Tweet
The police very quickly came to the conclusion that Kelly was not implicated in the Eddowes murder, but I am not entirely sure why. Frederick Wilkinson, of Cooney's Lodging House claimed that Kelly went to bed at 10pm and did not go out again that night. He's not a convincing witness though. In his inquest testimony he contradicts himself:
Mr Crawford: "Did anyone come to your lodging-house on the Sunday morning between 1 and 2 o'clock and take a bed; a stranger?"
Witness: "I had no stranger there between 1 and 2".
Mr Crawford: Can you tell me who entered your lodging-house on Sunday morning between 1 and 2?"
Witness: "Two detectives came and asked if I had any female out".
Mr Crawford; "Did anyone come in before that, between 1 and 2, whom you did not recognise, and take a bed?"
Witness: "I cannot remember. I can refer to my book and tell you whether any stranger was there".
He gives diametrically opposed answers to what is essentially the same question. One minute he insists that he had no stranger there between 1 and 2am, the next he can't remember and needs to refer to his book!
I doubt if the detectives were enquiring about Eddowes, so presumably the concern was to identify Stride, but even her body wasn't discovered until 1am, so it was probably nearer 2 than 1 when the detectives arrived. There is less certainty in Wilkinson's account than he is claiming, and I think there has to be a possibility that he was asleep for part of the time.
We are told that Kelly and Eddowes had been hop-picking in Kent for some weeks, but no more than that. The hop-picking season began in September, but the crop was largely ruined in 1888 by the adverse weather conditions, hence their return to London more or less penniless. If they were gone for the whole month, Kelly would be alibi'd for the only murder in September prior to the double event, that of Annie Chapman on the 8th, but how do we know that they left that early? Kelly's alibi is his own uncorroborated account.
There is a suggestion that Kate informed the Superintendent at the Casual Ward that she had returned to London because she thought she knew the identity of the killer and wanted to claim the (non-existent) reward. If she had been hop-picking in Kent for several weeks, how could she have come by information which led her to believe she knew the identity of the killer? We don't know with certainty that she made such a claim of course but, if she did, how could a woman hop-picking in Kent have learned the identity of a man who had been killing prostitutes in London? I would have to conclude that someone who was with her in Kent said, or did, something to lead her to that conclusion.
You seem to be leaning towards Kelly for Eddowes, Lynn, but why not Kelly for all of them - at least as a possibility? With Eddowes dead, we only have his word for it that he was in Kent throughout the hop-picking season.
Regards, Bridewell
Mr Crawford: "Did anyone come to your lodging-house on the Sunday morning between 1 and 2 o'clock and take a bed; a stranger?"
Witness: "I had no stranger there between 1 and 2".
Mr Crawford: Can you tell me who entered your lodging-house on Sunday morning between 1 and 2?"
Witness: "Two detectives came and asked if I had any female out".
Mr Crawford; "Did anyone come in before that, between 1 and 2, whom you did not recognise, and take a bed?"
Witness: "I cannot remember. I can refer to my book and tell you whether any stranger was there".
He gives diametrically opposed answers to what is essentially the same question. One minute he insists that he had no stranger there between 1 and 2am, the next he can't remember and needs to refer to his book!
I doubt if the detectives were enquiring about Eddowes, so presumably the concern was to identify Stride, but even her body wasn't discovered until 1am, so it was probably nearer 2 than 1 when the detectives arrived. There is less certainty in Wilkinson's account than he is claiming, and I think there has to be a possibility that he was asleep for part of the time.
We are told that Kelly and Eddowes had been hop-picking in Kent for some weeks, but no more than that. The hop-picking season began in September, but the crop was largely ruined in 1888 by the adverse weather conditions, hence their return to London more or less penniless. If they were gone for the whole month, Kelly would be alibi'd for the only murder in September prior to the double event, that of Annie Chapman on the 8th, but how do we know that they left that early? Kelly's alibi is his own uncorroborated account.
There is a suggestion that Kate informed the Superintendent at the Casual Ward that she had returned to London because she thought she knew the identity of the killer and wanted to claim the (non-existent) reward. If she had been hop-picking in Kent for several weeks, how could she have come by information which led her to believe she knew the identity of the killer? We don't know with certainty that she made such a claim of course but, if she did, how could a woman hop-picking in Kent have learned the identity of a man who had been killing prostitutes in London? I would have to conclude that someone who was with her in Kent said, or did, something to lead her to that conclusion.
You seem to be leaning towards Kelly for Eddowes, Lynn, but why not Kelly for all of them - at least as a possibility? With Eddowes dead, we only have his word for it that he was in Kent throughout the hop-picking season.
Regards, Bridewell
Comment