Was Stride Really a JtR Victim?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[Observer]

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. Or why he waited so long to seek her out...if they were as close as he stated.

I think not.

From the Daily Telegraph October 5th 1888

"[Coroner] Did you make any inquiry after her? -"

"I heard she had been locked up at Bishopsgate-street on Saturday afternoon. An old woman who works in then lane told me she saw her in the hands of the police."

And the reason he did not bother to seek her out.

[Coroner] "Did you make any inquiry into the truth of this?"

- "I made no further inquiries. I knew that she would be out on Sunday morning, being in the City."

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?

[lynn cates]

give 'im the boot

Hello Mike. Thanks.

I used to swear that the boots were pawned on Friday (as per ticket). But, after the research, I have concluded that NO boots were pawned--not John's, at least.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

With his initial answer, John seems caught off guard and to be making up a story

Cheers.
LC

It would also seem that Johns short term memory is flawed, being unable to state with certainty when his boots were pawned. Despite being uncertain whether it was actually Saturday morning, he did have a good story for the Inquest as to what transpired Saturday morning. Conflicted? Confused?

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. Or why he waited so long to seek her out...if they were as close as he stated.

I find it hard to believe a lot of what he said Lynn.

Cheers mate

[Observer]

Or did John know anything about pawning?

Naivety personified. Ten years living in "The Deans" and Kelly didn't know anything about pawning? I very much doubt it.

Now, if you look at what John says about Emily Birrell and the shirt, you'll see the same context--she said the shirt is in for X amount and the shirt will fit your old man. She then gave Kate the ticket.

Idea? When Kate and John get settled, Kate may go to Jones's, present the ticket, price of shirt and usury, and obtain a shirt for John--slightly below full market price.

You'll not see the same context. What Kelly said in The Echo interview was that they redeemed the ticket for ninepence. That's not how the system worked. The ticket would only have got you the shirt back, and you'd have to pay ninepence. Wickerman got it right, it was the reporter who was muddled. The whole interview is one big muddle. A conspiracy theorists delight.

With his initial answer, John seems caught off guard and to be making up a story

Well you would say that wouldn't you?

[lynn cates]

pawning

Hello Jon. Thanks.

I believe Simon Wood has some particulars about pawning. Then, as now, pawning is--as you suppose--a kind of loan. Permit some made up figures.

1. A shirt is worth a shilling.

2. A lady needs money.

3. Goes to pawn shop.

4. Shirt is allowed 6d--half value.

5. Shirt is received, 6d given.

6. Ticket ALSO given for redemption of shirt within, say, 30 days.

7A. Lady is happy (well, sort of) with 6d.

8A. Shopkeeper is happy with 6d shirt--at end of term, say, one month, he sells shirt for 10d--4d profit (and less than the 1s shirt would fetch in used clothing shop).

7B. Lady merely needed loan of 6d.

8B. After two weeks, say, lady has taken care of business and can redeem shirt.

9B. Lady returns to pawn shop with ticket.

10B. Lady presents ticket and 6d, worth of shirt--plus, say, 2d interest.

11B. Shop keeper makes 2d for his trouble.

Now, if you look at what John says about Emily Birrell and the shirt, you'll see the same context--she said the shirt is in for X amount and the shirt will fit your old man. She then gave Kate the ticket.

Idea? When Kate and John get settled, Kate may go to Jones's, present the ticket, price of shirt and usury, and obtain a shirt for John--slightly below full market price.

With his initial answer, John seems caught off guard and to be making up a story

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Happy? No, but they were on good terms.

Miserable? Well, he did say that many days they had not enough to eat.

How does one derive many days from Thursday, Friday and Saturday?

Jon, you do very well with forensic reconstructions. Read about the pawning story. Perhaps you can duplicate the reporter's error? Try to imagine what John actually said.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
Time to shut down tonight, but, if this is the line:

".....the woman made Kate take a pawnticket she had for a flannel shirt that had been 'popped' at Jones's, in Church-street. It was only for ninepence, but Kate took it, and we got the money."

I don't know anything about pawning in the period, but perhaps we need to think along the lines of a credit system.

Example:
Woman takes shirt to pawn shop for money. Shirt valued by broker at 3/-, so he offers the woman 1/6, half its value.
Suppose, the woman asked for, or was offered, 9d in change and a ticket valued at 9d, for future use?
Can you think of a reason why the woman, or the pawnbroker might prefer this?

[lynn cates]

happy/miserable

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Happy? No, but they were on good terms.

Miserable? Well, he did say that many days they had not enough to eat.

How does one derive many days from Thursday, Friday and Saturday?

Jon, you do very well with forensic reconstructions. Read about the pawning story. Perhaps you can duplicate the reporter's error? Try to imagine what John actually said.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"Eliza Gold claimed to have last seen John & Kate together between Sept. 6th - 13th, or thereabouts.
If true, this surely means they set-off Hopping about 3 weeks ago, and returned, as John claimed, on Thursday 27th."

1. Why would John and Kate GO hopping when everyone else returned?

2. Why would this be when they left? Why not when they came back?

I think you'll find the same scenario with other seasonal activities. Everyone thinks, "it'll be different for me", or, "we'll do better".
I mean, look at the 49'ers, the American Gold rush, people were coming and going all the time.

Also, didn't John say they were miserable when they returned, yet Eliza G. said they were happy when she last saw them.
Hence, likely not the same event.

"Happy" at the prospect of earning some cash (before they went), "miserable" at the negative result (after they returned).
Two separate events, weeks apart.

"So, I had to wonder if the reporter had never pawned anything in his life and just miss-understood what John had told him."

Or did John know anything about pawning?

I would think John was more likely to know than a reporter, they likely lived in different worlds.

[lynn cates]

coming and going

Hello Jon.

"Eliza Gold claimed to have last seen John & Kate together between Sept. 6th - 13th, or thereabouts.
If true, this surely means they set-off Hopping about 3 weeks ago, and returned, as John claimed, on Thursday 27th."

1. Why would John and Kate GO hopping when everyone else returned?

2. Why would this be when they left? Why not when they came back?

"So, I had to wonder if the reporter had never pawned anything in his life and just miss-understood what John had told him."

Or did John know anything about pawning?

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Just suppose John & Kate met this couple on the way down, not on the way back?
If you recall, one witness, Eliza Gold, her sister, told the Court:
"Three or four weeks ago I saw them together, and they were then on happy terms."

Eliza Gold claimed to have last seen John & Kate together between Sept. 6th - 13th, or thereabouts.
If true, this surely means they set-off Hopping about 3 weeks ago, and returned, as John claimed, on Thursday 27th.

Hi Wickerman.

I also thought along those lines. They could also have met the couple as they were on the road searching for work. If you read the article though it clearly implies that they met them as they returned to London. Taking the muddle the reporter made with the pawn ticket, I'd say it's a possibility that he muddled the interpretation surrounding Eddowes and Kelly's tramp around Kent and their eventual return to London also.

Possibly a mistake for Chelmsford?

Very likely.

If my 'shadow' reads this you'll be on the receiving end of some stern retribution, "irrefutably" so!

Yes, the evening papers, Echo, Star, Pall Mall Gazette, to name a few, are not the most reliable media outlets.

I'll say. I think a thread is in order to log all the mistakes and falsehoods those newspapers put to paper

Regards

Observer

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Have a close look at his "Echo" interview. He inadvertently lets it out.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks Lynn, I will.

Sorry to interject Wickerman, but I believe Mr Cates is referring to this section of Kelly's interview he gave to The Echo.

" In the summer time we always went down into Kent hopping. We used sometimes to get on very well, but this year there was a bad crop, and it didn't pay us. We had to walk home after we finished. About three weeks ago, on the road, we picked up with another couple. They used to live in London, and the woman made Kate take a pawnticket she had for a flannel shirt that had been 'popped' at Jones's, in Church-street. It was only for ninepence, but Kate took it, and we got the money. The other couple didn't come on to London, but went North."

If you'll note in particular these sections

"About three weeks ago, on the road, we picked up with another couple."

"The other couple didn't come on to London, but went North."

You'll note, if you take the above two statements at face value it appears to imply that Kelly and Eddowes returned to London sometime around the second week in September.

Thankyou Observer.

Just suppose John & Kate met this couple on the way down, not on the way back?
If you recall, one witness, Eliza Gold, her sister, told the Court:
"Three or four weeks ago I saw them together, and they were then on happy terms."

Eliza Gold claimed to have last seen John & Kate together between Sept. 6th - 13th, or thereabouts.
If true, this surely means they set-off Hopping about 3 weeks ago, and returned, as John claimed, on Thursday 27th.

Also note that the reference to the pawn ticket makes little sense. If Eddowes recieved a pawn ticket for a shirt that had been "popped", she would not recieve the ninepence it had been "popped" for (should she redeem the shirt) as stated in the article. If she presented the ticket at the pawn shop she would have had to pay ninepence in order to retrieve the shirt. In effect the ninepence would have been given to the couple whom Eddowes recieved the ticket from.

That line has always puzzled me. Taken at face value it also suggested to me that Kate would have to pay 9d, not receive 9d.
So, I had to wonder if the reporter had never pawned anything in his life and just miss-understood what John had told him.

There is a reference from Kelly in another publication to the effect that the couple in question were headed for Cheltenham.

Possibly a mistake for Chelmsford?

The thing is, we are talking about an Echo article, the same publication which reported the following regarding Eddowes, as she lay at rest.

"It still lies just as it was found. Upon the breast are two withered chrysanthemums. They are very small, and when pinned there on Saturday night were pure white. They are faded now, and well-nigh shriveled beyond recognition."

Do you believe the above? Or is it an invented reference to Eddowes life, cut short, snuffed out in an instant?

All I'll add is this. Take articles written by The Echo at face value and you're dicing with disaster. It's a virtual honey-pot for the proliferation of all kinds of conspiracy plots.

Observer

If my 'shadow' reads this you'll be on the receiving end of some stern retribution, "irrefutably" so!

Yes, the evening papers, Echo, Star, Pall Mall Gazette, to name a few, are not the most reliable media outlets.