Elizabeth's murder and the double event

[Michael W Richards]

I wonder how many people consider the fact that Kelly knew about where Kate was and yet was complacent about looking intro her whereabouts when she doesnt show up Sunday morning as being a little odd? Based on what we hear about those 2 that Kelly is the only man she has been seen with since returning from hop picking and that they lived "as a married" couple. Together each night. So, he knows she is in jail Sat evening and will be discharged when she is sober enough....not like the Met jurisdiction who kept them in over night at that time. So...he has no reason Saturday night to believe she will be in all night, yet he doesnt check on her. Shes not back Sunday, he doesnt go find out where she is. Sunday night comes and goes and when reading the paper Monday concerning murder and the pawn tickets he realizes thats his Kate.

Every night together? Catch and release D & D incarceration that would have ended before Sunday am...and he waits until he reads the paper Monday. How long would he have gone not looking into what happened with her if he hadnt heard of or seen that newspaper article?

The actual date of the pawn ticket, when he pawned his boots, how the money was split, why Kate is there early at 8am Sat morning if she had stayed in a workhouse Friday night, his lack of interest in her whereabouts Sunday,...the unknown people Kate got drunk with Saturday afternoon....some important questions. That have some questionable answers thus far.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

She could have been robbed by her killer. I don't know about kissing but I would imagine some talking taking place first. In that case, fresh breath would be helpful.

c.d.

This seems to be a popular explanation for why a soliciting Stride was found to have no money one her person. The obvious question is - would this robbery have occurred before or after she was murdered?

An after response leads to the question of which pocket the money would have been taken from. There seem to be two candidates.

D-I Reid: In her jacket pocket were two handkerchiefs, a thimble, and a piece of wool on a card.

Dr Phillips: I found in the pocket of the underskirt of the deceased a key, as of a padlock, a small piece of lead pencil, a comb, a broken piece of comb, a metal spoon, half a dozen large and one small button, a hook, as if off a dress, a piece of muslin, and one or two small pieces of paper.

I don't know which side either of these pockets were on. If it is supposed that the underskirt would have been the best place to secure coins, then the following would need to be considered.

Coroner: Were her clothes disturbed?
PC Lamb: No. I scarcely could see her boots. She looked as if she had been laid quietly down. Her clothes were not in the least rumpled.

So, what about a robbery before the murder? Presumably the man would have threatened the woman to hand over her money, "or else". She then hands over her money but suffers the "else" anyway. Why would a non-Ripper robber do that? Alternatively, how risky would it be for the Ripper to demand money, possibly at knifepoint, before he kills? She might scream for help. Would Jack take that risk? Did he take that risk with Eddowes?

[Wickerman]

Plenty he lied about
But the taking into custody of Eddowes wasn't one of them clearly as she was .
He was just premature in mentioning it

Oh brother!

Ok, if Kelly wasn't clairvoyant, or lying, then how could Kelly mention Kate's arrest prematurely?

[Bridewell]

You're both assuming she was drunk .
Ever been so drunk you need picking up off the floor and help to walk ?
If so you'll also know that once your head goes down you don't wake up four hours later singing and asking to be free from the dry bed you've found by chance .

One thing I learned in 13 years as a police custody sergeant - every drunk is different. Everyone's metabolism is different. Some drunks are placid, some violent. Some are noisy, some quiet. Some sober up quickly, some don't. Some want to be let out as soon as possible; some are happy to stay locked up and maybe get a free breakfast out of it. One size most definitely does not fit all.

She wasn't drunk.

The only witnesses who can give evidence of opinion are those deemed by the court to be expert. It is accepted in the UK courts that a police officer can give such evidence with regard to drunkenness. More than one officer opined that Eddowes was drunk. On the balance of probabilities (at least) that is what she was.

[packers stem]

Ok, sorry, I thought you were alluding to Kelly lying. I just recall Simon & LynnC. offering that view as an argument, I assumed you were doing the same.

Now I'm left guessing what your argument is :-)

Plenty he lied about
But the taking into custody of Eddowes wasn't one of them clearly as she was .
He was just premature in mentioning it

[Wickerman]

Ok, sorry, I thought you were alluding to Kelly lying. I just recall Simon & LynnC. offering that view as an argument, I assumed you were doing the same.

Now I'm left guessing what your argument is :-)

[packers stem]

Agreed, which leaves me wondering why accusing Kelly of lying makes any sense. Surely such an accusation can only be made by someone who does believe in clairvoyance?
As opposed to accepting Wilkinson made a mistake in the time that he spoke to Kelly?
Isn't Wilkinson making a mistake the more rational explanation?

I never suggested Kelly lied Jon
I also don't believe Wilkinson made a mistake .
It was his job to sort the rooms out and mark in the ledgers ..... of all the people we query about timings and were they out by a few minutes etc ... we have someone in his place of work , with a clock I'm sure , and we're trying to put him hours out to make things convenient?

[packers stem]

Quite an imagination.

This isn't about imagination Michael
It's about facts as we know them
You claim that the witness file here is correct .
Do you know where they got the information ?
I suggest you read the inquest testimony here which is taken from the telegraph in which Wilkinson states "about 7 30" ...
The telegraph was always more thorough in its reporting of the inquests , hence why it's used here for reference .
That's why i said "more accurate" and certainly more accurate than whatever you were reading to make you believe , incorrectly , that Eddowes was arrested at 8
Even if you stretch your imagination to your furthest point possible then Eddowes was still not in Bishopsgate and was just being helped to her feet .... As Kelly was ,at this point , three quarters of a mile away ,how would you suggest he knew ?




Not sure what you believe happened, but its clear you use a flawed interpretation to get there.

Nothing flawed to see here
Just that I don't bury my head in the sand and pretend all is ok when it's clearly not

[DJA]

You're both assuming she was drunk .
Ever been so drunk you need picking up off the floor and help to walk ?
If so you'll also know that once your head goes down you don't wake up four hours later singing and asking to be free from the dry bed you've found by chance .
They would have been shouting her to wake up in the morning ...
She wasn't drunk
Another point missed by many is that John Kelly told Wilkinson an hour before she was arrested that she already had been ! Clairvoyant ?

If she had Rheumatic fever in December 1867,there is every chance Eddowes had a few drinks in an attempt to stave off heart failure in 1888.

That combination, exacerbated by the trip back to London from hopping in Kent, would have her passed out and smelling of alcohol and an early recovery that night.

[Wickerman]

You're absolutely right Jon
And no , It can't easily be explained other than I'm quite happy to rule out clairvoyance lol
All I'm doing is pointing out the facts as we know them .We then have to find the theory that best fits said facts .

Agreed, which leaves me wondering why accusing Kelly of lying makes any sense. Surely such an accusation can only be made by someone who does believe in clairvoyance?
As opposed to accepting Wilkinson made a mistake in the time that he spoke to Kelly?
Isn't Wilkinson making a mistake the more rational explanation?

[Michael W Richards]

Quite an imagination.

So basically her appearance and she smelt of drink .
There's a world of difference between smelling of drink and being incapable of standing up .

There is...a world of difference. The woman smelled like booze and fell down...and thats definately not connected to inebriation? Strange that you would not make any connection. They certainly did. So would I.

And you claiming to be an expert on how long it takes anyone to sleep off booze.


Check out the far more accurate , full account of inquest testimony from the telegraph for the timeline

Far more accurate than what?

Wilkinson said ..... I first heard from Kelly on Saturday night that Kate was locked up, and he said he wanted a single bed. That was about 7.30 in the evening.


He didnt say that at all, I already pasted what he said earlier. He said..." between half past seven or eight". See the witness file here. Which means he didnt know whether it was 7:30 or 8:30...yet you insist on using his earliest time to foster your beliefs. He wasnt even sure if it was closer to 8 or 9.

Not sure what you believe happened, but its clear you use a flawed interpretation to get there.

[packers stem]

Ok, fair enough, I wasn't sure if there was more to the accusation, thats all.

So, presumably you can explain how Kelly was able to predict Kate getting locked up about an hour before it happened. Just saying that he lied doesn't explain how he could know in advance. Can you explain?

You're absolutely right Jon
And no , It can't easily be explained other than I'm quite happy to rule out clairvoyance lol
All I'm doing is pointing out the facts as we know them .We then have to find the theory that best fits said facts .

[Robert St Devil]

You're both assuming she was drunk .
Ever been so drunk you need picking up off the floor and help to walk ?
If so you'll also know that once your head goes down you don't wake up four hours later singing and asking to be free from the dry bed you've found by chance .
They would have been shouting her to wake up in the morning ...
She wasn't drunk
Another point missed by many is that John Kelly told Wilkinson an hour before she was arrested that she already had been ! Clairvoyant ?

I've considered the same point [re: her recovery time] when I wonder if Catherine had been mickied. My biggest deterrent (so far) has been malt liquor. I read tale (somewhere) that malt liquor was prefered because a person recovered faster or didn't stay drunk as long or something along those lines.

Then again, the witty Catherine's objective may just have been a place to sleep awhile ie. a slight ruse on the police to obtain a cot. Considering she's just slept, maybe her first thought isn't concerned with finding another bed when she leaves the police station.

[Wickerman]

Ok, fair enough, I wasn't sure if there was more to the accusation, thats all.

So, presumably you can explain how Kelly was able to predict Kate getting locked up about an hour before it happened. Just saying that he lied doesn't explain how he could know in advance. Can you explain?

[packers stem]

Is Wilkinson's inability to remember the exact time (7:30 or 8:30), the only basis for accusing Kelly of lying?
Surely, the fault lies with Wilkinson not Kelly.

"That was about 7.30 in the evening "
Is accurate enough in my opinion.
Any inability to remember the exact time is your assumption possibly based upon some summarised versions of the inquest testimony ?
I'm always happier with the telegraph .
Typically shows the testimony in full detail inclusive of many questions asked at the time unlike other publications

I'm not sure I've seen anywhere 8.30 as the outcome so I don't know where that came from but yes ,I've seen between 7.30 and 8 written in some accounts.
Unfortunately , many are copied .... and copied incorrectly .
The telegraph was first hand