|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Candy Morgan
Police Constable
Username: Candy
Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 11:21 pm: | 
|
Hello everyone! I've been away awhile but I'm back now!
Allright, I may be missing something, but can someone explain how Kelly knew Ms. Eddowes was in the cooler when she used an alias at the time of her arrest? Did she use that alias frequently? Did some(busy)body see her arrested and come flying back to hubby to rat her out? How did Kelly find out she had been arrested? I know the testimony is listed somewhere but I've pulled all my books out with no result.
Anyway, how did Kelly's informant (for lack of a better term, I'd prefer 'tattletale') know that Catharine Eddowes = Mary Ann Kelly, and that Mary Ann Kelly had been invited to be the guest of the crown for a bit that night? I'm sure they didn't post the names of arrestees outside the police station or anything like that.
And wasn't Kelly staying in a doss house that he wasn't a regular at? Making me even more confused over how somebody KNEW C.E. = M.A.K. AND that she'd been arrested AND where to find her husband.
I don't have anywhere to go with this, it's just a nagging question I've had on my head for a couple weeks now.
"Look! A NUN!"
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 508
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 11:58 pm: |
|
Hi, Candy
Here's what Kelly said: "I heard she had been locked up at Bishopsgate, I was told by two women." It seems clear that although PC Robinson asked spectators who Eddowes was and received no reply, someone certainly did know exactly who she was--otherwise word couldn't have got back to Kelly. We don't know if these two women Kelly refers to just happened to be on the scene or not, or if they heard about the arrest from someone else who had been. It's possible they were Eddowes's drinking companions and simply melted away when they saw trouble coming (in the form of Robinson).
I've wondered if the police ever followed up with the Kelly's two mystery women--they might have been able to shed some light on Eddowes's activities from two to eight p.m. Either the police didn't follow up or the women had no information, since nobody seems to know anything about this blank area at the inquest.
Whoever the person or persons were who witnessed Kate's arrest obviously knew her (which makes me think she was drinking with a friend), so I don't think there's a mystery over the name. Eddowes didn't pull out the Mary Ann Kelly alias until Robinson had her at Bishopsgate.
Kelly was staying at Cooney's, 55 Flower and Dean the night of Kate's death. Both Kate and Kelly were regulars there and had been for seven years. Wilkinson, the deputy lodger there, testified that he was quite prepared to extend credit to them if he had only known they were broke.
Hope that helps, but I'm afraid the whole thing raises more questions than answers!
Dave
|
Candy Morgan
Police Constable
Username: Candy
Post Number: 7
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 9:41 am: |
|
Greetings Dave!
That is very interesting. I hadn't thought about the police questioning the drinking companions - you'd think they would have asked around in the public houses to try to find them... hmmmm.
I had forgotten the fact that she never gave a name until the time she was released (I really love the "nothing" when asked her name - she must have been a hoot!). I was thinking 2004 rules (ID at once and provable when arrested) instead of 1888 (ID tenuous at best and aliases were the order of the day).
I got the lodging house thing confused, with the 'doss house' versus her staying at the casual ward at Shoe Lane. I was thinking she wasn't well known at Shoe Lane, but then again, wasn't she ejected from the place early in the morning? I wonder if anybody has every found out why?
It does raise more questions but then again, the whole thing just gets murkier the more light you shine on it...
Candy
<i>She was a winner - who became the doggies' dinner..."</i> Marie Prevost, Nick Lowe
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2166
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 9:50 am: |
|
A great analysis, David.
I have thought along the same lines myself and I think it's quite positive that these women could have been some of her drinking buddies. The fact that they didn't come forward to the police is neither strange or unusual -- even during the Ripper scare, we must keep in mind, that prostitutes were hardly keen on dealing with the police.
All the best
Glenn L. Andersson, Sweden
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 509
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Hi, Candy
Eddowes and Kelly arrived both slept at Shoe Lane Casual Ward Thursday night. It was the next night, Friday night, that they split up, with Kelly staying at Cooney's while Eddowes went to Mile End (once you read Wilkinson's statement about credit, it seems strange that they should have to split up at all).
Kate turned up again at Cooney's around eight o'clock on Saturday morning, and one of the jurors thought that was unusually early because normally inmates would spend the morning working for their bed. However, Mile End was supposed to have been a little more relaxed in their work regime, or maybe it's possible that Eddowes told them that she had legitimate work elsewhere and they allowed her to leave early. I think it's also possible that Kate never went to Mile End at all--as far as I know, there's no corroboration that she did.
But if Kate did go to Mile End, I think she would have seen getting out at an early hour as a bonus instead of getting ejected--they'd give you the most terrible jobs to do, like picking hemp. Hemp was rope like the kind used on sailing vessels, thick ones with tarred ends. They'd take the old ropes no one had any use for and pick them apart with their bare fingers. I'm no hemp expert, but I think they'd use the strands to stuff mattresses and the like.
By the way, I just re-read The Daily Telegraph, 5 Oct and there it says that Kelly learned of Kate's arrest from an old woman who saw her in custody. The quote I supplied last night (about the two women) is taken from the Ultimate Companion's transcription of John Kelly's signed witness statement. The Telegraph does a good job of covering the inquest, and I'm not sure why there should be a discrepancy between the two sources.
Hi, Glenn
Thanks, I agree that if it was the case that Eddowes's drinking companions were around her at the time of the arrest, it's not surprising that they didn't identify her to P.C. Lewis Robinson--I think it's pretty indicative of how the locals perceived the police. I do have trouble with why they didn't speak up after the murder though, prostitutes or not. But not enough trouble for me to dismiss their existence, though!
Cheers,
Dave |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 103
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 2:18 am: |
|
Dave,
Lodging house deputy Frederick Wilkinson stated at the inquest that Kelly came in Saturday night between half past 7 or 8 and when asked Where’s Kate? He said ‘I have heard she’s been locked up.' Constable Louis Robins found Kate at 8:30 and she was brought into the station at 8:45.
How could Kelly have known that Kate was locked up if he arrived at the lodging house between 7:30 and 8:00? Confused!
Nina
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 511
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 9:50 am: |
|
Hi, Nina
Thanks a lot for pointing that out to me. . .Wilkinson must be wrong about the time--according to him, Kelly knew about the arrest before it even happened.
Found yet a third reference to Kelly's woman. . .a woman who told him she saw Kate in the company of two policemen walking up Houndsditch. That pretty much sinks my idea of this woman or women being drinking companions of Kate's. Whoever this was, they saw her en route to Bishopsgate and evidently didn't see the arrest on Aldgate High Street.
What I think is really interesting about the passage you mention is that Kelly didn't arrive back at Cooney's until later in the night, apparently not too long after Kate's arrest (the timing does seem to be kind of tight). I had thought he'd come back at four to meet Kate. Maybe there were no women at all, and Kelly was Kate's drinking buddy, eh?  He seems to want to fudge over her arrest since he told the Star that he thought Kate was sleeping over at her daughter's house (when we know he knew she'd been arrested for a public drunk).
Thanks,
Dave |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 104
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 10:13 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
Interesting theory about Kelly being with Kate that night. But...That would mean that the majority of his testimony was a lie. I would think that the police would have checked on his story. Its one thing to lie to the papers but to lie at the inquest.
I just ran across an article from When London Walked in terror by Cullens
'Eddowes was seen in police custody on her way to the Bishopsgate station by a lodger at No.55 Flower-and-Dean Street, who passed this information on to Kelly.'
Cullens however,does not state his source.
Its possible that this lodger notified Kelly before he registered for his bed. Could this be the mysterious woman mentioned?
I'm also sure that Kelly was not totaly truthful in his statements. For one he stated at the inquest that 'I made sure she would be out on Suday morning' I wonder what he meant by that? Knowing that Kate had not returned on Sunday he went to mitres squre to view the blood. Yet he did not even search for Kate until Tuesday night after reading the paper. If Kelly had any concern for Kelly surely he would have searched her out sooner.
Nina |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 518
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 11:47 pm: |
|
Hi, Nina
I was only speculating about Kelly being with Kate before her arrest, I don't mean it to sound like a thought-out theory
I haven't yet read Cullen's book, but that statement's borne out in the inquest testimony I touched on in my last post. The woman saw Kate in custody walking up Houndsditch. That's from the Times inquest coverage of 5 Oct. 1888 and is referenced in Ultimate, p. 241. As I understand it, Kelly booked a single bed after he found out (he told Wilkinson Kate had been locked up).
Besides Kate, John Kelly is my favorite figure in the whole case. I think he missed his calling as a diplomat. Sometimes I can almost picture him at the Lyceum--he's got something of an actor's profile and one of the press reports mentions his "sonorous voice". By saying that, I don't mean that he was "acting" during his inquest testimony.
He seems to be embarrassed about the drinking (and maybe prostitution). She's falling down drunk and Kelly says he heard "she had a drop of drink." Makes me wonder what he meant by saying that they didn't get on too well hopping. They didn't make much money? They did make money and blew most of it (which is what I suspect)?
You know, they used to run a train for the hoppers every year from London to Kent and back again (at least in 1881 they did). One of the reasons for this was that the hoppers would get paid at the end of the season and go crazy partying. I don't know if they ran the train in 1888, but if they did I wonder why Kate and John didn't take it (they seem to have walked back to London).
I also wonder if Kelly might have been a drinker himself, despite some of Wilkinson's testimony. Another inconsistency is that he admitted to Crawford that he was drinking at the time they pawned his boots (which is funny, because that money was supposed to have bought their breakfast, yet he seems to be drinking before Kate's even out of the store. How'd he buy the drink if they're so broke?). Something's funny about the money. I smell a drinking binge. . .but who knows?
But I don't question Kelly's regard for Kate. I don't have a real reason for thinking that, I just believe him when he says he wouldn't let her do anything bad. Who knows, after a month together in Kent, maybe Eddowes just ditched him for a few hours? I think the inconsistencies in his testimony is a combination of grief and diplomacy (a nice way to say he's covering up for the both of them). Also, put yourself in his place: imagine living in obscurity and then having all this massive attention (on top of your girlfriend being brutally murdered)--it must have been overwhelming. I'd probably do some fudging myself.
I really do think Kelly believed that Kate would be locked up all night--I get the feeling this had happened before (but no proof for it). Imagine how he must have felt about that the rest of his life--if only he'd gone down to Bishopsgate.
Well, I'm rambling When I read Kelly's testimony, I come away with the picture of a guy who's trying to protect the memory of his girlfriend (as well as protect himself). He's one of the most human characters (with one of the weirdest hair cuts) in the whole case.
Sorry--I'm not making much sense. Time for bed!
Cheers,
Dave
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 107
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 12:02 am: |
|
Hi Dave,
Your making perfect sense.
I can't seem to find the mention by Crawford of Kelly drinking, Could you please point that out to me?
As for Kelly's haircut you have me in fits here. 
Nina |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 520
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 12:51 am: |
|
Hi Nina
Thanks That comes from the Daily Telegraph's coverage which is on this website:
Crawford ?] She pawned the boots, did she not? - Yes; and I stood at the door in my bare feet.
[Crawford ?] Seeing the date on the tickets, cannot you recollect when the pawning took place? - I cannot say, I am so muddled up. It was either Friday or Saturday.
The Coroner: Had you been drinking when the pawning took place? - Yes.
Crawford seems to be suggesting that Kelly's lack of clarity over the date is because he's drunk. I don't think we can conclude that he was, and for the sake of simplicity I'm taking his word for a Saturday date. But if they're completely broke that morning. . .how is he drinking before the boots are sold?
But maybe I'm missing something? I see you've done some close reading yourself, so maybe you have a take on this.
Also from the Telegraph's coverage, John Kelly on their breakfast:
I think it was on Saturday morning that we pawned the boots. She was sober when she left me. We had been drinking together out of the 2s 6d. All of it was spent in drink and food. She left me quite sober to go to her daughter's.
It seems to me that Kelly's not talking about the tea here, that there was alcohol. Given Kate's drunken state later, I wonder if Kelly might be fudging and if this might be the start of Kate's binge? Of course, I'm speculating. . .Wilkinson, who saw them together that morning, also backs up Kelly on the question of Kate's sobriety, but then, Wilkinson didn't stop to chat either, so maybe he's mistaken. One other thing is, and I don't know if this is accurate, is that in 1888, a little drink at breakfast time might not necessarily indicate alcoholism, since then it was more common to drink alcohol with meals than it is today, and easier to get than say water.
Incidentally, Wilkinson accompanied John Kelly to Golden Lane Mortuary when he made his identification of Kate's body. Like with Liz Stride (who seems to have been on friendly terms with her deputy lodger further down on Flower & Dean), deputy lodgers and their regulars seem to have been on better terms than than is seen with some of the other victims (I'm thinking of Nichols). More speculation, but I'm suggesting that paying the rent may not have been such a major concern as we sometimes think, particularly if you're not a good financial planner in the first place (which I think is safe to say of someone living hand-to-mouth for seven years).
Cheers,
Dave |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 108
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 10:31 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
Kelly bought a new pair of boots and Kate a coat at Maidstone. (Cullen suggested that they took the train, but I doubt this) They arrived in London on Thursday broke, and spent the night at the casualty ward at Shoes Lane.
On Friday Kelly earned 4d at a job (enough for a single bed)and Kate spent the night at the casualty ward.
On Saturday before Kate arrived, perhaps an old friend offered Kelly a drink. Kelly pawned his boots for 2s & 6d, they bought sugar, tea, and had breakfast at Cooneys.(Beer may have been included)
Poor Kelly must have muddled about the whole situation,I don't think that he needed any beer to be in that state. I just don't see him as a drunk. I sure hope he managed to get some footware! 
As for the deputy lodgers, I agree that they were not the monsters made out to be. Simply men following orders and allowing those who they trusted to spend a night or two until they could compensate.
Nina
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 525
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 11:29 pm: |
|
Hi, Nina
Thanks for that. Cullen wrote about the train? It seems that there was an organized train and that hoppers also made use of regular trains. Since Kelly talks about traveling with another couple and sharing a barn with them, it does sound like they walked, and from what I've read of hoppers, a lot of them walked--there's a famous description of the road to London being littered with their cast off boots.
You know, the police collected Kelly's boots from Jones the pawnbroker--I wonder if he ever got them back
I don't know why they would have needed to split up on Friday night, given Wilkinson's statement about extending credit to regulars. As seven year veterans of Cooney's, it seems likely they would have known of that policy and taken advantage of it to use Kelly's wages for food instead of the extreme measure of pawning those boots the next morning (if that's when the pawning happened).
Cheers,
Dave
PS You might be interested in this colorful 15 Sept. 1884 Times article about hoppers in Faversham.
HOP-PICKERS PAY DAY.—There was a disgraceful scene at Faversham on Saturday, when about 2,000 hop-pickers received their earnings. Those from Selling were conveyed direct to London by special trains immediately upon being paid off, and thus had no opportunity of getting drunk, but a considerable number from other parishes had to travel by ordinary trains from Faversham. These went into the town, and, getting intoxicated, became very quarrelsome and disorderly. Men knocked one another down like ninepins, and women engaged in brutal encounters, scratching one another and clutching each other’s hair unmercifully. As many as a score of fights were going on at one time; blood was streaming from the heads and faces of many men and women, some of whom had been severely kicked while lying on the ground at the mercy of their antagonists. Eventually the police succeeded in quelling the disturbances, and arrested some of the ring-leaders. Upwards of 5,000 “foreign” pickers have this year been employed in the Faversham district, and their conduct has certainly been much worse than usual. Another year it will be necessary to have a much larger force of police stationed in the district during the “hopping.” It is only by great tact that the little body of constables who have been charged with the duty of looking after the pickers, have been able to preserve order so well as they have done. At Selling, on one occasion this season, a publican found it necessary to close his house entirely. The departure of the “foreign” hop-pickers has given great satisfaction to the inhabitants of Faversham. |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 111
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 11:28 am: |
|
Hi Dave,
Cullen wrote that 'Upon arriving in London the couple had just enough left from their earnings after the train fare to get drunk on cheap gin and to pay a night's lodging at No.55 Flower-and-Dean Street.' As we know Kelly and Kate spent the night at the casualty ward.
I found your Times article on 15 Sept.1884 quite interesting. Thank you!
Nina
|
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 8:38 am: |
|
Just curious...Was it standard time for drunks taken to jail (in city proper)to be released the follwing morning at 1:00 a.m..Or was it at the policeman's discretion?Hope to know. |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 763
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 2:42 pm: |
|
Hi Zcxter,
I don't know much about police procedure, but I think the inquest testimony shows that the criteria for release, at least on this particular night, was sobriety instead of what time it was. When Eddowes asked when she would be released, Hutt told her "when you are capable of taking care of yourself." According to Hutt's inquest testimony, "it was left to the discretion of the inspector, or acting inspector, to decide when a person who had been drunk was in a fit condition to be discharged." Byfield did the actual discharging after speaking with Eddowes.
I think if Hutt had gone in at 1 a.m. and thought Eddowes was still drunk, they'd have held onto her.
Hope that helps,
Dave
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
