"I think I know him"

[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."

[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]

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]

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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Cuidado, Señor.

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

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Cuidado, Señor.

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.

[Wickerman]

So we have Kate telling John she is going to the Casual Ward on Friday, and the next day tells him she is going to Bermondsey, and in both cases she may be working the streets?

- Wilkinson over stated the weeks since he last saw John and Kate.

- Jones wrote the wrong date on the pawn ticket.

- John found work Saturday afternoon, enough for his nights doss.

Simple solutions, any of which may be right or wrong, but none of which require leaps of faith. They are all simple, everyday occurrences, for the East end at least.

[lynn cates]

issue

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"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."

But it is not in "The Ultimate" and that draws from "The Times."

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

ALL testimony relies on accuracy. And we assume him accurate when he declares John in bed?

"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?"

No. It is trying to find out what they were about. IF they got back early, what were they doing? Who was Anne Kelly? Why is John lying? Whatever they were doing, it must have been important that no one found out. And perhaps they were living on the proceeds of their activities? Perhaps something illegal?

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

Indeed. But he volunteered that he had no work on Sunday nor yet Monday.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

high cost of tea

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

"She wouldn't."

So we agree on that at least.

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

2 and 6? Very expensive tea.

"Did John then go to try earn money laboring?, possibly.'

He claims he had no luck that week end.

"The truth is, we simply do not know what John did to earn his keep for Sat. night."

Clearly, he had doss money. And don't forget Sunday night and Monday night.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"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."

But it is not in "The Ultimate" and that draws from "The Times."

Yes, the press provided more coverage.
I don't want to stick my neck out here but the witness statements in the original records appear to be written in the same hand. All the writings are consistent with Langham's handwriting.

The press inform its readers that Langham wrote his own records and each witness at the conclusion of their testimony was required to go to the Coroner to sign the record.
What you read in the "Ultimate" is this same copy, a barebones version of the whole proceedings which does not even include the Coroner's summary.

We have the same situation with the Mary Kelly Inquest. A rather barebones version of the Inquest in the GLRO.

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

ALL testimony relies on accuracy. And we assume him accurate when he declares John in bed?

Wilkinson had no idea when John & Kate left for Kent that several weeks later some Coroner would be expecting him to remember the precise day they left. Was it 4 or 5 weeks, or was it 5 or 6?

Of course he can only estimate.

"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?"

No. It is trying to find out what they were about. IF they got back early, what were they doing? Who was Anne Kelly? Why is John lying? Whatever they were doing, it must have been important that no one found out. And perhaps they were living on the proceeds of their activities? Perhaps something illegal?

Which all predicates on your query, "IF they got back early". Suppose they didn't?, those questions disappear.
Asking questions is fine, but some questions cannot be answered. Compiling a list of questions which cannot be answered may suggest an attempt to implicate John in something shady.
In truth we only emphasize what we do not know. Whereas others may try to draw conclusions from those questions. We know how this played out with Hutchinson, don't we.
I would hate to see 'us' go down the same path with John Kelly.

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

Indeed. But he volunteered that he had no work on Sunday nor yet Monday.

Not Saturday then?

[Wickerman]

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

2 and 6? Very expensive tea.

Tea, food & drink.

"Did John then go to try earn money laboring?, possibly.'

He claims he had no luck that week end.

Meaning what, not earning anything, or not earning enough?

"The truth is, we simply do not know what John did to earn his keep for Sat. night."

Clearly, he had doss money. And don't forget Sunday night and Monday night.

I'm not, but neither am I questioning the fact he must have worked in his bare feet. This seems unthinkable in our couch-potato existence, but this is our problem in not tuning ourselves to the social climate of the times.

Did he show up in court in his bare feet?

[lynn cates]

fabrication

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Which all predicates on your query, "IF they got back early". Suppose they didn't?, those questions disappear."

Not at all. They disappear ONLY when we also disregard "The Echo" story as a complete fabrication.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

the bare facts

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

"Did he show up in court in his bare feet?"

Highly unlikely--as I think you'll agree.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Which all predicates on your query, "IF they got back early". Suppose they didn't?, those questions disappear."

Not at all. They disappear ONLY when we also disregard "The Echo" story as a complete fabrication.

Cheers.
LC

I'm not at all trying to substantiate a story written in the Echo, I think my position should be clear by now the press are not a reliable source.
Which does not mean we throw the whole story out, but lets not assume it is beyond dispute in every detail.

[Wickerman]

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

"Did he show up in court in his bare feet?"

Highly unlikely--as I think you'll agree.

Cheers.
LC

Right, so he wasn't entirely unlucky.

Everyone has a different take on what they think they need.

I know a mother in the UK who complains about not getting enough money from the Government (Giro?). She is unmarried, has five kids, an a house to herself.
She complains that she needs more because when she's paid her rent,food, cigs, etc, she cant afford a case of beer for the week.

She think she is badly done to, I guess she considers herself out of luck this week?