Is Jack someone we have never heard of?

[Wickerman]

I don't doubt it Jon, but it seems like a serious handicap for a labourer. If I had been interviewing Kelly that would be the first question I'd ask.......hmmm, maybe that's why I never became a journalist.

There's an exchange on this point captured by the Daily Telegraph.

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

Mr. Crawford: She pawned the boots, did she not?
Kelly: Yes; and I stood at the door in my bare feet.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881005.html?printer=true

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Most clocks are 12-hour, dividing the 24 hours of a day into two 12-hour periods.

Ante Meridiem: Before noon

AM = Any time from 12.00 [midnight] to 12.00 [midday]

Post Meridiem: After noon

PM = Any time from 12.00 [Midday] to 12.00 [midnight]

So logically, you could say 11.59 o'clock "Post Meridiem" [in the after noon].

Any normal person would say 11.59 o'clock in the evening, or night.

I am therefore going to pass on your ingenious defense of John Kelly.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

John Kelly himself says that he returned to the lodging house between 7 30 and 8.
The next sentence he says he had heard that Eddiwes had been locked up.

Now. Even if Kelly got the hour wrong..by one hour.. it is impossible that he would have been in possession of the knowledge of Eddowes in time by another person..AND get back to the lodging house between 8.30 and 9.
Ipso facto. It is both Kelly and Wilkinson who are not telling the truth.
All that given the doubtful scenario that both Kelly AND Wilkinson got the time of his return to the lodging house wrong.

But the police failed to spot the error..and didnt check up on it either. Rather disturbingly, no one spotted the mistakes at the inquest either.



Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

The problem is that both Wilkinson and Kelly said things that cannot possibly be true.

Now..that makes the whole scenario suspicious. And sadly, brings into question the work of the police themselves.
Because whoever "told" Kelly about Eddowes not only knew who Eddowes was, but knew whom Kelly was, that they were a couple, and where they were staying.

The most interesting comment from Kelly comes, imho, in two lines after the hearing of the arrest by "two women"..


"I made sure she would be out on Sunday morning".

Now the most obvious question is how on Earth can John Kelly do that? Given that he got "home" an hour before her arrest, and given that Wilkinson stated that he was sure Kelly did not leave the lodging house after said arrival.

Even if he did do that, how could he possibly "make sure" of anything? She was in the custody of the City Police.

You see.. even as her "husband"..would he have the right to come and get Eddowes after 12 midnight..i.e. Sunday.


Whichever way you look at this. It smells.


Phil

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Most clocks are 12-hour, dividing the 24 hours of a day into two 12-hour periods.

Ante Meridiem: Before noon

AM = Any time from 12.00 [midnight] to 12.00 [midday]

Post Meridiem: After noon

PM = Any time from 12.00 [Midday] to 12.00 [midnight]

So logically, you could say 11.59 o'clock "Post Meridiem" [in the after noon].

Any normal person would say 11.59 o'clock in the evening, or night.

I am therefore going to pass on your ingenious defense of John Kelly.

Regards,

Simon

What does 11:59 P.M. have to do with 8:30 in the afternoon?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jon,

I hope I have filled you in on the "hour" you had no memory of? Both the Kelly and Wilkinson statements are extremely dubious, in the least.

According to the Times newspaper of 3rd Oct 1888, John Kelly answered the police questions accordingly thus:-

"Being asked why he had not made enquiries before relative to her absence on Saturday night and since, he replied that he thought she had got into some trouble and had been locked up, and he thought he had better wait".

But this was the man whom..in the written statements of the inquest starting the next day..stated that he had "made sure" she would be out on Sunday morning.

He didn't. Did he.

UNLESS he did it at 1am on the night of the murder.
This, of course, is just speculation.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Very interesting, I need to read about Wilkinson & Kelly again as its a bit confusing. Other than them being the ripper, any other reasons why they would've lied to police?

Thanks,

Dan

Hello Dan,

apologies for the tardy response!

To answer your question, I suppose it would just be speculation on my part. However. I can relay the following to you..

About 6 years ago I was having a long discussion with an old friend about the Kelly/Wilkinson/Eddowes murder/City Police/Met police involvement in the WM series. My friend is an ex detective officer of over 30 years expetience with the Met. During our long chat, he said something which made an awful lot of sense to him..less to me...
"You have to understand Phil..the rules according to the police are not the same as the rest of the country. If possible, if absolute needed, or occasionally by higher order, the law gets bent...twisted or ignored. By the police.Some policemen before around 1984 were a law unto themselves. They were the rogues. However..there were those who were trained to be rogues..in serious operations. Today we know of the term "black ops". They happen often..and nobody hears of them.
What I am trying to say is that without knowing the extent of the Special Branch in 1888, I cannot say with certainty that any sort of operation. .for want of a better term...was in motion at that time or not. However, from what I've read of the origins of Special..or C.I.D. ..I would say it likely.
How you put this all together with the evidence left for the world to see is up to you. But my own view is that I look on the actions of both the Met and City Police, high level, as akin to something in motion. Nearer than that I do not know. One thing is for certain. The police..even today, will go to extraordinary lengths to keep any operation at any time under wraps. For various reasons".

As said..it made sense to him having worked in CID for many years. When he saw things that he knew were "out of order" he learned to say nothing..as asking questions was not encouraged.

Like I said I do not know the answer. But I am sufficiently open in my thinking to see possibilities.. even if it means that the "word" of the police from 1888 be heavily questioned and doubted. Collusion was a practice that was essential in the East End in 1888. The police needed a lot of grasses supplying the info they needed. That in itself is something that gets scant attention in this field. And some will defend the reputation of the police of 1888 to the hilt. Even today.
i call that misguided loyalty. It can obscure truth.


Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

It's simple.

If there was an 7.00, 8.00 and 9.00 pm in the after noon, there must also have been an 11.59 pm in the after noon—Post Meridiem.

But who in their right mind would have described "one minute to midnight" as late afternoon?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

About 6 years ago I was having a long discussion with an old friend about the Kelly/Wilkinson/Eddowes murder/City Police/Met police involvement in the WM series. My friend is an ex detective officer of over 30 years expetience with the Met. During our long chat, he said something which made an awful lot of sense to him..less to me...
"You have to understand Phil..the rules according to the police are not the same as the rest of the country. If possible, if absolute needed, or occasionally by higher order, the law gets bent...twisted or ignored. By the police.Some policemen before around 1984 were a law unto themselves. They were the rogues. However..there were those who were trained to be rogues..in serious operations. Today we know of the term "black ops". They happen often..and nobody hears of them.

While I am sure that chat was very illuminating about the police in the circa 1970s, Phil, what can your friend possibly have known from his own experience about police in the 1880s? Just think about the TV programme Life on Mars (science fiction but based on an obvious truth) where an officer is transported from 2006 to 1973 and finds police work and procedure entirely different. The clue is in the title. "Life On Mars". A different world. A different planet. That's just in a 30+ year period. Now think of a difference of 90 years. Anything your friend told you about policing in the 1970s could just as easily mislead you about policing in the 1880s as assist you could it not?

[Paddy]

I did hear that Henry Cox had to collect a witness for an important case. He took this witness to his own home to stay untill the trial. He took the mans clothes and put them under his matress so that he didn't run off in the night.....
I am sure that would not be allowed today unless on the Luther series?
Times do change. I would think in those days it was needs must...

Pat....

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

It's simple.

If there was an 7.00, 8.00 and 9.00 pm in the after noon, there must also have been an 11.59 pm in the after noon—Post Meridiem.

But who in their right mind would have described "one minute to midnight" as late afternoon?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

The fact that, at the very least, any hour up to 9:31 pm was recognised as "afternoon" (examples provided), is adequately proven. You have seen it in black and white yourself.

The argument concerning John Kelly is limited to the question of whether 8:30 pm could have been addressed in the L.V.P. as "afternoon".
The answer as you have seen yourself is 'yes', and it is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Why you then introduce your own conjecture on what 11:59 pm might be deemed to be, be it afternoon, evening or night, has nothing to do with what has already been proven. Neither does it have any bearing on John Kelly's statement.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

I hope I have filled you in on the "hour" you had no memory of? Both the Kelly and Wilkinson statements are extremely dubious, in the least.

Yes Phil, thanks for the heads-up.

Though I don't see the fault being with John Kelly.
You previously wrote:

Kelly simply must be lying. He cannot have heard of the arrest of Eddowes over an hour before it happened.

The "hour" that you point to in order to incriminate Kelly, did not come from Kelly. All Kelly said was that he heard Kate had been locked up.
It was Wilkinson who suggested 7:30-8:00.

The fault lies with Wilkinson, not Kelly.
John Kelly never provided a time.

According to the Times newspaper of 3rd Oct 1888, John Kelly answered the police questions accordingly thus:-

"Being asked why he had not made enquiries before relative to her absence on Saturday night and since, he replied that he thought she had got into some trouble and had been locked up, and he thought he had better wait".

But this was the man whom..in the written statements of the inquest starting the next day..stated that he had "made sure" she would be out on Sunday morning.

He didn't. Did he.

Wasn't it common knowledge that the City force turned out their drunks at 1:00 am, so long as they were fit to walk?

[Phil Carter]

While I am sure that chat was very illuminating about the police in the circa 1970s, Phil, what can your friend possibly have known from his own experience about police in the 1880s? Just think about the TV programme Life on Mars (science fiction but based on an obvious truth) where an officer is transported from 2006 to 1973 and finds police work and procedure entirely different. The clue is in the title. "Life On Mars". A different world. A different planet. That's just in a 30+ year period. Now think of a difference of 90 years. Anything your friend told you about policing in the 1970s could just as easily mislead you about policing in the 1880s as assist you could it not?

Oh dear...cometh the hour..cometh you.

Why don't you sit back snd cast your beady eyes on the following. .

Robert Anderson was into all subversive crime activity prevention. He blatantly admitted that he and his mob broke the law to achieve their goals. He wasnt the only one. The Walsall bomb plot on I believe 1897 demonstrates the lengths Special Branch and C.I.D. went to.
The police engaged on "utterly unlawful things"..
memo initialled by Anderson 13/12/98. H.O./451025/X36450, sub.77

Sorry David old chap. .you insult the knowledge of a hardened C.I.D. Detective.
Quiet off the board ops have been going on for well over 100 years.

look it up.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Yes Phil, thanks for the heads-up.

Though I don't see the fault being with John Kelly.
You previously wrote:




The fault lies with Wilkinson, not Kelly.
John Kelly never provided a time.



Wasn't it common knowledge that the City force turned out their drunks at 1:00 am, so long as they were fit to walk?

Hello Jon,

They back each other up..and both are in dreadful error.

as to the last line. .that has nothing to do with Kelly "making sure Eddowes was out by "Sunday" you cannot be suggesting that all he did was ask someone when the City mob released their drunks? That is poor interpretation of "making sure" I think

Phil.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

They back each other up..and both are in dreadful error.

as to the last line. .that has nothing to do with Kelly "making sure Eddowes was out by "Sunday" you cannot be suggesting that all he did was ask someone when the City mob released their drunks? That is poor interpretation of "making sure" I think

Phil.

Hi Phil.

It happens to be a reality that people have a different interpretation of what is required to "make sure".
In John Kelly's case, if he asked a fellow lodger who had been in the City lockup for being drunk, and was told when they turned them out, that might be sufficient.
Before radio & tv, people were far more trusting in the opinion of their fellow man.