Jack's Escape Route?

[Curious Cat]

Again, in his signed statement, he says "I should say it was 4 or 5 weeks since they slept together at this house. They had been hopping."
So, not 4 or 5 weeks ago, but 4 or 5 weeks since they slept together at 55, Flower and Dean. How does Mr. Wilkinson know they went hopping? All we know of the trip is from the words of John Kelly.

Catherine and John went hopping together every year for 7 years. Wilkinson knew them over all that time and he would have know they usually go hopping around that time of year. He knew them well enough that he says he would have trusted them to pay for their bed later if they didn't have the money on them on the day/night. John stayed at the lodging house on the Saturday night of the murder. The chance of him and Wilkinson having a passing conversation about the poor hopping experience is highly possible.

In the end, the signed statement by Eliza Gold states she last saw them 3 or 4 weeks ago.

Why would Eliza keep the fact she had in fact seen Kate 3 to 4 weeks prior, from her daughter, Annie Phillips. To add to that, why would Annie be looking for her mother the week of her murder when the entire family states they tried to avoid her at all cost.

Daily News
United Kingdom
4 October 1888

"She had two or three children by him. It's rather strange-one of them, the girl that's married, came to me last week and asked me if I had seen anything of her mother. She said it was a very long time since she had seen her; but it was a long time since I had, too, and I told her so. In fact I have not seen her much oftener than once or twice since she has been with Kelly, though we lived so close together. We were not on the best of terms."

Eliza Gold could not write and only signed her statement with a cross mark while in a distressed state. She could have been signing a birthday card for Bob in the office and be none the wiser. The number of weeks was a cause for confusion during her evidence. It was conflated by the juryman then compounded by the coroner.

Eliza wasn't asked about seeing Catherine's daughter and neither did she offer that information at the inquest. As such we can't know what her reasoning was to tell Annie she hadn't seen her mother. Annie is also not asked at the inquest about why she had been in Whitechapel and asked Eliza if she had seen Catherine just a few days before the murder. Again, it means we don't know why she was in the area or why she was asking about Catherine.

[jerryd]

White House - Jack the Ripper Wiki

Thanks for these, Dave. I'm thinking the person named Smith that Eliza was referring to, was in fact the previous lodging house owner of #55, Flower and Dean Street, J. Smith. I always heard it referred to as Cooney's.

[jerryd]

That's just linguistics. When they last slept at the lodging house would always be before they went hop-picking.

The key word is 'ago'. Wilkinson is counting their last time sleeping at the lodging house from the day of the inquest, 4th October. He is estimating 5-6 weeks...

"Mr. Crawford: When was the last time Kelly and the deceased had slept together in your house previous to last week? - The last time the two slept at the lodging-house was five or six weeks ago, beforethey went to the hop-picking. Kelly slept there on Friday and Saturday, but not Kate.

Again, in his signed statement, he says "I should say it was 4 or 5 weeks since they slept together at this house. They had been hopping."
So, not 4 or 5 weeks ago, but 4 or 5 weeks since they slept together at 55, Flower and Dean. How does Mr. Wilkinson know they went hopping? All we know of the trip is from the words of John Kelly.


Eliza Gold initially says she last saw Catherine alive four to five months ago. She meant weeks rather than months but is in a distraught state while giving evidence. She then says she last saw Catherine three or four weeks but she also says she cannot fix the time, leaving room for error. She says she is upset and confused so it would be fair enough if she was unable to think of the timeline exactly. The juryman is the first to point out the mistake of her saying months instead or weeks, but uses the latter timeline of three to four weeks rather than the initial four to five. This is taken up by the coroner when he seeks clarification from Eliza by asking if she meant weeks rather than months. She only says yes in response and immediately started crying. If she was as upset as described than she's likely to have only picked up on the difference between months and weeks rather than the actual numbers.

It's worth pointing out that the press reports of the inquest are mixed and some have Eliza say she last saw Catherine five weeks before with no mention of it being three to four. One has her say she last saw Catherine about a month before, so completely different wording. Overall the reports appear to pan out at her saying she last saw Catherine about five weeks before.

In the end, the signed statement by Eliza Gold states she last saw them 3 or 4 weeks ago.

Why would Eliza keep the fact she had in fact seen Kate 3 to 4 weeks prior, from her daughter, Annie Phillips. To add to that, why would Annie be looking for her mother the week of her murder when the entire family states they tried to avoid her at all cost.

Daily News
United Kingdom
4 October 1888

"She had two or three children by him. It's rather strange-one of them, the girl that's married, came to me last week and asked me if I had seen anything of her mother. She said it was a very long time since she had seen her; but it was a long time since I had, too, and I told her so. In fact I have not seen her much oftener than once or twice since she has been with Kelly, though we lived so close together. We were not on the best of terms."


Like Wilkinson, Eliza Gold is estimating when she last saw Catherine. The common crossover between them is five weeks and counting from the day of the inquest, which for them was the same day. Five weeks back from 4th October is 30th August. Polly Nichols was murdered on 31st August.

There are no unaccounted for weeks. They left Whitechapel to go hop-picking on/or about 30th August, were in Kent for most of September and returned to Whitechapel two days before the murder. They would normally have been out in Kent until a few days into October, but they came back early due to the bad crop and getting little money.

Curious Cat,

I understand and appreciate your position. We have a different interpretation of the evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

On 8/24/88 Polly moves to a lodging house known as the White House at 56 Flower and Dean Street. In this doss-house men are allowed to share a bed with a woman.

The superintendent of the casual ward said that Kate was well known there, but that this was the first time she had been there for a long time. Eddowes explained that she had been hopping in the country but "I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him." The superintendent warned her to be careful he didn't murder her. "Oh, no fear of that." she replied. (There is no corroborative evidence for this story and it should be treated with a great deal of scepticism.)

12:55 AM: Sergeant Byfield instructs PC Hutt to see if any prisoners were fit to be released. Kate was found to be sober. She gives her name as Mary Ann Kelly, and her address as 6 Fashion Street. Kate is released.



Thursday-Friday, September 27-28. Liz continues to lodge at 32 Flower and Dean Street. According to Elizabeth Tanner, the lodging house deputy, she arrived at the house after a quarrel with Kidney. Kidney will deny this.

Catherine Lane - Telegraph Inquest report
[Coroner] Did you speak to her last week?
[CL] On Thursday and Saturday.
[Coroner] At what time did you see her first on Thursday?
[CL] Between ten and eleven o'clock.
[Coroner] Did she explain why she was coming back?
[CL] She said she had had a few words with the man she was living with.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

White House - Jack the Ripper Wiki

[DJA]

So, they were not living in their regular lodgings but with a person named Smith? Who may that be? So, staying with the ill Eliza and this strange lodging with Smith may account for Wilkinsons 5 to 6 weeks, PRIOR to hop-picking, that is unaccounted for?

Cooney's Lodging House - Jack the Ripper Wiki

[DJA]

On 8/24/88 Polly moves to a lodging house known as the White House at 56 Flower and Dean Street. In this doss-house men are allowed to share a bed with a woman.

The superintendent of the casual ward said that Kate was well known there, but that this was the first time she had been there for a long time. Eddowes explained that she had been hopping in the country but "I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him." The superintendent warned her to be careful he didn't murder her. "Oh, no fear of that." she replied. (There is no corroborative evidence for this story and it should be treated with a great deal of scepticism.)

12:55 AM: Sergeant Byfield instructs PC Hutt to see if any prisoners were fit to be released. Kate was found to be sober. She gives her name as Mary Ann Kelly, and her address as 6 Fashion Street. Kate is released.



Thursday-Friday, September 27-28. Liz continues to lodge at 32 Flower and Dean Street. According to Elizabeth Tanner, the lodging house deputy, she arrived at the house after a quarrel with Kidney. Kidney will deny this.

[Curious Cat]

"Mr. Crawford: When was the last time Kelly and the deceased had slept together in your house previous to last week? - The last time the two slept at the lodging-house was five or six weeks ago, before they went to the hop-picking. Kelly slept there on Friday and Saturday, but not Kate.

This statement doesn't say they were hop-picking five or six weeks ago, it states they hadn't slept together at the lodging house for five or six weeks before they went hop-picking. They went hop-picking the week of the murder.

So, they were not living in their regular lodgings but with a person named Smith? Who may that be? So, staying with the ill Eliza and this strange lodging with Smith may account for Wilkinsons 5 to 6 weeks, PRIOR to hop-picking, that is unaccounted for?

That's just linguistics. When they last slept at the lodging house would always be before they went hop-picking.

The key word is 'ago'. Wilkinson is counting their last time sleeping at the lodging house from the day of the inquest, 4th October. He is estimating 5-6 weeks...

"Mr. Crawford: When was the last time Kelly and the deceased had slept together in your house previous to last week? - The last time the two slept at the lodging-house was five or six weeks ago, beforethey went to the hop-picking. Kelly slept there on Friday and Saturday, but not Kate.


Eliza Gold initially says she last saw Catherine alive four to five months ago. She meant weeks rather than months but is in a distraught state while giving evidence. She then says she last saw Catherine three or four weeks but she also says she cannot fix the time, leaving room for error. She says she is upset and confused so it would be fair enough if she was unable to think of the timeline exactly. The juryman is the first to point out the mistake of her saying months instead or weeks, but uses the latter timeline of three to four weeks rather than the initial four to five. This is taken up by the coroner when he seeks clarification from Eliza by asking if she meant weeks rather than months. She only says yes in response and immediately started crying. If she was as upset as described than she's likely to have only picked up on the difference between months and weeks rather than the actual numbers.

It's worth pointing out that the press reports of the inquest are mixed and some have Eliza say she last saw Catherine five weeks before with no mention of it being three to four. One has her say she last saw Catherine about a month before, so completely different wording. Overall the reports appear to pan out at her saying she last saw Catherine about five weeks before.

Like Wilkinson, Eliza Gold is estimating when she last saw Catherine. The common crossover between them is five weeks and counting from the day of the inquest, which for them was the same day. Five weeks back from 4th October is 30th August. Polly Nichols was murdered on 31st August.

There are no unaccounted for weeks. They left Whitechapel to go hop-picking on/or about 30th August, were in Kent for most of September and returned to Whitechapel two days before the murder. They would normally have been out in Kent until a few days into October, but they came back early due to the bad crop and getting little money.

[jerryd]

As far as I've been able to work out from the evidence given by Frederick Wilkinson, the deputy at the lodging house where Catherine and John Kelly stayed, they seem to have left Whitechapel to go hopping either on the day or within a couple of days before Polly Nichols was murdered.

Hi Curious Cat.

I think if you look at ALL the evidence provided at the inquest, in addition to Frederick Wilkinson, you will see a different picture about the hop-picking trip.

In the Times version of the inquest Frederick Wilkinson states:

"Mr. Crawford: When was the last time Kelly and the deceased had slept together in your house previous to last week? - The last time the two slept at the lodging-house was five or six weeks ago, before they went to the hop-picking. Kelly slept there on Friday and Saturday, but not Kate.

This statement doesn't say they were hop-picking five or six weeks ago, it states they hadn't slept together at the lodging house for five or six weeks before they went hop-picking. They went hop-picking the week of the murder.

Here is John Kelly's statement:

"What was the evening you two slept at the lodging-house during that week? - Not one.
[Coroner] Where did you sleep? - On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday we were down at the hop-picking, and came back to London on Thursday."

Kelly goes on to say:

"On Thursday night we both slept in the casual ward. On the Friday I earned 6d at a job, and I said, "Here, Kate, you take 4d and go to the lodging-house and I will go to Mile-end," but she said, "No, you go and have a bed and I will go to the casual ward," and she went. I saw her again on Saturday morning early.
[Coroner] At what time did you quit one another on Friday? - I cannot tell, but I think it would be about three or four in the afternoon.
[Coroner] What did she leave you for? - To go to Mile-end.
[Coroner] What for? - To get a night's shelter in the casual ward.
[Coroner] When did you see her next morning? - About eight o'clock. I was surprised to see her so early. I know there was some tea and sugar found on her body. She bought that out of some boots we pawned at Jones's for 2s 6d. I think it was on Saturday morning that we pawned the boots."

Mr. Crawford: Is it not the fact that the pawning took place on the Friday night? - 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.)

From this testimony it is pretty clear John Kelly states they were hop-picking the early part of the week of the murder and pawned the boots at the end of the week. It is also clear they were hop-picking for only 3 days. Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

So, how do we justify, as Wilkinson stated, that they were not sleeping together at the lodging house together for some weeks prior to hop-picking?

Eliza Gold's testimony from the Times:

"My sister when staying there came to see me when I was very ill. From that time, until I saw her in the mortuary, I have not seen her.
A Juryman pointed out that witness previously said she had not seen her sister for three or four months, whilst later on she spoke of three or four weeks.
The Coroner: You said your sister came to see you when you were ill, and that you had not seen her since. Was that three or four weeks ago?
Mrs. Gold: Yes.
[Coroner] So that your saying three or four months was a mistake? - Yes. I am so upset and confused. Witness commenced to cry again. As she could not write she had to affix her mark to the deposition."

So, 3 to 4 weeks prior to the murder, Kate was taking care of her very ill sister. If she was VERY ill, that may indicate Kate stayed with her for a period of time in Thrawl Street instead of living with John Kelly at nearby Flower and Dean Street. To add to this, the official recorded written statement from Eliza Gold from the inquest states something I have never heard before I read it today.

"I saw deceased with Kelly about 3 or 4 weeks ago. They were on good terms. They were lodging together at 55 Flower and Dean at a person of the name of Smith. I have not seen her since."

So, they were not living in their regular lodgings but with a person named Smith? Who may that be? So, staying with the ill Eliza and this strange lodging with Smith may account for Wilkinsons 5 to 6 weeks, PRIOR to hop-picking, that is unaccounted for?

Hope this makes sense. Apologies for the wall of text.

[JeffHamm]

As far as I've been able to work out from the evidence given by Frederick Wilkinson, the deputy at the lodging house where Catherine and John Kelly stayed, they seem to have left Whitechapel to go hopping either on the day or within a couple of days before Polly Nichols was murdered. However, even if they weren't aware of it in the immediate aftermath they would likely have read about it in newspapers while on the road. Annie Chapman's murder would also have been reported on outside London itself. They seem to have been aware of the situation by the time they returned as they referred to the killer as 'The Knife.' Catherine may have secretly had ideas of who she thought the killer was she didn't share them with John. She was apparently unfazed about going out while the killer was still at large. If she thought she knew the killer she may have given herself a false sense of security, in that despite the previous murders she believed the the killer wouldn't do the same to her.


In regard to the facial disfigurement, what makes me think Catherine may have known her killer is that the previous three victims did not have their faces mutilated in the same way their bodies were (different with Elizabeth Stride, of course, as only her throat was cut). If the killer didn't know Polly or Annie their murders come with a different psychological impact. Catherine has her face severely attacked as an addition to the body mutilations. This could be because there's a shift in the psychological impact as the killer knows the victim on this occasion.

I'm very much, as ever, just thinking out loud.

Hi Curious Cat,

I suppose it is possible, but while it's often easier to go from the known aspects of an identified killer's psychology to their specific behavioural choices, the reverse is rarely as clear; going from their known behaviour to their psychological motivation (although it is that direction that the FBI's behavioural profiling program tries to travel, I'm generally not very impressed with the real world results despite the entertainment value it's portrayal of unerring success provides in movies and TV shows).

As such, I tend to view the systematic increase in the extent of the mutilations reflecting JtR's increased need to utterly destroy his victims rather than any personal connection between him and his victims. Obviously, I could be wrong as it may be as you say, some connection existed between him and Kate, and likewise between him and Mary.

While there are press reports saying that Mary and Annie were friends, even if we view those as accurate, then it would suggest that JtR would have a greater chance of knowing Mary and Annie than Mary and Kate. I've been reading a thread where there were suggestions that many of the victims spent time in a common prison, but so far, the consensus of those looking into those stories seems to be pointing towards it being an "unreliable" story. Perhaps, as I get through that thread, the view will change though.

Anyway, to know the answer to this, we would probably need to have a suspect in mind, one whom we can demonstrate had a connection to Kate and Mary, and work from there to see if there would be any particular reason why that person would have such a strong response to those two victims in particular. Of course, if the suspect has no known connections, it would look more like simple escalation. Basically, which interpretation is favoured will be tailored to the suspect under question, as the evidence itself could be the result of someone with or without a personal connection. At least, that's how I see it.

- Jeff

[caz]

Yes, saying she was going to Bermondsey appears to have been a cover. I think she had other ideas. Which of course raises the question, did Catherine know her killer? The facial mutilations may be a clue. Facial disfigurement tends to be carried out by those known to the victim. Catherine was reported to have said she knew who the killer was.

A lone honey trap plan that went horribly wrong?

Hi CC,

Eddowes was a slight little thing, and I suspect she was reasonably street smart. I simply can't see her trotting off into the darkness of Mitre Square with a man she believed had recently murdered and mutilated at least two other local women, in the forlorn hope of being able to blackmail him and walk away safe and sound.

The fact that she had been away hopping when the scare began may have made her a bit less wary than her 'sisters', who had been living with the killer in their midst, and if the man she hooked up with shortly after leaving the police station looked and behaved nothing like the menacing 'Leather Apron' character she had been hearing about since her return, that would have helped to reassure her. I bet the killer loved the fiendlike image he was given by the newspapers, which only served to make it easier to 'charm' the unsuspecting birds off the main roads, and then to get past anyone who saw him afterwards.

Love,

Caz
X

[Curious Cat]

Hi CC,

I don't think she knew her killer, and even if she did say at some point she thought she did, it is far more likely to be simple bravado or gossip type thing. She was out of town picking hops most of the time after all (I'm not sure when she and Kelly left to go hop picking exactly, so she may have been out of town even at the time of Nichols murder, but I'm not sure). And I'm sure if she actually had thoughts about who it might have been she would have been going to the police and trying to get a reward. There's no indication she ever mentioned any suspicions to Kelly, or mentioned any names to him, etc. Same with the idea that the victims knew each other. Nowhere is there even a hint of that, and while Barnett read the news to Mary about the killings, she never once seems to have expressed any shock or surprise about how a group of people she knows are all being murdered. I'm sure if she had, Barnett would have mentioned this, or someone from the building would have when talking to the press. Any connection between the victims would have been a big story. I think one of the things that made the murders so frightening was the fact there appeared to be no connection between the victims, and as such, anyone could be!

As for the facial mutilations, JtR was a mutilator and as he committed more murders he increased the extent of his mutilations. In this series, I don't think his progression to attacking the faces of his victims indicates any prior relationship between them but rather simply reflects him expanding on the destruction he inflicts upon his victims.

Of course, those are only my opinions, which may not be the same as yours and unless information turns up whose to say which, if either, of us is correct?

- Jeff

As far as I've been able to work out from the evidence given by Frederick Wilkinson, the deputy at the lodging house where Catherine and John Kelly stayed, they seem to have left Whitechapel to go hopping either on the day or within a couple of days before Polly Nichols was murdered. However, even if they weren't aware of it in the immediate aftermath they would likely have read about it in newspapers while on the road. Annie Chapman's murder would also have been reported on outside London itself. They seem to have been aware of the situation by the time they returned as they referred to the killer as 'The Knife.' Catherine may have secretly had ideas of who she thought the killer was she didn't share them with John. She was apparently unfazed about going out while the killer was still at large. If she thought she knew the killer she may have given herself a false sense of security, in that despite the previous murders she believed the the killer wouldn't do the same to her.


In regard to the facial disfigurement, what makes me think Catherine may have known her killer is that the previous three victims did not have their faces mutilated in the same way their bodies were (different with Elizabeth Stride, of course, as only her throat was cut). If the killer didn't know Polly or Annie their murders come with a different psychological impact. Catherine has her face severely attacked as an addition to the body mutilations. This could be because there's a shift in the psychological impact as the killer knows the victim on this occasion.

I'm very much, as ever, just thinking out loud.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff. Would this be a hint? Whether it is believed or not is another story. But it was hinted at.

Echo Nov 9, 1888



Echo Sat, Nov 10, 1888



Also, Debs found some interesting stuff in the following thread regarding the victims knowing each other. Maybe you have seen this, maybe not?

Work among the fallen as seen in the prison cell - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

Wow! I have never seen those news reports, or even heard of them! I stand corrected, clearly those would be hints. While this never comes up in the inquest testimonies, the inquest into Mary was very short (unlike Baxter's inquests), and stayed focused on the cause of death and testimony relating to the time of death. As such, perhaps it is not surprising that such questions never were raised, though it still seems a bit odd that it wasn't mentioned at all.

I guess it comes down to how reliable the press reports are, of course, but at least there is something recorded that suggests that at least Mary and Annie may have known each other. Thanks for that jerryd. I'll have a look at the thread you linked to as well. I've not come across it before.

- Jeff

[jerryd]

Same with the idea that the victims knew each other. Nowhere is there even a hint of that,
- Jeff

Hi Jeff. Would this be a hint? Whether it is believed or not is another story. But it was hinted at.

Echo Nov 9, 1888



Echo Sat, Nov 10, 1888



Also, Debs found some interesting stuff in the following thread regarding the victims knowing each other. Maybe you have seen this, maybe not?

Work among the fallen as seen in the prison cell - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

[JeffHamm]

Yes, saying she was going to Bermondsey appears to have been a cover. I think she had other ideas. Which of course raises the question, did Catherine know her killer? The facial mutilations may be a clue. Facial disfigurement tends to be carried out by those known to the victim. Catherine was reported to have said she knew who the killer was.

A lone honey trap plan that went horribly wrong?

Hi CC,

I don't think she knew her killer, and even if she did say at some point she thought she did, it is far more likely to be simple bravado or gossip type thing. She was out of town picking hops most of the time after all (I'm not sure when she and Kelly left to go hop picking exactly, so she may have been out of town even at the time of Nichols murder, but I'm not sure). And I'm sure if she actually had thoughts about who it might have been she would have been going to the police and trying to get a reward. There's no indication she ever mentioned any suspicions to Kelly, or mentioned any names to him, etc. Same with the idea that the victims knew each other. Nowhere is there even a hint of that, and while Barnett read the news to Mary about the killings, she never once seems to have expressed any shock or surprise about how a group of people she knows are all being murdered. I'm sure if she had, Barnett would have mentioned this, or someone from the building would have when talking to the press. Any connection between the victims would have been a big story. I think one of the things that made the murders so frightening was the fact there appeared to be no connection between the victims, and as such, anyone could be!

As for the facial mutilations, JtR was a mutilator and as he committed more murders he increased the extent of his mutilations. In this series, I don't think his progression to attacking the faces of his victims indicates any prior relationship between them but rather simply reflects him expanding on the destruction he inflicts upon his victims.

Of course, those are only my opinions, which may not be the same as yours and unless information turns up whose to say which, if either, of us is correct?

- Jeff