"I think I know him"

[Wickerman]

Hi All,

You pays your money and you takes your choice with John Kelly.

Echo [later edition], 3rd October 1888—

"In the summer time we always went down into Kent hopping. We used sometimes to get on very well, but this year there was a bad crop, and it didn't pay us. We had to walk home after we finished. About three weeks ago, on the road, we picked up with another couple. They used to live in London, and the woman made Kate take a pawnticket she had for a flannel shirt that had been 'popped' at Jones's, in Church-street. It was only for ninepence, but Kate took it, and we got the money. The other couple didn't come on to London, but went North."

Regards,

Simon

Does the reference to "three weeks ago" refer to when they set out, or when they returned?

The story is ambiguous, "picking up with another couple" could mean either; while they were leaving London, or returning to London. That this other couple (the Burrell's?) had come from elsewhere.
And then on the way back this other couple carried on, journeying north.

If John & Kate left London "three weeks ago" this is consistent with the statement of Eliza Gold, and the claim that John made about arriving back on the Thursday (27th Sept.).

However, if John & Kate returned "three weeks ago", then this is in conflict with both the above.
The more consistent interpretation is to read the Echo story as telescoped, referring to details concerning both the outbound & inbound parts of their journey.

Any problem in piecing the story together may have been created by the reporter/editor in their attempt to condense the story, not by John in telling it.

[lynn cates]

to London

Hello Jon.

"Does the reference to "three weeks ago" refer to when they set out, or when they returned?"

Excellent question. But since John notes that:

"The other couple didn't come on to London, but went North."

it sounds PRECISELY as if they met coming back.

You may be entirely correct about the reporter garbling the message. So I am MORE than open to speculation about what he actually said.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Whoa, Eliza . . .

Hello (again) Jon.

Concerning Eliza, did she not draw a warning at inquest for changing precisely that story?

Concerning John's time of return, you might check his interview again--just below the heading. Surely he is indicating more than a couple days?

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Why are you so keen to blame any garbling on the press?

John Kelly's story is a demonstrable crock of old horsefathers.

Regards,

Simon

[Jon Guy]

Does the reference to "three weeks ago" refer to when they set out, or when they returned?

The story is ambiguous, "picking up with another couple" could mean either; while they were leaving London, or returning to London. That this other couple (the Burrell's?) had come from elsewhere.
And then on the way back this other couple carried on, journeying north.

If John & Kate left London "three weeks ago" this is consistent with the statement of Eliza Gold, and the claim that John made about arriving back on the Thursday (27th Sept.).

However, if John & Kate returned "three weeks ago", then this is in conflict with both the above.
The more consistent interpretation is to read the Echo story as telescoped, referring to details concerning both the outbound & inbound parts of their journey.

Any problem in piecing the story together may have been created by the reporter/editor in their attempt to condense the story, not by John in telling it.

Good post, Jon. That makes sense.
I don`t think "on the road" has to refer to the outward or return journey but is his way of describing their situation wandering around Kent on the tramp.

[Wickerman]

Hello (again) Jon.

Concerning Eliza, did she not draw a warning at inquest for changing precisely that story?

Concerning John's time of return, you might check his interview again--just below the heading. Surely he is indicating more than a couple days?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Yes, Eliza was upset ("a respectable middle aged woman, who manifested great distress, sobbing and crying piteously").

It is the "three or four weeks" we are expected to accept, her final answer.
(Notice, the alternate was "four or five months", not "three or four months", who's mistake was that?)

Could be. But if so, they set out from other than Cooney's. (See Wilkinson's testimony.)

Maybe not.
See, the Times:
"...He believed the last time the deceased and Kelly slept together at the lodginghouse was five or six weeks ago; before they went hopping."

And Wilkinson was apparently, not all too clear.
Daily News:
"The deputy, however, with much show of brain cudgelling, avowed himself quite unable to remember anything of the kind."


Hi Simon.

Hi Jon,

Why are you so keen to blame any garbling on the press?

Err, let me think,....track record?

Why are you so keen to blame the witness?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Why am I so keen to blame the witness?

Possibly because the many and varied manifestations of his often heart-wrenching story are unadulterated and demonstrable BS.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Why am I so keen to blame the witness?

Possibly because the many and varied manifestations of his often heart-wrenching story are unadulterated and demonstrable BS.

Regards,

Simon

And (if so).....where do we read of them?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Nicely fielded.

So what is your basis for believing John Kelly told the truth?

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

Eliza

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"(Notice, the alternate was "four or five months", not "three or four months", who's mistake was that?)"

Eliza's, I presume. Recall she signed her name with an X.

""...He believed the last time the deceased and Kelly slept together at the lodginghouse was five or six weeks ago; before they went hopping.""

Good. And if they had gone hopping about that time and returned with the rest of London a couple weeks later, that would make . . . Ah! Bingo!

I agree that Wilkinson was not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Nicely fielded.

So what is your basis for believing John Kelly told the truth?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

I try to be consistent in accepting the word of a witness until successfully contested, John Kelly is no different.

The only uncontaminated source we have are the Coroner's hand-written notes, this is where we should start in accepting the word of John Kelly, in my opinion.
All newspaper accounts which conflict with what we know through the Inquest must be treated with caution.

I am always unwilling to treat a witness as a liar until we find demonstrable and reliable evidence of contradiction.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Your faith in John Kelly is admirable.

However, send me an email and, by return, the scales shall hopefully be lifted from thine eyes.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"(Notice, the alternate was "four or five months", not "three or four months", who's mistake was that?)"

Eliza's, I presume. Recall she signed her name with an X.

It was a Juror's mistake and not recorded by Langham. He only wrote her final conclusion - "three or four weeks".

""...He believed the last time the deceased and Kelly slept together at the lodginghouse was five or six weeks ago; before they went hopping.""

Good. And if they had gone hopping about that time and returned with the rest of London a couple weeks later, that would make . . . Ah! Bingo!

Ah, but "when" did they go hopping?
And, how reliable is Wilkinson?
Oh, sorry, you already answered that...

I agree that Wilkinson was not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Nothing conclusive, right?
So, we are back to what we read as consistent testimony. Kate & John returned on the 27th after being gone three weeks, leaving sometime between 1st and 6th Sept.?
Which by the time of the inquest (4th Oct.) was about 4 weeks ago. Agreeing with Eliza Gold.

Hi Jon,

Your faith in John Kelly is admirable.

Hi Simon.
I don't see me treating John Kelly any different than all the other witnesses, he's not a special case. I've taken the same tack with Hutchinson, Schwartz, Maxwell, and all the other witnesses who have been labelled as possibly lying.
Which is different to being just plain wrong (mistaken?), as with Maxwell.

I'll send my email through PM, lets see what you got...

[lynn cates]

benefit of doubt until . . .

Hello Jon.

"I am always unwilling to treat a witness as a liar until we find demonstrable and reliable evidence of contradiction."

Same here. And, frankly, I like Barnett better, because AT LEAST it could be that "MJK" was lying, not he.

But John's testimony?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

mistake

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

"It was a Juror's mistake and not recorded by Langham. He only wrote her final conclusion - "three or four weeks"."

Juror's mistake? "Ultimate" p. 216 says "A discrepancy in her evidence was pointed out to the witness, who had stated in one part that the last time she saw her sister alive was four or five months ago, while in another portion of her evidence she had stated that it was three or four weeks ago."

Looks like Eliza's "mistake."

"Ah, but "when" did they go hopping?"

OK, let's suppose they tarried a couple of weeks before heading to Kent and were oblivious to the fact that the rest of London were coming back.

Question: why did they leave Cooney's two weeks early and where did they go?

"So, we are back to what we read as consistent testimony. Kate & John returned on the 27th after being gone three weeks, leaving sometime between 1st and 6th Sept.?"

At a time when the rest were coming back? OK, one could plead that John and Kate were misguided. But to do that, you must ignore ALL the "Echo" interview. So, have you thought about what John really said at interview and how it was misconstrued?

Cheers.
LC