"I think I know him"

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Cuidado, Seņor.

I hope you run out of paint long before you find yourself trapped in a corner.

Regards,

Simon

Simon.
Any solution which answers the question works, whether it is the right solution, or whether there is more than one solution, is yet to be determined.

But to say "it doesn't work", suggests no-one could possibly write the wrong date - which we both know is impossible.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Cuidado, Seņor.

I hope you run out of paint long before you find yourself trapped in a corner.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Jon, could you address--

1. If the boots were pawned on Friday, why should Kate go to Mile End Casual Ward?

She wouldn't.

2. If the boots were pawned on Saturday, why should Kate go to Bermondsey?

Because by mid-afternoon they had spent up (according to John).

Did John then go to try earn money laboring?, possibly.
The truth is, we simply do not know what John did to earn his keep for Sat. night.

[Observer]

That's is Kelly did not have any money for Saturday nights doss, because he had spent it. Wilkinson gave him tick. Failing this, the only other thing I can bring to mind is Kelly was slipped a few bob by one of the Fenian Brotherhood, for services rendered.

I mean the huge sum of money involved for a doss, 4d, well nobody would have lent him that much surely?

Begged the 4d? No?


And there's no way Kelly would have put 4d to one side out of the money they received for the boots, you know, on the sly so to speak, in order to buy a night's doss. No, he was a man of honour, he wouldn't stoop as low as that.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"No, no Lynn, you missed it.

Eliza originally said "four or five months", then corrected it to "three or four weeks".'

OK. Do you have a good source for this?

Any of the press accounts, D.T., Times, Daily News, Morning Advertiser, all the major players.
Langham makes no mention of it, rightly because he is only recording what he needs, not everything that was said.
The Coroner took his own notes, which is why we get a trimmed down version.

"OK, but that is a different question. And, lets allow that there are people continuously coming and going for a variety of reasons, not the least being the fact that some crops have failed but others have matured."

Very well. But that question, I think, must be answered.

The question relies on Wilkinson being accurate. If he merely over estimated the number of weeks, then this negates the question.

"I think what I am not visualizing is a motive, if we contemplate John was lying, to what end. . . "

Now THAT is the question.

But neither do I appreciate why it appears John's testimony is so relevant to Kate's murder.
Is this a case of trying to find something to implicate John?

". . . and do you think it was he who killed Kate on Sunday morning?"

No, I do not. But John KNEW something and he wished not to be implicated.

Look, if John is telling the truth and he and Kate were skint by Saturday, and given Kate never returned with money, whence came John's money for doss?

I don't believe anyone asked John what he did to earn money Saturday afternoon, after he left Kate.

[Observer]

La La Land

Look, if John is telling the truth and he and Kate were skint by Saturday, and given Kate never returned with money, whence came John's money for doss?

Fred Wilkinson

"If they had told me the previous day that they had no money I would have trusted them. I trust all lodgers I know."

[Observer]

La La Land

Look, if John is telling the truth and he and Kate were skint by Saturday, and given Kate never returned with money, whence came John's money for doss?

Fred Wilkinson

"If they had told me the previous day that they had no money I would have trusted them.I trust all lodgers I know"

[lynn cates]

conspiracy

Hello Jon.

"To deny this requires a variety of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories to settle the issue."

Conspiracy? It involves john Kelly inadvertently telling the truth to "The Echo" then seeing it required correction by inquest time.

I want to know why.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

time line

Hello (yet again) Jon. Thanks.

"I understood John to have claimed they spent it all on food and drink?"

Ah! You DID catch this one. I appreciate that.

Yes, he said that. OK, here's my offering. John claimed to work Saturday morning and to have met Kate by chance. They were at Cooney's chatting (witnessed by Fred Wilkinson) later that morning. Now, he and Kate go to Jones's, pawn the boots (given you like a Saturday pawning), he walks barefoot back. Trip for food/drink. By 2.30 they part.

Now, try constructing a time line and getting this all to fit.

Good luck.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Don Souden tried the "wrong date" angle a while back.

It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.

Regards,

Simon

Why can't it work?, if it solves the problems then clearly it does work, and who is the judge?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Don Souden tried the "wrong date" angle a while back.

It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

receipt

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

"No, about staying at the Casual Ward Friday night - John would be no wiser."

Indeed. And, at least we agree that the casual ward story is a nonsense. But do we REALLY believe that Kate went and John stayed at Cooney's?

"Lynn! - in my work people have to hand write today's date all the time, even when surrounded by calendars and watches, they often get it wrong, or have to ask."

But this was a receipt--very important. (But thanks for not hitting me with the "backdating" story--heh-heh)

Jon, could you address--

1. If the boots were pawned on Friday, why should Kate go to Mile End Casual Ward?

2. If the boots were pawned on Saturday, why should Kate go to Bermondsey?

I'd love to hear your take.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

source

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"No, no Lynn, you missed it.

Eliza originally said "four or five months", then corrected it to "three or four weeks".'

OK. Do you have a good source for this?


However, a juror claimed she originally said "three or four months", she didn't, she said "four or five", - that's what I was getting at. Juror's make mistakes too.""

OK. But why is Eliza being called out for it? I don't see your references in "The Ultimate." Was it in another paper?

"OK, but that is a different question. And, lets allow that there are people continuously coming and going for a variety of reasons, not the least being the fact that some crops have failed but others have matured."

Very well. But that question, I think, must be answered.

"I think what I am not visualizing is a motive, if we contemplate John was lying, to what end. . . "

Now THAT is the question.

". . . and do you think it was he who killed Kate on Sunday morning?"

No, I do not. But John KNEW something and he wished not to be implicated.

Look, if John is telling the truth and he and Kate were skint by Saturday, and given Kate never returned with money, whence came John's money for doss?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi All,

Joseph Jones, 31 Church Street, having written the wrong date on the pawn ticket for the boots is little more than a desperate attempt to obfuscate John Kelly's story, which in turn is about as likely as Druitt or Kosminski having been JtR.

Regards,

Simon

That was in reply to criminal intent, why not an oversight - anyone never written the wrong date in your life raise your hands!


Seriously though, a simple mistake is the path of least resistance. To deny this requires a variety of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories to settle the issue.

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.

2. If the boots were pawned on Saturday, why should Kate go to Bermondsey?

Sorry, missed that last one.

I understood John to have claimed they spent it all on food and drink?