If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I wonder if they did not have just a tad somewhere? After all, John was able to live on a few days at Cooney's after Kate was killed. Surely a bit was squirreled away?
I wonder if they did not have just a tad somewhere? After all, John was able to live on a few days at Cooney's after Kate was killed. Surely a bit was squirreled away?
Cheers.
LC
Hello Lynn,
Especially as, I believe I am correct in saying that the lodging house attendant said that nobody was allowed to stay and pay "on tick".. i.e. write it up on account.
best wishes
Phil
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙
Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....
Wilkinson, the deputy lodging house keeper, said at the inquest, "If they had told me the previous day that they had no money I would have trusted them. I trust all lodgers I know."
So there would have been no need for Eddowes to "go the Mile End Casual Ward"; and even less need if, as you say, they might have had a few bob squirreled away.
Regards,
Simon
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.
So there would have been no need for Eddowes to "go the Mile End Casual Ward"; and even less need if, as you say, they might have had a few bob squirreled away.
Hello Simon,
According to Kelly, Eddowes said that she wanted to go find some money. They agreed according to Kelly, that he was to book his place at the Lodging House, whilst she went on a trip somewhere hunting for money. Correct?
Meanwhile Wilkinson states that it would have been ok with a berth on tick.
So why did Kelly only book a single bed? He only earned 4d apparently the day she left his sight. (at the market?)
Simon, you said, "string vest". Ive the feeling that almost all he said was "inVESTed".
best wishes
Phil
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙
Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....
I don't think we were ever meant to understand them.
What astonishes me most from what we know is that, except for one juryman, the inquest, the press and the police appeared to swallow all the gaping holes in Kelly's BS story without so much as batting a collective eyelid.
I have a few speculative ideas, but don't want to send Monty's defibrillator into orbit.
Regards,
Simon
Last edited by Simon Wood; 08-23-2012, 06:59 PM.
Reason: correction
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.
Hello Simon. Thanks. Actually, this is so convoluted that speculation may be counter productive.
I am still trying to understand Kate's early release from Mile End. John claims that he was surprised but that there was a bother at the casual ward. Later, however, he claims that Kate had told him that she would see him early. Could she foresee the bother?
I wonder if they did not have just a tad somewhere? After all, John was able to live on a few days at Cooney's after Kate was killed. Surely a bit was squirreled away?
Here's another spurious story for your delectation.
East London Observer, 13th October 1888—
A reporter gleaned some curious information from the Casual Ward Superintendent of Mile End, regarding Kate Eddowes, the Mitre-square victim. She was formerly well-known in the casual wards there, but had disappeared for a considerable time until the Friday preceding her murder. Asking the woman where she had been in the interval, the superintendent was met with the reply, that she had been in the country "hopping." "But," added the woman, "I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him."
"Mind he doesn't murder you too" replied the superintendent jocularly.
"Oh, no fear of that," was the remark made by Kate Eddowes as she left.
Within four-and-twenty hours afterward she was a mutilated corpse.
Regards,
Simon
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.
Comment