Jon Guy]

Hello Simon

I think the key to the whole muddle was that Kelly was drunk on the Friday when they pawned his boots. He mixes up the days and is incorrect when he says that Eddowes left for Shoe Lane at 16.00.

Perhaps Eddowes did keep the boot money for food and drink on the Saturday, opting to spend as little as possible on a bed. It certainly explains how she could afford to get drunk that Sat afternoon.

Also, both Kelly and Eddowes spent the Thurs evening at Shoe Lane and were free to go the next morning without having to spend the two compulsory nights there ?

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon,

Eddowes' inquest—

[John Kelly]—" . . . I stood at the door [of the pawn shop] in my bare feet."

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon

I was thinking about that and is it possible that he left his old boots at the Lodging house on the Friday ( Eddowes was seen there alone early Friday by Wilkinson whilst Kelly was working- would Kelly go to work with a spare pair of boots hanging around his neck ? Remember, Chapman left her belongings at Crossinghams ) . They then meet up, pawn the boots and Kelly returns to the L.H. barefooted to get his old boots ?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Anything's possible, I suppose, but why go around barefoot if you don't need to?

Also, how could Kelly have been drunk at the time they pawned the boots? He and Eddowes were flat broke.

Regards,

Simon

[Jon Guy]

Hi Simon

Kelly did earn 6d working Friday, maybe more, he must have drunk out of that.

Would he have needed to have given Eddowes 2d to apply for a bed at Shoe Lane ? I thought you worked for your keep and were classed as a pauper.

Barefooted,Kelly would have only walked from Church St down the road to Flower and Dean, and he was drunk.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

These witness statements from the Old Bailey website provide a bit of insight into the business of Joseph Jones, Pawnbroker.

August 1880—
JOSEPH JONES, JUN. I am employed by Joseph Jones, of 31, Church Street, Spitalfields, pawnbroker—I produce a signet ring pledged on the 29th June with me by the prisoner, Richard Wood, of 47, Lansdown Road.

March 1884—
JOSEPH JONES. I am a pawnbroker, of 31, Church Street, Spitalfields—I produce a pair of girl's boots pledged on the 17th January by E. Lea for George Smith, 6, Fore Street.

December 1887—
JOSEPH JONES. I am a pawnbroker, of 31, Church Street, Spitalfields—I produce an overcoat pledged with me on 5th December, at 2 p.m., by Kotcher—he was alone—this (produced) is the ticket. (Pawned for 10s. in the name of Charles Smith, 14, Sun Street.) I made the usual inquiries of him as to whether it was his own property, and he said "Yes," but he was short of money.

November 1888—
JOSEPH JONES. I am a pawnbroker at 31, Church Street, Spitalfields—I produce a shawl pawned with me on 23rd October, it was wrapped in this piece of table-cloth—this is the duplicate—I do not recognise the girl—she gave the name of Ann Seed, 1, vine Court.

February 1889
JOSEPH JONES. I am a pawnbroker, of 31, Church Street, Spitalfields—on 7th January, at 8.15 a.m., the prisoner brought me these boots to pawn, but being odd ones I refused them.

Regards,

Simon