John's Echo Interview

[lynn cates]

John

Hello Jon.

"Given that the police already knew the correct time that Kate was brought into Bishopsgate, why do you think they would seek more incorrect information from the same woman?
How accurate will anything else she tells them be?"

Not very. Which makes me wonder why John stayed on at inquest.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

Just a few queries. Can you...

1) Cite the evidence supporting the fact this woman wasn't checked out by the Police.

2) Clarify that Kelly recalled when he was informed of Kellys arrest correctly.

3) Confirm its been ascertained that there is no room for error of recall.

Cheers
Monty

Hello Monty,

Thanks for the reply.
I will attempt to answer your queries.

1) No. Neither can I find any info to suggest the old lady was tracked down. Mere lack of police evidence does not lead to the assumption that it happened. Newspaper accounts do not identify the old lady either. We are therefore left with the only altesnative that with what we are given, the old lady story is uncorroberrated. Also, given the times quoted, it is unreliable.

2) I believe you mean Eddowes' arrest? I believe this was asked, by me, and answered by Lyno and Simon in an earlier post? Apologies if wrong.

3) No room for error of recall? Well, if that be the case, EVERY inquest statement in every case is under the same rule. Including policemen.
edit to add- its Wilkinsons story, NOT the old lady's. Now lets say he is ONE hour out. How does that collate with the old lady getting to him in time to tell him this story? It doesnt because she could not have done it even then. Room for error of recall? That answer is used up. It becomes doubtful. So where did the story come from? According to an earlier post from Simon, the old lady told the story of the arrest happening hn the late afternoon! Poor journalism? Probable. Old lady's story unreliable? Possible.



I must away to work- have a good day!

Best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jon,

Thanks for the reply. Most appreciated.
Please excuse my current posting method[ but Iam am using my old ph to post.

"Thankyou for your kind comments Phil, but,.... if I've arrived at a wrong conclusion, I'm sure it won't be the last time "

Well, in which case you are way behind me in that particular queue!

"Agreed, she must have known him. In fact she may have even lived in F & Dean St., if not at the same address. Taking the time to look Kelly up at his address seems to be extraordinary measures for an old woman, unless she was actually living in the same vicinity. That, we'll never know."

The point here is that both Kelly and Eddowes must have known her too. And that surely would have been important for any eventual background info re Eddowes. There wasnt exactly a plethora of info about Eddowes apart from Kelly himself. See below.

"Given that the police already knew the correct time that Kate was brought into Bishopsgate, why do you think they would seek more incorrect information from the same woman?
How accurate will anything else she tells them be?"

Eddowes movements that day has holes in it. The old lady would possibly be a witness to any happenings. I compare her to the witness statements in the MJK case. We know of no newspaper comment from this old lady. She is not identified. How do we therefore know she even existed, given the time of sighting problem? You see, even IF we give Wilkinson the benefit of the doubt and say HE got the time wrong by an hour- that it should have been before 9pm not before 8pm the old lady turned up- she still wouln't be able to get to Flower and Dean St in time to tell him. Thìs is an old lady. Only SHE can confirm when she turned up at Wilkinson's Lodging House. As the time is way out and the happenings impossible, it turns the focus back on to Wilkinson's statement. If Kelly KNEW the old lady, AND where rhe worked, simple police work would clear up the problem and 3 things would happen. 1) Wilkinson's story would be confirmed/corrected. This would be registered and noted. (re statement and inquest)(It was not done) 2) the old lady could confirm the same day the ID of the victim, because according to the story she MUST have known her. 3) as said above, she could providd background movement of that evening( whetheq any man was seen in Eddowes' company when drunk immediately before arrest. Also HOW she knew Eddowes and Kelly, and for how long. All important points.


"If a witness cannot get the time right, the police might be left to assume she was either guessing, or that she is re-telling a story she was told by someone else. In either case her credibility as an eye-witness is not beyond doubt.
What is there in this woman's story that can help the police?"

Jon- this is Wilkinson's/Kelly's story- not the old lady's. There is no evidence anywhere the lady was identified, let alone interviewed. Per say, it isnt her that got the time wrong.

"The information we have is incomplete, we do not even have a complete record of all questions & answers from the Inquiry. Because our info. is not complete does not mean the police investigation was incomplete.
What we learn from an inquest is, with a few exceptions, largely pertaining to events around and leading up to the manner & cause of death.
We never learn the full extent of what the police knew. Neither do we know whether they sought her out."

Here I look at Newspaper accounts. Look at the MJK murder. The Press were getting quotes all over the shop. Every movement followed up on, before MJk's death.
Same newspapers. Yet no confirmation the old lady existed.

Given Wilkinson's later statements about the comings and goings at Flower and Dean St, and the admittance that he DIDNT have full knowledge of who went out when, or, at certain times, who entered, the focus returns to John Kelly. It questions Kelly's story. Which is in question anyway.(re Pawn ticket/Mile End).

No, the records arent complete. But that doesnt mean any tracking down of the old lady DID happen. It would be wrong to assume it did happen. The newspapers give no indication either.

thank you for your kind wishes, and my
best wishes to you too

Phil

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

I always read your comments with eagerness, as I happen to believe, rightly or wrongly, that you have the ability to see both sides, and comment fairly. However on this rare occasion, I believe that you may well have come to the wrong conclusion.

Thankyou for your kind comments Phil, but,.... if I've arrived at a wrong conclusion, I'm sure it won't be the last time

It was stated by the old lady who worked on the market that Eddowes was carted off to Bishopsgate at 7.30. This is well over an hour before it atually happened. She then went to 55 Flower and Dean St in order to inform Kelly that his lady had been hauled off.
The lady KNEW Kelly, must have in order to give him the message.

Agreed, she must have known him. In fact she may have even lived in F & Dean St., if not at the same address. Taking the time to look Kelly up at his address seems to be extraordinary measures for an old woman, unless she was actually living in the same vicinity. That, we'll never know.

The police DIDNT even ask the NAME of this old lady who knew this couple so well, let alone check out the story to corroberate the Wilkinsoon/Kelly story.

Given that the police already knew the correct time that Kate was brought into Bishopsgate, why do you think they would seek more incorrect information from the same woman?
How accurate will anything else she tells them be?

If a witness cannot get the time right, the police might be left to assume she was either guessing, or that she is re-telling a story she was told by someone else. In either case her credibility as an eye-witness is not beyond doubt.
What is there in this woman's story that can help the police?

Given the further holes in Wilkinson's testimony about the ongoings during the evenhng and night. Both Wilkinsons and Kelly's entire story should have been thoroughly looked into. It clearly wasnt. So on this occasion Jon, no, they clearly DIDNT follow up every lead from Kelly.

The information we have is incomplete, we do not even have a complete record of all questions & answers from the Inquiry. Because our info. is not complete does not mean the police investigation was incomplete.
What we learn from an inquest is, with a few exceptions, largely pertaining to events around and leading up to the manner & cause of death.
We never learn the full extent of what the police knew. Neither do we know whether they sought her out.

Very best wishes Phil.
Regards, Jon S.

[Monty]

Hello Jon,

I always read your comments with eagerness, as I happen to believe, rightly or wrongly, that you have the ability to see both sides, and comment fairly. However on this rare occasion, I believe that you may well have come to the wrong conclusion.

Leaving out the Mile End problem, the pawn ticket problem and so on, I must in all honesty take you to task when you say the police are sure to follow up on every lead Kelly provided.
For the basis of THIS point I must include the combined testimony of Wilkinson and Kelly. One providing alibi and story for the other. To step back a little...

It was stated by the old lady who worked on the market that Eddowes was carted off to Bishopsgate at 7.30. This is well over an hour before it atually happened. She then went to 55 Flower and Dean St in order to inform Kelly that his lady had been hauled off.
The lady KNEW Kelly, must have in order to give him the message. The lady KNEW Eddowes. Must have, in order to recognise her and give Kelly the message. The old lady must have known they were a couple, to know where they normally stayed in order to give the message. Kelly must have kown her in order to know where the old lady worked. Even if the evidence presented concerning the old lady was ONE hour wrong, it is STILL before Eddowes was actually carted off drunk in the first place!
So the credibility of this one statement is blown apart. The police DIDNT even ask the NAME of this old lady who knew this couple so well, let alone check out the story to corroberate the Wilkinsoon/Kelly story. This discrepency is so obvious it is alarming- for here we have an old lady who could tell the police what she saw and when, BEFORE Eddowes was picked up by the police. ALSO, the rather obvious fact that the old lady would have been able to ID Eddowes in the mortuary as a certain and reliable witness as to her identity, which until Kelly ID'd her, was in doubt. Kelly's ID of Eddowes happened the same day as the statement to the police. In order to verify Kelly's and Wilkinson's statements, the natural thing, given the completely wrong time given re the old lady 'seeing' Eddowes 'in situ', would indeed be to ASK what her name was- at the very least. They did not.

Given the further holes in Wilkinson's testimony about the ongoings during the evenhng and night. Both Wilkinsons and Kelly's entire story should have been thoroughly looked into. It clearly wasnt. So on this occasion Jon, no, they clearly DIDNT follow up every lead from Kelly.

It is plainly impossible to tell someone a story about a drunken arrest over an hour before it happened. But it was never followed up on. Add all the above to the pawn ticket and Mile End problems, aod you have problems with the entire story. The first part(the old lady) has nothing to do with Eddowes nameand reputation being kept safe.

Best wishes

Phil

Phil,

Just a few queries. Can you...

1) Cite the evidence supporting the fact this woman wasn't checked out by the Police.

2) Clarify that Kelly recalled when he was informed of Kellys arrest correctly.

3) Confirm its been ascertained that there is no room for error of recall.

Cheers
Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil. Thanks. Musn't forget that Fred himself claimed that Kelly knew of Kate's arrest before 8.00.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Indeed. Thats why Wilkinson's story backs up Kelly. Which when put under close scrutiny, shows the story presented by them both needed to be followed up upon.
But it just wasnt done.

edit. Apologies for the 7.30 timing, am writing from memory. No books here.

Best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

Fred

Hello Phil. Thanks. Musn't forget that Fred himself claimed that Kelly knew of Kate's arrest before 8.00.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

a few points

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Is someone claiming Barnett was lying?"

No, I would assert disjunctively that if he was not, then "MJK" was.

"Both Joe Barnett & John Kelly can only tell the press & police what their respective partners have told them.'

Quite. Given, of course, nothing was made up.

"I'm saying that, because John Kelly (like Barnett) is essentially a middleman we cannot finger him as being "the liar" because he is only passing on what he was told by Kate."

To some extent, that's true.

"If it was Kate who was lying then John could be telling the complete truth, as far as he knew."

Not sure I'd like to go THAT far. What of the pawn ticket--as you rightly point out? What of the discrepancy about coming back to London in his interview versus his inquest statement? Above all, if Kate was due back at 4.00, why did he not seek her out sooner? Tuesday is a LONG time removed from Saturday afternoon.

"Barnett is in the same position, the fact that we cannot verify many of the details can be just as easily blamed on a lack of complete records rather than assuming Barnett was the liar."

I tend to think that "MJK" was the liar--not Barnet. Records? Surely a single one would be right? I can accept incomplete records. Not a trace? that's a bit different.

"Any man who takes up with an ex-prostitute should expect to be led-down-the-path to some extent. Telling lies, from little white lies, to great porkers, was and likely still is an occupational necessity for prostitutes."

Alright.

"I guess the important question is, why was Kate lying . . ."

Hear, hear!

" . . . and does it have any impact on her manner of death?"

Could make ALL the difference.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

The police are for sure going to follow up on every lead Kelly provided to substantiate his story.
I maintain that John Kelly does not appear to be a good example of someone who is intentionally trying to be deceptive.
Now, as for Kate?...

Hello Jon,

I always read your comments with eagerness, as I happen to believe, rightly or wrongly, that you have the ability to see both sides, and comment fairly. However on this rare occasion, I believe that you may well have come to the wrong conclusion.

Leaving out the Mile End problem, the pawn ticket problem and so on, I must in all honesty take you to task when you say the police are sure to follow up on every lead Kelly provided.
For the basis of THIS point I must include the combined testimony of Wilkinson and Kelly. One providing alibi and story for the other. To step back a little...

It was stated by the old lady who worked on the market that Eddowes was carted off to Bishopsgate at 7.30. This is well over an hour before it atually happened. She then went to 55 Flower and Dean St in order to inform Kelly that his lady had been hauled off.
The lady KNEW Kelly, must have in order to give him the message. The lady KNEW Eddowes. Must have, in order to recognise her and give Kelly the message. The old lady must have known they were a couple, to know where they normally stayed in order to give the message. Kelly must have kown her in order to know where the old lady worked. Even if the evidence presented concerning the old lady was ONE hour wrong, it is STILL before Eddowes was actually carted off drunk in the first place!
So the credibility of this one statement is blown apart. The police DIDNT even ask the NAME of this old lady who knew this couple so well, let alone check out the story to corroberate the Wilkinsoon/Kelly story. This discrepency is so obvious it is alarming- for here we have an old lady who could tell the police what she saw and when, BEFORE Eddowes was picked up by the police. ALSO, the rather obvious fact that the old lady would have been able to ID Eddowes in the mortuary as a certain and reliable witness as to her identity, which until Kelly ID'd her, was in doubt. Kelly's ID of Eddowes happened the same day as the statement to the police. In order to verify Kelly's and Wilkinson's statements, the natural thing, given the completely wrong time given re the old lady 'seeing' Eddowes 'in situ', would indeed be to ASK what her name was- at the very least. They did not.

Given the further holes in Wilkinson's testimony about the ongoings during the evenhng and night. Both Wilkinsons and Kelly's entire story should have been thoroughly looked into. It clearly wasnt. So on this occasion Jon, no, they clearly DIDNT follow up every lead from Kelly.

It is plainly impossible to tell someone a story about a drunken arrest over an hour before it happened. But it was never followed up on. Add all the above to the pawn ticket and Mile End problems, aod you have problems with the entire story. The first part(the old lady) has nothing to do with Eddowes nameand reputation being kept safe.

Best wishes

Phil

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"I maintain that John Kelly does not appear to be a good example of someone who is intentionally trying to be deceptive."

Very well. Permit an analogy?

Joseph Barnet's story had may verifiable points. Were ANY of them verified? Intentionally deceptive? Not sure. Accurate? Well, I'll let you decide.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
Is someone claiming Barnett was lying?

Both Joe Barnett & John Kelly can only tell the press & police what their respective partners have told them.
I'm saying that, because John Kelly (like Barnett) is essentially a middleman we cannot finger him as being "the liar" because he is only passing on what he was told by Kate.
If it was Kate who was lying then John could be telling the complete truth, as far as he knew.

Barnett is in the same position, the fact that we cannot verify many of the details can be just as easily blamed on a lack of complete records rather than assuming Barnett was the liar.
Any man who takes up with an ex-prostitute should expect to be led-down-the-path to some extent. Telling lies, from little white lies, to great porkers, was and likely still is an occupational necessity for prostitutes.

I guess the important question is, why was Kate lying and does it have any impact on her manner of death?

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

I maintain that John Kelly does not appear to be a good example of someone who is intentionally trying to be deceptive.

Now, as for Kate?...

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

The irony of your statement above is that the words or actions of Kate in her last few days come from Kelly himself or other witnesses, we do not hear any of this from Kate herself. So if Kelly was honest about his own activities its likely by default he was also honest about Kates.

Was he honest? That can be dealt with quite easily in the case of the pawn ticket and the story that accompanied it. They didnt pawn his boots for breakfast Saturday morning, nor the bit of tea that Kate had in her tin. As mentioned, the boots, under the name Jane kelly, were pawned Friday night...which then leaves us with the issue of where Kate stayed Friday night, since the pawning of the boots would have given her doss money.

What we can learn from Kate herself comes mostly from her actions that last day....and getting drunk without money, using 2 aliases that combined were most of the following victims name and address...stating that she was going to get "a damn good hiding" when she got back home, then going the opposite direction of that "home" when she left the station,...physically showing either relief or familiarity with someone outside Mitre Square,....all this suggests that A) Kate and Johns close relationship, at the time of her death, was not as described by Kelly.. under oath, and B) Kate left John Friday night and took his boots with her to pawn.

Do we know for a fact that she indeed had Johns permission to pawn the boots in the first place?

Liz Stride had just finished a steady relationship when she was killed, Mary Kelly had just ended a live-in arrangement with her boyfriend before she is killed, are Kate and John splitting up just before she is killed?

Cheers.

[lynn cates]

verifiable

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"I maintain that John Kelly does not appear to be a good example of someone who is intentionally trying to be deceptive."

Very well. Permit an analogy?

Joseph Barnet's story had may verifiable points. Were ANY of them verified? Intentionally deceptive? Not sure. Accurate? Well, I'll let you decide.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Good point. Entirely possible. But then surely her/John's story is altogether doubtful?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
I'm inclined to think that when someone offers a story with so many points that are verifiable, ie; Jones's Pawnbrokers, Shoe-lane Casual Ward, Mile-end Casual Ward, the daughter in Bermondsey, employment at the market, etc., the intention is not to be deceptive.

The police are for sure going to follow up on every lead Kelly provided to substantiate his story.
I maintain that John Kelly does not appear to be a good example of someone who is intentionally trying to be deceptive.

Now, as for Kate?...

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

story

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Kate's story about her frequent trips to see her daughter across the river stand as a prime example that she was not telling the truth to John about where she got the money. Not from her daughter, for sure."

Agreed. She had not seen her daughter in over two years--didn't even know her most recent address.

"So, seeing as how we do know that Kate was keeping the truth from Kelly as to how she obtained money (example: the daughter?), then I wonder if Kate had only told Kelly that she had handed in the ticket for the 9d, but really had obtained some money by other means?"

Good point. Entirely possible. But then surely her/John's story is altogether doubtful?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

no success

Hello Neil. Thanks. If Kate were picking up loose change on Friday, yes, his "story" could well be an attempt at just that.

Given the pawning that night, I take it she was not very successful in that trade?

Cheers.
LC