Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Two Pawn Tickets

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Two Pawn Tickets

    Two pawn tickets were found in a tin by Catherine's body. They were reported to have the names Ann Kelly and Emily Birrell. Both were from Jones's Pawnbrokers in Church Street (now Fournier Street). One ticket was for a pair of boots and the other was for a flannel shirt.

    In The Echo (3rd Oct) John Kelly tells the reporter that he and Catherine got a ticket for a flannel shirt from a couple they met while coming back from hopping in Kent. The woman had apparently insisted Catherine take the ticket. John Kelly says the flannel shirt was only ninepence but they got the money and went to Jones's when they got back. A few days later on 28th September they went back to Jones's and pawned his boots for 2s 6d. He was lift bare foot and the money went of drink and food.

    At the inquest it's suggested by the coroner that both tickets are dated the 28th September when asking John Kelly about when exactly his boots were pawned.

    So one of the tickets was definitely issued on 28th September and was for the boots.

    But was the second ticket for the flannel shirt issued on the 28th or from a few days earlier? If the ticket was gifted to them then the date would be much earlier, wouldn't it? At the same time, if they used the ticket for the flannel shirt before pawning the boots, then how would Catherine still have it in the tin with the ticket for the boots? Could it be they got the shirt and just re-pawned it a few days later along with the boots? Or was the second ticket in the name of Emily Birrell for something else and not the same ticket John Kelly is referring to in The Echo interview.
    Last edited by Curious Cat; 09-29-2020, 07:50 PM.

  • #2
    On the list of Kate's posessions the Birrell ticket is dated 31 August. I don't think she or John Kelly had the 9d needed to redeem the shirt, so I'm not sure what Kelly's remark means

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
      On the list of Kate's posessions the Birrell ticket is dated 31 August. I don't think she or John Kelly had the 9d needed to redeem the shirt, so I'm not sure what Kelly's remark means
      Apart from The Times, were the items on the tickets reported elsewhere before John Kelly's interview in The Echo?

      Comment


      • #4
        The Star 1 Oct did, although the details are a little garbled;

        "Near the spot where the woman lay two pawn tickets were picked up. It is not known whether they belong to the deceased or to her murderer. The tickets were in a small tin mustard box. One was for 6d., and dated August last; the other was for 1s., and dated the 28 Aug. They were for a pair of boots and a man's shirt, and in the name of Emily Birrell and Anne Kelly. They were pawned with Jones, Church-street, and if they belong to the man may form important clues"

        Comment


        • #5
          Check this out for a piece of clairvoyance.

          THE STAR, Monday 1st October—

          "One of the doctors in an interview with a Star reporter, after describing the various wounds, said the woman belonged to the very poorest class. 'She appeared to be an outcast, and carried her tea and sugar about with her. She was very thin." The doctor continued, "I should say, from the fact that her hands were brown, that she had just come from the country - had been hop picking, perhaps.'"

          Yet another fact John Kelly read in The Star and trotted out the following evening at Bishopsgate police station.

          Think about it. He's been fed the whole story via The Star—hop-picking, carrying tea and sugar, Eddowes living with a man named Kelly, a "TC" tattoo on her arm put there by her husband, whose initials they were, pawn ticket in the name of Burrell, another in the name of Kelly [coincidentally "his own" name].

          All John Kelly had to do was fill in the blanks. No wonder he got confused. He was making it up on the hoof. And the inquest, the press, the police never queried a thing.
          For sheer brass neck [nerve and cheek] John Kelly gets an even bigger vote from me than George Hutchinson.
          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
            Check this out for a piece of clairvoyance.

            THE STAR, Monday 1st October—

            "One of the doctors in an interview with a Star reporter, after describing the various wounds, said the woman belonged to the very poorest class. 'She appeared to be an outcast, and carried her tea and sugar about with her. She was very thin." The doctor continued, "I should say, from the fact that her hands were brown, that she had just come from the country - had been hop picking, perhaps.'"

            Yet another fact John Kelly read in The Star and trotted out the following evening at Bishopsgate police station.

            Think about it. He's been fed the whole story via The Star—hop-picking, carrying tea and sugar, Eddowes living with a man named Kelly, a "TC" tattoo on her arm put there by her husband, whose initials they were, pawn ticket in the name of Burrell, another in the name of Kelly [coincidentally "his own" name].

            All John Kelly had to do was fill in the blanks. No wonder he got confused. He was making it up on the hoof. And the inquest, the press, the police never queried a thing.
            For sheer brass neck [nerve and cheek] John Kelly gets an even bigger vote from me than George Hutchinson.
            The lodging house deputy, Frederick Wilkinson, gave his evidence straight after John Kelly so if he hadn't been away hop picking in Kent with Catherine then that surely would've been picked up on and disputed. He even mentions them being away from the lodging house because they went hop picking.

            Interestingly though, Wilkinson says that John Kelly came to the lodging house at 7:30pm on the Saturday evening to stay. Wilkinson asked where Catherine was and John Kelly told him that he'd heard she'd been taken to the station drunk. John Kelly had earlier said at the inquest he'd heard about it from an old woman. Assuming she'd be locked up overnight and not out until the morning he bed for a singe bed rather than a double. This was a full hour before Catherine was picked up in Aldgate for being drunk and an hour and 15 minutes before she actually arrived at Bishopsgate Station. According to the deputy John Kelly remained at the lodging house from that point on.

            So how did John Kelly know Catherine had been picked up by the police from being drunk over an hour before she was to tell Wilkinson why she wasn't with him?


            Could Catherine have had an earlier unreported drunken altercation with another policeman but not actually taken to the station and this is the incident that was passed onto John Kelly? Or is something else going on?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
              Check this out for a piece of clairvoyance.

              THE STAR, Monday 1st October—

              "One of the doctors in an interview with a Star reporter, after describing the various wounds, said the woman belonged to the very poorest class. 'She appeared to be an outcast, and carried her tea and sugar about with her. She was very thin." The doctor continued, "I should say, from the fact that her hands were brown, that she had just come from the country - had been hop picking, perhaps.'"

              Yet another fact John Kelly read in The Star and trotted out the following evening at Bishopsgate police station.

              Think about it. He's been fed the whole story via The Star—hop-picking, carrying tea and sugar, Eddowes living with a man named Kelly, a "TC" tattoo on her arm put there by her husband, whose initials they were, pawn ticket in the name of Burrell, another in the name of Kelly [coincidentally "his own" name].

              All John Kelly had to do was fill in the blanks. No wonder he got confused. He was making it up on the hoof. And the inquest, the press, the police never queried a thing.
              For sheer brass neck [nerve and cheek] John Kelly gets an even bigger vote from me than George Hutchinson.
              There are a few things about Kelly that raise eyebrows Simon, 2 of them for me is not being sure when his boots were pawned due to inebriation, and the other is the the fact that he admitted he knew where Kate was Saturday night yet did not seek her out when Sunday night came and went, and likely knew the city rule of releasing public drunks when they seemed capable of caring for themselves. Unlike at that time the Metropolitan rule of holding them for the night.

              if he pawned the boots Friday night, he would certainly remember that when he went to put on his boots Saturday morning, if they were pawned Saturday morning, followed by tea with Kate, why would he think it was Friday night? And why would this man who supposedly treated Kate as if they were man and wife not look for her when she wasnt home Sunday morning? He doesnt go in until he hears details of the woman found murdered? Smells like fish in an open market at 6pm.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

                The lodging house deputy, Frederick Wilkinson, gave his evidence straight after John Kelly so if he hadn't been away hop picking in Kent with Catherine then that surely would've been picked up on and disputed. He even mentions them being away from the lodging house because they went hop picking.

                Interestingly though, Wilkinson says that John Kelly came to the lodging house at 7:30pm on the Saturday evening to stay. Wilkinson asked where Catherine was and John Kelly told him that he'd heard she'd been taken to the station drunk. John Kelly had earlier said at the inquest he'd heard about it from an old woman. Assuming she'd be locked up overnight and not out until the morning he bed for a singe bed rather than a double. This was a full hour before Catherine was picked up in Aldgate for being drunk and an hour and 15 minutes before she actually arrived at Bishopsgate Station. According to the deputy John Kelly remained at the lodging house from that point on.

                So how did John Kelly know Catherine had been picked up by the police from being drunk over an hour before she was to tell Wilkinson why she wasn't with him?


                Could Catherine have had an earlier unreported drunken altercation with another policeman but not actually taken to the station and this is the incident that was passed onto John Kelly? Or is something else going on?
                perhaps wilkenson misremembered the time when kelly told him?
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                  perhaps wilkenson misremembered the time when kelly told him?
                  John Kelly says an old woman who works in, 'the lane,' told him she saw Catherine being taken to Bishopsgate Station. If the lane he's referring to is Artillery Lane then that's just round the corner from Bishopsgate Station. But if this woman had seen Catherine being taken to the station then saw and told John Kelly afterwards that would have been after 8:45pm. That would make Wilkinson's timing of when John Kelly arrived at the lodging house and telling him where Catherine was out by at least 90 minutes. That seems particularly excessive.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X