Was Stride Really a JtR Victim?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lynn,

I am certain of one thing...he didnt pawn his boots Saturday morning and then walk barefoot to the market in the afternoon.

And in response to Observer, the Evening News of Oct 4th reported that Kelly said...."She promised me to be back not later than four o'clock, but she did not return. I heard afterwards that she had been locked up on the Saturday night. A woman who works in "the Lane" told me this, and said she had seen her being taken to the station. I made no inquiries, as I supposed she had been locked up for taking a drop of drink." He did not claim to know where she was on the Saturday night, he was informed of this "afterward".

At the Inquest he stated he didnt inquire as to her status since he knew she would be in jail for the night.....which was incorrect on his part. The City had a different stance on D & D's at that time and they released people taken into custody when they seemed sober and able to take care of themselves. The Metropolitan rule at the time was to keep the person all night. So Kelly in fact had surmised incorrectly.

He didnt check with the City jail on Sunday morning, which he should have based on his incorrect assumption about her release...even though Kate and he supposedly "slept almost every night together", and he didnt check on her Monday...now knowing for sure that 2 women were killed early Sunday morning, he came in on Tuesday.

What we can gather from John Kelly is that he didnt know whether the boots were pawned Friday night or Saturday morning, even though the ticket is dated for the Friday, he didnt know that the city released D & D's as they were able to take care of themselves, and he didnt know that Kate was in jail Saturday night until after the fact. He also didnt know where she was on Sunday or Monday.

We do know that he did not contact the authorities until Tuesday morning.

I had to remove the block I had on your posts Observer for this very reason, other members should be provided with the correct information after one of your posts.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Which leads one to wonder whether Eddowes or Kelly had seen the inside of a City police cell on a previous occassion. How would Kelly know The City police released their prisoners the next day?

Hi Observer.
Might I suggest, if not them themselves, then their neighbours, friends and acquaintances. Throwing out time at the station house was likely common knowledge among their kind, much the same as throwing out time at the pub.

[Observer]

I'll tell you what I've got to read your posts three or four times in order to fathom out what you're actually trying to get over. And again you don't dissapoint.

You stated

"Maybe that also comes into play when he says he didnt know where Kate was when he actually did...when she was in jail in Bishopsgate"

Where does he say that?

I quoted The Telegraph's account of the inquest. Nowhere does it imply that Kelly lied, (which is in effect what you are saying) about not Knowing where Kate Eddowes was on the night of the 29th September. Lets look at the report you provided, that of The Evening News


The Evening News of Oct 4th reported that Kelly said...."She promised me to be back not later than four o'clock, but she did not return.I heard afterwards that she had been locked up on the Saturday night. A woman who works in "the Lane" told me this, and said she had seen her being taken to the station. I made no inquiries, as I supposed she had been locked up for taking a drop of drink."

Again, where does it say that he was concealing the fact that he knew where Kate Eddowes was on the night of her arrest? Point me to the section which implies that Kelly was attempting to decieve .

I quote you

"He did not claim to know where she was on the Saturday night, he was informed of this "afterward".

What are you on about? I'm trying to get my head aroud your logic, but it's hard, believe me. Again, he didn't lie regarding the fact that he knew Eddowes was locked up on Saturday night.

I quote you

"At the Inquest he stated he didnt inquire as to her status since he knew she would be in jail for the night.....which was incorrect on his part.

Yes it was, but it does not detract from providing a reason as to why Kelly was not too concerned about Eddowes well being. That is he did not seek her out becuase he believed her to be locked up.

I quote you

"He didnt check with the City jail on Sunday morning, which he should have based on his incorrect assumption about her release...even though Kate and he supposedly "slept almost every night together", and he didnt check on her Monday...now knowing for sure that 2 women were killed early Sunday morning, he came in on Tuesday."

You see that's the problem with poster's like you. You see a conpiracy at every turn. Why should he have checked the City jail on Sunday morning? We don't know the real truth of how they lived their lives. I'm inclined to believe they were hard people, able to look after themselves. I'm of the opinion thatJohn Kelly realised that Kate Eddowes would turn up sooner or later, she had absented herself from Kelly on occasion.

" But had not she left you previously? - Yes, a long time ago - some months ago."

Ok, you believe Kelly lied through his teeth. Why do you think he lied?

I quote

"I had to remove the block I had on your posts Observer for this very reason, other members should be provided with the correct information after one of your posts"

And members should be provided with headache pills after one of your posts.

But

You're all heart. You must be one of those experts I've been reading about on another thread. It's a good job they've got you though.

[Observer]

Hi Observer.
Might I suggest, if not them themselves, then their neighbours, friends and acquaintances. Throwing out time at the station house was likely common knowledge among their kind, much the same as throwing out time at the pub.

Good suggestion Wickerman. Hard times believe me. Hard people, hard times.

Regards

Observer