"I think I know him"

[lynn cates]

source of error

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"the press are not a reliable source."

And yet, there is scarce another.

"Which does not mean we throw the whole story out, but let's not assume it is beyond dispute in every detail."

Good. John was really interviewed? Agreed. Then, once again, I invite you to suggest which details the reporter got wrong and why.

So, for example, in the "MJK" case, it was initially reported that she had a child and was out buying milk. Later, it was determined that one of the witnesses had a child and went out to buy milk. Mistake? Misunderstanding whom was buying milk. Easy.

So, when John, three weeks previously, had met the Birrells, and said they did not come up to London but went north, perhaps actually said, "Did not come up to Kent?"

And when John spoke of many days and some days after their return, perhaps actually said "one day"?

Something along these lines?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

source of income

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

"Right, so he wasn't entirely unlucky."

By unlucky, I take it he means, "Found no work." Now, I think he and Kate DID have some money, else John could not have eaten and dossed for all those days between her death and his going forward to the police (by the way, I think you've explained that as "denial"? Very well.) But I do NOT think his source of income was his labour at the docks, nor yet his "new boots" pawned.

Then what was it?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

"I think I know him".

Such title would also be nice for a suspect thread.

Bravo Colin

[Bridewell]

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

Me too!

[Bridewell]

"I think I know him".

Such title would also be nice for a suspect thread.

Bravo Colin

Thanks for that. Like a lot of people I've always assumed that either Kate Eddowes didn't say it or it was an invention. I just thought it worthwhile to look at the possibility, however remote, that she said it and believed it to be true.

[moonbegger]

I just thought it worthwhile to look at the possibility, however remote, that she said it and believed it to be true.

And it seems you had a much better response than I did when I posed the same question last year on my " Did Kate know her killer thread "

moonbegger

[The Rookie Detective]

Bump up


Great thread discussion here.


RD

[DJA]

Just as an additional thought, the absence of Kate Eddowes and John Kelly from London coincided with a hiatus in the sequence of murders, which recommenced almost immediately after their return.

Mary Ann Nichols moved next door to Eddowes 24th August.
Eddowes left to go hopping.
Nichols' body was found,not far from the London Hospital,31st August.
Both had been inpatients together.

[John Wheat]

Mary Ann Nichols moved next door to Eddowes 24th August.
Eddowes left to go hopping.
Nichols' body was found,not far from the London Hospital,31st August.
Both had been inpatients together.

Just a coincidence unless you have evidence that proves otherwise.

[DJA]

Eddowes' facial cuts ie nose and chevrons are the initial infection sites for strep pyogenes.

Both women were treated for rheumatic fever.

[Fiver]

Eddowes' facial cuts ie nose and chevrons are the initial infection sites for strep pyogenes.

That is an inaccurate description of both Eddowes wounds and Streptococcus Pyogenes.

Both women were treated for rheumatic fever.

Source?

[DJA]

That is an inaccurate description of both Eddowes wounds and Streptococcus Pyogenes.



Source?

Sinuses and where they flood the nose.

[John Wheat]

Eddowes' facial cuts ie nose and chevrons are the initial infection sites for strep pyogenes.

Both women were treated for rheumatic fever.

That's not evidence. It's another meaningless coincidence.

[DJA]

Not when you realize the connection with kidney disease.

Gull–Sutton Syndrome (chronic Bright's disease)


In 1872, Sir William Gull and Henry G. Sutton, M.B., F.R.C.P. presented a paper^[36] that challenged the earlier understanding of the causes of chronic Bright's Disease.

The symptoms of Bright's Disease had been described in 1827 by the English physician Richard Bright who, like Gull, was based at Guy's Hospital. Dr. Bright's work characterised the symptoms as caused by a disease centred on the kidney. Chronic Bright's disease was a more severe variant, where other organs are also affected.

In their introduction, Gull and Sutton point out that Dr. Bright and others "have fully recognised that the granular contracted kidney is usually associated with morbid changes in other organs of the body" and that these co-existent changes were commonly grouped together and termed "chronic Bright's disease." The prevailing opinion at the time was that the kidney was the organ primarily affected, inducing a condition that would spread to other parts of the body and thereby cause other organs to suffer.

Gull and Sutton argued that this assumption was incorrect. They presented evidence to show that the diseased state could also originate in other organs, and that the deterioration of the kidney is part of the general morbid change, rather than the primary cause. In some cases examined by Gull and Sutton, the kidney was only marginally affected while the condition was far more advanced in other organs.

Gull and Sutton's main conclusion was that the morbid change in the arteries and capillaries was the primary and essential condition of the morbid state known as chronic Bright's disease with contracted kidney. They stated that the clinical history may vary according to the organs primarily and chiefly affected; the condition could not be expected to follow a simple and predictable pattern.

[DJA]

Streptococcus Pyogenes

Worth a good read.Thanks Fiver.