"I think I know him"

[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

[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.

[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!

[DVV]

"I think I know him".

Such title would also be nice for a suspect thread.

Bravo Colin

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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?

[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

[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

[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.