John's Echo Interview

[Wickerman]

Hi Simon.

Hi Jon,

The casual ward did not operate a two-tier system.

I'm not so sure. On the one hand we have the "Official Poor Law" rules, but on the other hand we are looking for real-world applications. And it is a sad fact that these Workhouse Institutions had a focus on their finances.
Let us not forget this is the "do-as-you-please" part of town.
Turning away a paying "customer" who certainly is not about to get value for money, is looking a gift horse in the mouth. This is easy money, a few coppers in the "Master's" pocket, and who is going to report him?

Workhouses did charge exorbitant fees for medical services on the poor, even though it is well known that they didn't have a penny to their name. These records still exist.
Workhouses also took the 'estate' (however menial) of the inmate who died in their care, which meant any surviving family got nothing. This was the real world.

Kate took 2d to go to the Mile End Workhouse, there was a reason why she needed 2d, both Kate & John knew this, and it was not objected to in Court.
Therein we have a clue that the Workhouse was taking money off the poor.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

tale

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Kate took 2d to go to the Mile End Workhouse, there was a reason why she needed 2d, both Kate & John knew this, and it was not objected to in Court."

But also, Kate's tale about being released for a "bother" was not objected to. If she put down 2d as a straight transaction and could be discharged at will, why the story about a "bother" to justify her early release?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Kate took 2d to go to the Mile End Workhouse, there was a reason why she needed 2d, both Kate & John knew this, and it was not objected to in Court."

But also, Kate's tale about being released for a "bother" was not objected to. If she put down 2d as a straight transaction and could be discharged at will, why the story about a "bother" to justify her early release?

Cheers.
LC

Kate's body did have marks which preceded her death, the "bother" could only mean she got into a scuffle with someone. It doesn't mean she was turfed out before the regulations normally allowed. It may only mean she was turfed out earlier than she intended to leave.

If an inmate does not finish any assigned task, they are not let out until they do, the Institution assumes the inmate is in their debt. Throwing the inmate out prematurely means they get/got their keep for nothing.
That will not do!

So once again the circumstances are consistent with her not being assigned any tasks, which I must emphasize, normally took most of the day to conclude.

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

I would suggest that the circumstances are more consistent with Eddowes having lied to Kelly, or Kelly having lied on her behalf at the inquest.

John Kelly also told the inquest that he and Eddowes spent the night of Thursday 27th September at Shoe Lane casual ward.

How did they get out of the requisite day of picking oakum and/or stone breaking on Friday 28th September, the day that John Kelly allegedly earned "6d at a job" and Eddowes went off to Mile End between three and four o'clock in the afternoon?

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

In 1890 William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, published "Darkest England and the Way Out". On the matter of casual wards, he wrote—



John Kelly's story is patent nonsense.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

agreement

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"If an inmate does not finish any assigned task, they are not let out until they do, the Institution assumes the inmate is in their debt. Throwing the inmate out prematurely means they get/got their keep for nothing.
That will not do!"

Precisely!! And that is my whole point.

"So once again the circumstances are consistent with her not being assigned any tasks . . ."

Or with her not being there at all.

" . . . which I must emphasize, normally took most of the day to conclude."

No need to emphasise. I wholeheartedly concur. All of which tells me that Kate was NOT at Mile End Casual Ward.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

non dubito

Hello Simon. Thanks.

"John Kelly's story is patent nonsense."

Indubitably.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I would suggest that the circumstances are more consistent with Eddowes having lied to Kelly, or Kelly having lied on her behalf at the inquest.

Hi Simon.

To what end?

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

That is what we are attempting to discover.

Regards,

Simon

[Observer]

Way tickets and bread tickets

By 1863, it had become apparent that many unions were evading their responsibilities towards the casual poor. Poor Law Board President C.P. Villiers issued a circular reminding unions of their obligation to help the genuinely destitute In London, this was encouraged by making the cost of casual relief chargeable to a common fund, provided for by the Metropolitan Board of Works then, from 1867, by the Common Poor Fund. The resulting resurgence of numbers applying for admission to the casual wards led to the re-introduction of certificates, or way-tickets, in order to identify honest wayfarers. Way-tickets, issued by the police or casual-ward superintendent, were for a specified duration along a particular route and would be endorsed at each workhouse visited. The ticket-holder would be entitled to favourable treatment, such as being exempt from work tasks or being allowed early release from the casual ward.

Regards

Observer

[Simon Wood]

Hi Observer,

Quite right.

The "Berkshire" or "Gloucestershire" system gave a tramp [hobo] a "way-ticket" specifying a particular route which entitled him to bread at stations established at about five miles' interval, and also to lodging for the night at a casual ward without subsequent detention.

But what has any of this got to do with Eddowes?

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

John Kelly's story is patent nonsense.

Hello Simon,

Agree with you- but an additional thing surrounds Wilkinson's comments too.
Not only are they very dubious regarding who came and went and whom he saw and didnt see that night, but the patent backing up of Kelly makes me wonder why- especially as there are grave doubts about Kelly's story.

Interesting to me is that this patently obvious nonsense is firstly missed by the police, then later by both the jurors and the Coroner at the inquest.

Now if the Wilkinson story has doubts, and the Kelly story is doubtful- then what Catherine Eddowes did and when, is in doubt. If we cannot rely on the two men above, and tear up their evidence...then what reasons lay behind their lies?

Best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

Wilkinson

Hello Phil. Thanks. Wilkinson strikes me as a well meaning bungler. He comes on like one who has an eye on the details; but, when challenged, must resort to his ledger.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Interesting to me is that this patently obvious nonsense is firstly missed by the police, then later by both the jurors and the Coroner at the inquest.

Hi Phil.
What we have here is another situation where, on the one hand we have the Poor Law which provide a set of rules for the acceptance of inmates.
But, on the other hand, we have the published details of one couple's experience which admittedly are sketchy, but appear to conflict with the established rules.

Once again, "we" choose to assume that rules were always strictly adhered to, when we know that in the real world, ourselves included, much prefer to ignore "the rule book" whenever it pleases us.
On the basis of this assumption "we" choose to label Kelly and/or Kate, a liar.

As you notice, no-one "at the time" (neither Coroner, Police, Jurors, or press), found fault with Kelly's story. No-one said, "that is simply wrong!", "the rules do not permit that", etc.
It is only us, today, with a copy of some dusty rule book, who choose to take the high road and "assume" this was a law-abiding community who followed rules to the letter.

Kate claimed to need 2d to use the Casual Ward (or maybe just the Workhouse?) at Mile-end. No-one objected to the claim that this was so. Therefore, "we" have no grounds for labelling either of them "a liar" on this issue.


The most problematic issue I find, is not this experience at the Casual Wards, but that pawn ticket dated 28th (Friday), when by accounts it should have been dated the 29th, Saturday, giving Kelly the benefit of the doubt as I much prefer to do.
There is another news report which suggests pawn tickets were also time-stamped, or at least included a time the ticket was issued.
Too bad none of these news reports for the Mitre Sq. case cared to mention this.

The pawn broker does claim that it was his assistant who deal with the transaction, so is it possible the assistant picked up last nights stamp by mistake, early on Sat. morning? I'll bet it wouldn't be the first time something innocuous like that has happened.

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Much as you may want to give John Kelly the benefit of the doubt, I'm afraid you're stuck with the fact that his boots were pawned on Friday 28th September.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1724

Regards,

Simon