Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

David,

Found it. See post #2 by Chris Scott.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....ary+jane+kelly

Sounds suspiciously similar to Stride's Coffee House in Poplar.

But in any case I don't really see how the fact she had once run a refreshment house somewhere unspecified in the East End (if she did) would make her well known. Even Joe Barnett didn't know about it!

[jerryd]

Sounds suspiciously similar to Stride's Coffee House in Poplar.

But in any case I don't really see how the fact she had once run a refreshment house somewhere unspecified in the East End (if she did) would make her well known. Even Joe Barnett didn't know about it!

I am suspicious about the comment myself. Guess it depends on where the refreshment house was located as to whether she would have been known to the likes of Maxwell et al.

[Wickerman]

But he didn't, did he?

Statement of John McCarthy:

"I sent [Bowyer] for the rent because for some time past they had not kept their payments regularly".

Here McCarthy explains:

"I was paid 4/6 a week for the room, but rent was 29/- in arrear – the rent was paid to me weekly. The room was let weekly."


And in the Telegraph:

[Coroner] "What rent was paid for this room ? - It was supposed to be 4s 6d a week. Deceased was in arrears 29s. I was to be paid the rent weekly. Arrears are got as best you can."

In the former he provides the expected arrangement, while in the latter he adds "supposed to be", and "I was to be", which may indicate he was calling more frequently to prevent the debt getting any higher.
Equally, it could also mean he had not received any rent for weeks.

It's a detail we can't possibly settle at this point in time, but I still don't see any reason to not trust what the dosser told the reporter. For all we know she may have been 8d short of the 4/6 she needed, or she wanted some pence in her pocket for breakfast in the morning, the reason doesn't matter.

Isn't it somewhat redundant to ask a question that we can't possibly know the answer to?

[Wickerman]

I am suspicious about the comment myself. Guess it depends on where the refreshment house was located as to whether she would have been known to the likes of Maxwell et al.

The US press accounts often contain more inaccuracies than the local press.

[David Orsam]

Here McCarthy explains:

"I was paid 4/6 a week for the room, but rent was 29/- in arrear – the rent was paid to me weekly. The room was let weekly."

But in #604 you told me:

"Incidentally, a weekly rate of 4/6 does not mean the rent was payed weekly, that is just the rate"

[David Orsam]

Isn't it somewhat redundant to ask a question that we can't possibly know the answer to?

I agree but I wasn't even aware I was asking a question.

What is it you think I'm asking?

[MsWeatherwax]

David, I have to be honest here - just because he said he gave her money for her doss, that doesn't mean that's where it went. If you're asking for charity, it sounds better to say it's to pay for food or lodging than 'I'm going to use it to get hammered'. Mary may well have said she needed money for her 'doss', then spent it on gin or whatever.

[Joshua Rogan]

What about the possibility that he paid her 8p for his 'doss'?

[David Orsam]

David, I have to be honest here - just because he said he gave her money for her doss, that doesn't mean that's where it went. If you're asking for charity, it sounds better to say it's to pay for food or lodging than 'I'm going to use it to get hammered'. Mary may well have said she needed money for her 'doss', then spent it on gin or whatever.

I understand that, of course, but once we have to start attributing lies to characters in the story for it to make sense, such as Mary lying about her reason for wanting the money, the simplest explanation becomes, I would suggest, that the dosser in the newspaper story is simply making it up.

[Wickerman]

I agree but I wasn't even aware I was asking a question.

What is it you think I'm asking?

First this:

"I find it a little hard to take seriously the comments of the local dossers (did MJK actually require "doss money"?)...."

Then this:

"Surely not. Wouldn't doss money mean money for one night's doss in a lodging house? Would he have really given her 4s 6d for her weekly rent?"

Which I took to mean you were questioning the accuracy of the story attributed to this dosser by the reporter.

In my view, if we have no means of contesting this then we take it as given because we cannot know whether Mary lied to him in an attempt to gain money. In which case why he "thought" he was giving money to her is irrelevant.

[Wickerman]

I understand that, of course, but once we have to start attributing lies to characters in the story for it to make sense, such as Mary lying about her reason for wanting the money, the simplest explanation becomes, I would suggest, that the dosser in the newspaper story is simply making it up.

I would say the person in need of money at 2:00 am is more likely to lie in an effort to create sympathy to obtain said money, than the dosser talking to the reporter who claims to be the one who was suckered into giving it.

[Observer]

It's a real shame that you persist in your unfair and unwarranted allegation rather than withdraw it, referring vaguely to my "track record". It calls into question your own behaviour in my opinion.

In my opinion you are selective in you beliefs, the following will point out why I believe so.

Of course, there is so much inconsistent evidence in this case that it's impossible not to be selective if you want to express any opinion at all but your accusation is obviously that I am somehow improperly and irrationally selecting facts to support a certain position and ignoring others which don't.

The evidence which leads me to believe you are being selective is in no way inconsistent. More to follow.

I deny this absolutely and don't believe you will find any evidence of this in my posts. As it happens, I've expressed relatively few opinions on this forum regarding the murders and those that I have expressed only after carefully considering the evidence.

In my opinion you have ignored evidence as inconsequential when in fact it is anything but. More to follow.

you[/U] are being selective in your reading of my posts and seeing what you want to see.

I beg to differ.

[David Orsam]

First this:

"I find it a little hard to take seriously the comments of the local dossers (did MJK actually require "doss money"?)...."

Then this:

"Surely not. Wouldn't doss money mean money for one night's doss in a lodging house? Would he have really given her 4s 6d for her weekly rent?"

Which I took to mean you were questioning the accuracy of the story attributed to this dosser by the reporter.

In my view, if we have no means of contesting this then we take it as given because we cannot know whether Mary lied to him in an attempt to gain money. In which case why he "thought" he was giving money to her is irrelevant.

You seem to be coming close to saying we should accept everything we read in the newspapers!

Of the three questions I asked, the first "did MJK really require doss money?" is capable of being answered. The answer being no.

The second: "Wouldn't doss money mean money for one night's doss in a lodging house?" is also capable of being answered. The answer being yes.

The third: "Would he have really given her 4s 6d for her weekly rent?" The answer, I think, being unlikely. And he surely would not have called that "doss money".

However, it doesn't matter a great deal if the dosser's story is true or not because this is the only supporting evidence you have produced to show that Kelly was known outside Millers Court and it only relates to a few men in a single local lodging house.

[David Orsam]

Well actually David, the police did.

During the whole of yesterday Sergeant Thicke, with other officers, was busily engaged in writing down the names, statements, and full particulars of persons staying at the various lodging-houses in Dorset-street. That this was no easy task will be imagined when it is known that in one house alone there are upwards of 260 persons, and that several houses accommodate over 200.
Times, 12 Nov.

I don't expect Drew is implying he undertook this task himself, he is likely relaying pertinent details that arose from the house-to-house enquiries undertaken throughout Dorset St. and adjoining streets and courts, over that weekend.

Just wanted to respond to this. In the inquest papers we have statements from two residents of Millers Court, Cox and Venturney. Neither of them say that Mary Jane was sunny of nature and very popular, or something similar. On it's face, therefore, Dew's statement was untrue. And the idea that all the other residents of Millers Court included in their statements to the police a comment to the effect that Kelly was sunny of nature and very popular is not credible.

[Wickerman]

You seem to be coming close to saying we should accept everything we read in the newspapers!

We have not even come close to discussing what newspapers report on; like politics, exchanges in the house of commons, criminal cases nation wide, national & international accidents, fires, sports, weather, and foreign wars.
What from the above are you suggesting we dismiss as false, and why?

On the other hand I think you suggested this reporter, by coincidence?, just happened to locate the only two people in the whole of Dorset St. who claim to have known Mary Kelly?

Is this being realistic?