"I think I know him"

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.

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

But that, in part, is a similar situation, John can only tell us what Kate told him. If she lied to John then he was no wiser than we are.
However, when it comes to the pawning of the boots, John is admittedly unclear when it happened.

As Langham noted, the ticket is dated "28" (Friday), instead of "29", but was this handwritten on the ticket?
Is this a simple question of the wrong date being written at the shop, or something more?

[lynn cates]

disjunction

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"But that, in part, is a similar situation, John can only tell us what Kate told him. If she lied to John then he was no wiser than we are."

Are you suggesting that Kate lied about when they went hopping and he believed it?

"Is this a simple question of the wrong date being written at the shop, or something more?"

Why would the wrong date be written?

Here's a simple thought.

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?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

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."

No, no Lynn, you missed it.

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

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

"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?

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.

"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?

Not all the crops failed, so we can't say "the rest were coming back". The hop-picking season was also a holiday, the only one they get.
Down and out Eastenders will typically try their luck regardless of who they meet on the road, picking hops is the only source of income for many at this time of year. Of course they will still try their luck.

I think what I am not visualizing is a motive, if we contemplate John was lying, to what end, and do you think it was him who killed Kate on Sunday morning?
Wilkinson seems to think John stayed in the lodging-house from 10pm Sat until dinner-time Sunday, but he wasn't pressed on the matter.

Do you think he was mistaken here?

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"But that, in part, is a similar situation, John can only tell us what Kate told him. If she lied to John then he was no wiser than we are."

Are you suggesting that Kate lied about when they went hopping and he believed it?

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

"Is this a simple question of the wrong date being written at the shop, or something more?"

Why would the wrong date be written?

Lynn! - in my work people have to hand write todays date all the time, even when surrounded by calendars and watches, they often get it wrong, or have to ask. Why, do you think this is?

Here's a simple thought.

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?

And if "28" was written by mistake instead of "29" then we have consistent stories.

Hey, if someone can write Flemings height wrong, I'm sure they can get a date wrong too!

[Toofew]

Those seeking more information on my arguments against the story that Eddowes claimed she knew the Ripper being true may find it here Grave-Spitting & Other Tall Tales in the Dissertations section of Casebook.

Don.

Cool, the wife while cleaning out boxes of books found two unread copies of Ripper Notes, one of which included that one. I was looking through them today and it was like Christmas in July!

Be good,

Billy

[Simon Wood]

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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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?

[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

[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

[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"