Did Catherine know who JTR was???

[Phil Carter]

Hello Iain,

Thank you for the question and for the reply. I shall endeavour to explain my thoughts a little.

John Kelly, should have been a prime suspect for Eddowes murder...because nobody, seemingly, talked to the "woman" who told Kelly that Eddowes had been locked up.. and that info was given by Kelly to his lodging house deputy, apparently, between 7.30 and 8pm.... an hour or so BEFORE the police carted her off to Bishopsgate station. This discrepancy, explained that "the lodging house deputy must have got the time wrong" by ripperologists today, is, to my mind, alarming. It is so obvious that any policeman worth his salt would have investigated this. They may have, we do not know.. however, John Kelly's word, like Hutchinson in the Mary Kelly case, is taken, seemingly as truth. There is nothing in the records of his whereabouts later that evening either....and Eddowes statement.. "I shall get a good hiding when I get home" shows that she was intending to go back to 55,Flower and Dean Street, the lodging house. For that was her "home" at the time.
Added to this, we do not know anything about this man AFTER the inquest and funeral. Again, like Hutchinson, he seemingly just disappears.

Also, Eddowes pawned Kelly's boots, we are told. Yet there are reports that she is wearing men's boots in the police station. Umm..what was John Kelly wearing then? And where was Eddowes' own footwear?

It is also strange that the lodging house keeper, under oath, FIRST says that two detectives turn up between 2am and 3am.. (Eddowes was murdered at about 1.40am), then after other statements are taken, is called back to the stand and changes the time to 3am when the detectives turn up. We are not told the name of the detectives either.

Kelly cannot recall the time he is told that Eddowes has been taken to the police station, and gives no name for the "woman" who told him. This woman must have known both Kelly and Eddowes, because she must have recognised Eddowes as being arrested, and knew WHO to tell that she was taken away. But we do not know if anybody has checked this story, apparently.
That, to my mind, is alarming. For without corroboration, John Kelly becomes a prime suspect, given Eddowes own words about the threat of impending violence, "when she gets home"....

Finally, the Kelly suspect that was being watched from the continent, as explained earlier, is another strange one. Could this Kelly be connected perchance? Intruiging. Also take into account, ANOTHER John Kelly, Mary Kelly's father, who was apparently looking for her. This Kelly could well be the same age as Eddowes' Kelly. It may also explain her giving her name as both Mary Ann Kelly and Mary Jane Kelly. We also have James Kelly, the escaped prisoner to consider too...
Whoever John Kelly, her boyfriend was...he should have been a prime suspect, imho.

It is a crying shame that all the City Police files were destroyed during the air raids in the 2nd World War. Much would have been explained. I am in the hope that somewhere, somebody wrote down the details of the Eddowes police investigation. If only!

I am looking at all possibilities to be honest, as I have no single person for the title of "JTR" in mind.
To my mind, when one considers the C5, a plausible scenario is more than one killer, (C1 and C2,) (C3,) and (C4 and C5)Though variations on the theme.

I apologise for the long reply.

best wishes

Phil

[curious]

She was a known prostitute

Where is that known?

From what I recall reading, she was living as a wife with Kelly and a variety of people stated they had never known her to sell herself.

Quoting from Faceook's page for Edowes: "Frederick Wilkinson, deputy at Cooney's, says Catherine "was not often in drink and was a very jolly woman, often singing." She was generally in the lodging house for the night between 9 and 10 PM. He says she wasn't in the habit of walking the streets and he had never heard of or seen her being intimate with anyone other than Kelly. Kelly himself claimed no knowledge of her ever walking the streets. He says that she sometimes drank to excess but wasn't in the habit. Another sister, Eliza Gold, said that Catherine was of sober habits."

If you have testimony for her being a prostitute, it would help me change some of my personal thinking.

Thank you,

curious

[Addy]

Hi Harry,

Sorry I misread you. How do you think he rendered her helpless then? She must have been unable to call out and unable to struggle, so what do you suggest? And where do you suggest this happened?

I think she was doing "business" because that was what the others JtR killed were doing. There were women on the streets at any time of the night during that period in time and only prostitutes were his victims. That's why I think she was doing business.

Greetings,

Addy

[Addy]

Oh and one further thing. I don't distord peoples words to suit myself. I am perfectly capable of presenting my own ideas. I simply misread you.

Greetings,

Addy

[Jon Guy]

Hi Phil

There is nothing in the records of his whereabouts later that evening either....

Actually, the Deputy stated that Kelly went to bed at 10.00 pm, and was positive he didn`t go out again

Eddowes statement.. "I shall get a good hiding when I get home" shows that she was intending to go back to 55,Flower and Dean Street, the lodging house. For that was her "home" at the time.

No it wasn`t. She hadn`t spent a night there for over a month.

Eddowes pawned Kelly's boots, we are told. Yet there are reports that she is wearing men's boots in the police station. Umm..what was John Kelly wearing then? And where was Eddowes' own footwear?

They were her own footwear. Kelly was either barefoot, or wearing his old ones, or possibly a pair that were discarded by other Londoner`s returning from the Hop picking.

It is also strange that the lodging house keeper, under oath, FIRST says that two detectives turn up between 2am and 3am.. (Eddowes was murdered at about 1.40am), then after other statements are taken, is called back to the stand and changes the time to 3am when the detectives turn up. We are not told the name of the detectives either.

I cannot find any reference to Wilkinson changing the time the Detective`s arrived ? Can you help please ?

We do know that the Police were not even given orders to visit the Spitalfield Lodging Houses until after 2.00am, when McWilliamson arrived at Mitre Sq.

Kelly cannot recall the time he is told that Eddowes has been taken to the police station, and gives no name for the "woman" who told him. . But we do not know if anybody has checked this story, apparently.

Probably as he didn`t have a watch, unlike the Coppers who carted her off, and who appeared at the inquest, why would they want the old woman to appear ?

To my mind, is alarming. For without corroboration, John Kelly becomes a prime suspect, given Eddowes own words about the threat of impending violence, "when she gets home"....

I suppose if he wasn`t tucked up in bed that night, or away hop picking at the time of the other murders he may have been.

The best, Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jon,

Many thanks for your observations..

cannot find any reference to Wilkinson changing the time the Detective`s arrived ? Can you help please ?

Sourcebook. Chapter 10, The Eddowes Inquest.

Written statements of witnesses at the Eddowes inquest:-

Frederick William Wilkinson. Pages 223-224.

"...I cannot recollect whether any stranger came in at 3 o'clock"

Sourcebook then says (page 240):-

"..Despite the fairly detailed statements of the various witnesses contained in the preceding inquest papers, they would appear to be the initial eveidence of these witnesses and the reports to be found in the newspapers do contain additional information. In order to get the full details of the reported evidence in the press, we again turn to The Times. The first report is contained in the issue of Friday 5th October 1888, page 4..."

page 243 and 244.. Questioning of Frederick William Wilkinson

Mr. Crawford,- Can you tell me who entered your lodginghouse on Sunday morning between 1 and 2?
Witness,- Two detectives came and asked if I had any female out.

"....The examination of the witness was then adjourned ... "

page 246... The witness Wilkinson was then recalled...

"...He recollected the police calling at 3 o'clock on Sunday morning."

Hope this helps Jon

best wishes

Phil

[Jon Guy]

Yes, many thanks for digging it out, Phil. An honest error by Wilkinson don`t you think?

[Adam Went]

Hey Phil,

John Kelly as her killer....you know what, it's a possibility, but from what you've said of the statements in your other posts, I think it was just simply confusion over the times of the event. Kelly may have got wind that Kate had been locked up though, considering she was creating quite a scene....

If Kate is in the canonical 5, then we also have to assume that John Kelly is Jack the Ripper - unless you want to eliminate Kate as a victim, which would be a little precarious as, IMO anyway, she along with Annie Chapman are the "quintessential" Ripper victims.

Another point is that Kelly might possibly have known she was locked up, but he surely wouldn't have known what time she was going to be released. Furthermore, Lawende stated that Kate and her male friend were standing outside the entrance to Mitre Square, her with her hand on him, talking quietly. This is not the sort of scene you would expect to see if the man was the boyfriend Kelly, who Kate herself said would be annoyed with him, having caught up with her for hocking off his boots and then blowing the money on getting drunk and locked up. You'd be almost expecting to see another Berner Street man attacking Liz Stride scene, not what Lawende described...

And if Kelly was the killer, but not Jack the Ripper, why kill Kate in such a fashion as JTR was committing his murders? As if one murder wasn't a bad enough position to put himself in, he was effectively signing himself a death warrant for at least 3 other murders and the label of Jack the Ripper should he have been caught....

Furthermore, he appeared quite emotional and distressed at the inquest, which is in direct contrast to some of the other partners like Michael Kidney.

Anyway....just my 2 cents worth. Interesting thoughts though.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jon,

You know...I am not sure.... there is something strange here...

You see..if one remembers Wilkinson's comments...

Sourcebook... page 224,,his written statement at the inquest..

"...When Kelly came here on Staurday night between half past 7 or 8 I asked him, 'Where is Kate?' He said, 'I have heard she has been locked up' ..."

and further...

page 243, Sourcebook...

"He asked Kelly when the latter came to pay for his lodging on Saturday where "Kate" was, and Kelly replied that he had heard that she had been locked up. Kelly called between 7.30 and 8 on Staurday night and took a single bed...."

Twice, this timing is stated, by the written statement at the inquest, and the verbal one said at that inquest reprinted in The Times... and he never changed it. Now, it has been argued that Wilkinson must have got the time wrong. Let's examine that shall we?

IF he got the time wrong then let us see... an hour wrong perhaps?... Kelly STILL wouldn't have "known" about Eddowes lock up. So could Wilkinson have been two hours wrong? Doubtful, I maintain.

If this is compared with the testimony referring to the detectives...where he changed "between 2 and 3 to 3"..the man obviously knows what the time is.

Added to that, he actually gives contrary evidence, twice, once written, once verbal, saying he was sure Kelly did not go out after he came in on Saturday evening...yet when he was recalled he says...

"....nor could he remember anyone going out of the place soon after 12 o'clock, as that was a very busy time..."

and further...


" ..he had no means of remembering any person coming in.."

then contradicts this statement with...

"He would recognise a regular customer. He did not book the times they came in"

This is one very unsure witness in parts, but sure in others. IF Kelly did go out, it is possible it wasn't noticed "soon after 12"...and "he had no means of remembering any person coming in.."

That means that Kelly's movements are NOT certain. We do NOT know that he was all tucked up at all. For he actually has no witness to any movements. And the time he HAS a witness, "Wilkinson's time keeping must be wrong..."..By two hours? Nope. Sorry. I don't buy that.

It all sounds to me like a made up statement. Certainly questionable.

That is why Kelly should, imho, be regarded as a suspect for the Eddowes killing. Too much "George Hutchinson". No one can trace the man..he simply disappears into thin air. Its almost like a made up story. Almost..had not "Kate" have been so terribly murdered.

In my honest opinion...food for thought.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Adam,

Thanks for the comment... but, respectfully, she DIDN'T make a scene. She was lying still on the pavement.

PC Lewis Robinson written statement at inquest...

" I saw a crowd of persons outside No.29 (Aldgate High Street)- I saw a woman whom I have since recognised as the Deceased lying on the footway drunk. I asked if there was one that knew her or knew where she lived but I got no answer.
I picked her up and carried her to the side by the shutters and she fell sideways. I got assistance...."

The verbal statement said..

"..." she was lying on the footway.."
Witness (Robnson) asked if anyone in the crowd knew her or where she lived, but recieved no answer.

Eddowes was so drunk she could not walk, could not talk and had to be carried. When sat down by the shutters she fell sideways.

Nope, she didn't make a scene, in my honest opinion.

Because Kelly may have killed Eddowes...that doesnt make him responsible for all of the C5. They could have different killers for all we know. I personally see three different killers in the C5.

best wishes

Phil

[curious]

Adam,


Eddowes was so drunk she could not walk, could not talk and had to be carried. When sat down by the shutters she fell sideways.

Is it possible that instead of being drunk, she could have been drugged?

or pretending to be drunker than she was?

I'm not a drinker and not accustomed to being around people who drink that much, so I really don't know what the possibilities are.

curious

[Trevor Marriott]

Is it possible that instead of being drunk, she could have been drugged?

or pretending to be drunker than she was?

I'm not a drinker and not accustomed to being around people who drink that much, so I really don't know what the possibilities are.

curious

She may have been on LSD because when the police found her she was on a trip-- straight to the "pokey"

[Phil Carter]

Hello Curious,

A fair question. No, the drugged or playing drunk thing I would disagree with. In some cases. people can be paraletic on relatively little drink, depending on the contents of her stomach and the amount of time since the last meal, the temperature of the day can also play a part I believe. However, all indications here are that she blew the little she had in a short time, perhaps aided by offers from others buying her drink. Here we are into possibilities and speculatory ideas that are difficult to tie down with any great amount of factual evidence though I'm afraid.

However that said...for a person that was so inebriated at 8.45pm..she recovered relatively quickly..and 4 hours or so isn't a great deal of time to sober up even after a sleep.

Sleeping it off normally means a longer time period asleep, I believe.

best wishes

Phil

[harry]

What I have written was in support of another posters suggestion of the possibility of Eddowes being carried into the square,and carried there from a position observed by Lawende.Nothing more,and I stand by that possibility.One single possibility,not many,of one particular murder and it is not a theory of mine,that this is what happened, but a suggestion of a possibility.Whether it is accepted,does nor worry me in the least,nor does it diminish the possibility,but I would welcome any objectors to show why it would be impossible.I might believe them.
If we work in reverse,we can accept Dr Brown in some respect.There was the getaway,following the mutilation.The mutilation followed the cuts to the throat.Both the mutilations and cut throat were performed where Eddowes was found.Precceeding the cut throat she was either placed,or placed herself in a position on the ground.Before that WHAT?A period of activity of which no one has the slightest idea,including Dr Brown,but which began with killer and victim at the entrance to a passage.
Still people label her a whore working her profession,but thankfully not everyone.

[Adam Went]

Phil:

I have read reports that Kate was impersonating a fire engine when she got arrested!
But anyway....I should re-phrase what I said to, being openly drunk for anyone to see.....

Curious:

I think what Phil said is correct that 4 hours isn't a lot of time to sleep off that much drink. I would imagine that she was suffering from a killer headache and probably felt quite ill....but, if she was accustomed to regular drinking, it may not have had the same effect on her.

Not very likely that she was drugged.....this might be a little naive but I would suggest that the whole date rape drug thing that's so common in clubs and what not these days was not so common in 1888.

In any case, if she had taken such a drug, surely it would have still shown up in her autopsy?

Cheers,
Adam.