Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Nor do I.

But I do believe in something known as BS.

John Kelly was full of it.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

If John Kelly was lying I'd be interested in some detail or evidence that suggests this.

If we take Wilkinson's story, albeit he was told by Kelly, but Kelly told him Kate was arrested for being drunk and should be released about 1:00 am.
This is consistent with what he told the inquest. The only difference being the time, and that was provided by Wilkinson not Kelly.
It was a fact that Kate was arrested at 8:30, so unless (as you say) Kelly was clairvoyant he couldn't possibly have told Wilkinson (at 7:30) she had already been arrested.
So the problem is the time given by Wilkinson, not anything said by John Kelly.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
In your post 162 you write,afternoon was often used for evening in Victorian England.In a later post you speak of the normal usage of the description evening.
Whats your point in differencing between the two.What do you believe to be the norm?
The papers at that time always,as far as I can gather,referred to an evening edition.You have also used that term on many occasions.In common victorian usage,what time would that denote.Why didn't they/you say afternoon edition.

Evening was the more recent terminology in the late 19th century. The norm had been Forenoon & Afternoon. This was slowly being replaced by Morning, afternoon & Evening.
Old terminologies often do linger in colloquial speaking.
If you (still?) contest what I said just look for yourself in 19th century newspapers - the BNA website should give you all the instances you need.

Old newspapers & contemporary literature (19th century writers) are a good source for finding how terminology has changed.

[DJA]

Collate the sources Dave, don't separate the sources.
It was the same inquest.

Which collating system are you suggesting?

Alphabetical,numerical or by date

You are effectively putting words in John Kelly's mouth that he did not utter.

All the Best!

[DJA]

Evening was the more recent terminology in the late 19th century. The norm had been Forenoon & Afternoon. This was slowly being replaced by Morning, afternoon & Evening.
Old terminologies often do linger in colloquial speaking.
If you (still?) contest what I said just look for yourself in 19th century newspapers - the BNA website should give you all the instances you need.

Old newspapers & contemporary literature (19th century writers) are a good source for finding how terminology has changed.

Year 5 teacher told us about that

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

John Kelly told too many lies. Let's be generous and call them contradictory stories.

Why are you trying so desperately hard to paint him as trustworthy?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

John Kelly told too many lies. Let's be generous and call them contradictory stories.

Why are you trying so desperately hard to paint him as trustworthy?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

Kelly had trouble with the pawn ticket (whether, Friday or Saturday?), I get that. But given my memory can be $hit at times I couldn't in all good faith call him a liar because he has a bad memory. That would be like the pot calling the kettle....

As for anything else, I'm not aware of any lies told by Kelly.
This instance we are talking about indicates to me the blame lies firmly with Wilkinson not Kelly.
I'm not interested in defending Kelly, but I am interested in prying out of you what exactly he is supposed to have said that has been proven wrong because I have the impression you question him saying "afternoon".
We have not touched on that yet.

[Wickerman]

You are effectively putting words in John Kelly's mouth that he did not utter.

Collating all the press coverage, to obtain a more detailed picture.....is putting words in Kelly's mouth that he did not say?

Why would Kelly's inquest testimony include words he did not say?
And, which are they; and, how do you know he did not say them?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

"I'm not aware of any lies told by Kelly."

Day of pawn ticket.
Walk from Maidstone to London in one day [Kelly suffering from a bad cough and a kidney infection which prevented him from working].
Spent the next night in Shoe Lane workhouse/came straight to 55 Flower and Dean Street.
Last said goodbye to Eddowes in Brick Lane/Houndsditch.
Heard of her arrest an hour before it happened.
Eddowes spent Friday night in Mile End Casual Ward.

The list goes on.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

"I'm not aware of any lies told by Kelly."

Day of pawn ticket.
Walk from Maidstone to London in one day [Kelly suffering from a bad cough and a kidney infection which prevented him from working].
Spent the next night in Shoe Lane workhouse/came straight to 55 Flower and Dean Street.
Last said goodbye to Eddowes in Brick Lane/Houndsditch.
Heard of her arrest an hour before it happened.
Eddowes spent Friday night in Mile End Casual Ward.

The list goes on.

Regards,

Simon

The last time I had any indepth debate over John Kelly was with Lynn Cates a few years ago. Most of those points you listed sound familiar, but only as inconsistencies yet to be researched.
I'm not aware they have been determined to be lies.

I'm cautious that Kelly is not getting the same treatment as Hutchinson.
Theorists using conjecture to label him a liar, as opposed to actual proof.

[harry]

I do not believe that in accepting Hutchinson lied it is mere conjecture.That the average persons memory declines the longer the period of remembrance is called on,is a tested fact.

How many of us,going back three days,would be able to recall the detailed description of people we had seen at that time.Then take into account the physical a wareness of a person that had spent a long day, walking perhaps twenty or so miles,doing we dont know what,in miserable weather and poor light,and having maybe only seconds in which to observe.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Hand on heart, do you really believe John Kelly told the truth?

Regards,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jon,

"I'm not aware of any lies told by Kelly."

Day of pawn ticket.
Walk from Maidstone to London in one day [Kelly suffering from a bad cough and a kidney infection which prevented him from working].
Spent the next night in Shoe Lane workhouse/came straight to 55 Flower and Dean Street.
Last said goodbye to Eddowes in Brick Lane/Houndsditch.
Heard of her arrest an hour before it happened.
Eddowes spent Friday night in Mile End Casual Ward.

The list goes on.

Regards,

Simon

Theres also the implication that he went to the market that day barefoot within his web Simon. Enjoying reading more of your observations lately by the by.

The tragic angle to this study is the fact that we only know fragments of what was said officially about any particular lead, and not what was withheld, and actions and events that could well have been orchestrated, like I believe the Mitre Square event was.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Hand on heart, do you really believe John Kelly told the truth?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

I have no problem with Kelly lying, this was Whitechapel after all. How could these people survive from day to day without telling a few lies. The same goes for Hutchinson.
I draw the line at the suggestion - if he lied he must be involved in these crimes.
That is taking things too far. We need more than the suggestion of a few lies to have Kelly implicated - something called 'evidence'?

[Wickerman]

I do not believe that in accepting Hutchinson lied it is mere conjecture.That the average persons memory declines the longer the period of remembrance is called on,is a tested fact.

How many of us,going back three days,would be able to recall the detailed description of people we had seen at that time.Then take into account the physical a wareness of a person that had spent a long day, walking perhaps twenty or so miles,doing we dont know what,in miserable weather and poor light,and having maybe only seconds in which to observe.

But how much are you relying on assumption?
You have basically said that you assume he must have lied. Yet yourself, and a handful of other like-minded members cannot agree on what Hutchinson 'must' have lied about.
You have no consensus, you all just stick pins in him for your own reason's.

It has apparently escaped all your collective attentions that it is the evidence that is supposed to point the finger. Not idle speculation.
What evidence exists that shows he lied?

As to one of your points, Hutchinson claimed to see Astrachan on Friday morning, yes in poor light we may assume.
However, he also added that he thinks he saw him on Sunday morning, presumably in better light.
So he wasn't trying to recollect a description over three days, but over perhaps 36? hours, from Sunday morning to when he walked into Commercial St. Station Monday evening.

If Hutchinson was a groom (as he claimed), was he a personal groom or a groom of horses?
Remember, he was describes as "of military appearance", meaning no doubt he was well groomed himself, in comparison with the local population.
Grooms are required to pay attention to the smallest detail, that is part of their job.

[harry]

Jon,
I am not relying on assumption.We have at least two statements from Hutchinson describing his movemants and observations,which are pretty much detailed.
It is a belief of mine that he might be lying,not an assumption.It is based on personnel experience,and conclusive testing under controlled conditions,as to how good a persons recollections are.

The Sunday supposed sighting is conclusive of nothin,but if his Monday statement of being able to identify the person he saw with Kelly,in his (Hutchinsonn)words,"Can be identified",then why was he unsure the day before?


A groom is no more likely than a person in any other occupoation to pay attention to detail,but tell me,what are the small details they have to pay attention to?,and can you prove Hutchinson was a groom?