|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 730
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 8:43 am: | 
|
G'day,
Can someone please help me? I am trying to piece together Kate's final days and nights for this book:
It says in the 'Daily Telegraph' October 5 that John Kelly testified: 'On THURSDAY NIGHT we both slept in the casual-ward (Shoe Lane).'
They spent the next day together and she left on FRIDAY AFTERNOON at 4p.m. and met Kelly again at 8a.m. on SATURDAY MORNING. She left John again at 2p.m. that same day.
She was arrested for being drunk on SATURDAY NIGHT and was released at 12:55a.m. on SUNDAY MORNING. The rest is clear.
Where did she sleep FRIDAY NIGHT? I think she told John that she was going to the Casual Ward in Mile End, but was it proved that she slept there? I asked this question days ago, but no one answered. Now it's lost in the archives and it's giving me a headache trying to find the answer for myself!
Thanks LEANNE! |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 731
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 9:03 am: |
|
G'day,
I'm really confused because it says here under 'Victims' that she and Kelly reached London on FRIDAY, yet every else it says that John Kelly said they got back on THURSDAY!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 939
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 10:15 am: |
|
Hi Leanne
Look in your Sourcebook/Companion at John Kelly's inquest testimony (there are two accounts of this). There he makes it clear that Kate slept at the Casual Ward on Friday night.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 413
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 10:15 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
According to John Kelly's testimony before the inquest, stated in The Daily Telegraph October 4 (October 5, page 2):
"[Coroner] Previous to this Saturday had you been sleeping there each evening during the week [the lodging house]? - No; I slept there on Friday night, but she didn't.
[Coroner] Did she not sleep with you? - No.
[Coroner] Was she walking the street that night? - She had the misfortune to go to Mile-end.
[Coroner] What happened there? - She went into the casual ward.
[...]
On Monday, Yuesday and Wednesday we were down at the hop-picking, and came back to London on Thursday."
This is what John Kelly says, I don't know if that information can be verified somewhere else. But as far as I know, we have no proof of that she really did spent Friday might at Mile's End; all we have is Kelly's words for it. That's all I can do. Have you checked the Ultimate Copmanion or Neal Shelden's book? The first one arrived to me today (after a six week's wait!) and the latter I haven't got.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 68
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 10:53 am: |
|
Leanne
At the inquest John Kelly was asked by a jury man "Is not eight o'clock a very early hour to be discharged from a casual ward?" and he replied "I do not know. There is some tasks, picking oakum, before you can be discharged. I know it was very early."
In the Times 5th October it says:
They were together all Friday until the afternoon, when he earned 6d. She said to him, "You take 4d and go to the lodging-house, and give me 2d and I will go to the casual ward." He wanted to spend the money in food and he told her that, "Fred" - the deputy of the lodging-house - would not turn them away if they had no money. She said she would go to the casual ward at Mile-end, and would see him the following morning, when he met her accidentally. She left him at 4 o'clock on Friday afternoon to go to Mile-end for a lodging. He saw her the next morning about 8 o'clock, as well as he could remember, and was surprised to see her so soon.
When he saw her so early on the Saturday morning she told him that there had been some bother at the casual ward, and that that was why she had been turned out so soon. He did not know the regulations of the casual ward at Mile-end, and whether she could discharge herself when she liked.
I think the implication of these questions and points was a doubt as to whether or not she had actually gone to Mile End or whether it was merely what she had told Kelly. She does seem to have been adamant to go to the casual ward even though she was told she didn't need to, and also as can be seen turned up earlier the next morning than she should have been expected to had she gone there. |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 69
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 11:27 am: |
|
Leanne
In addition to the last post, this is from the Daily Telegraph, October 5th
Mr. Crawford: Is it not the fact that the pawning took place on the Friday night? - I do not know. It was either Friday night or Saturday morning. I am all muddled up. (The tickets were produced, and were dated the 28th, Friday.)
She pawned the boots, did she not? - Yes; and I stood at the door in my bare feet.
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.
This takes the implication further. If the boots were pawned on the Friday then they already had the two shillings and sixpence in addition to the sixpence that Kelly had earned and this would mean that they could afford the further tuppence for Kate's bed and she would not have needed to go to Mile End.
Sorry, I realise this is probably not helping your state of confusion. It's certainly causing me one! |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 415
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 1:11 pm: |
|
Right you are, Alan. It's all a big mess.
John Kelly is certainly not the only one "muddled up"...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 942
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 2:53 pm: |
|
Hi
I'm puzzled that "the tickets" - plural - were dated 28th. I thought that Burrell had given Kate a pawn ticket for a shirt, not a shirt to pawn. So they can't both have been dated 28th.
I can't help feeling the pawnbroker made a mistake with the date of the boots ticket, and somehow the shirt ticket has been included.
Robert |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 70
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Hmmm, that's a good point. I just assumed that the plural was the mistake. Kelly definitely did say that they had been given the ticket for the shirt on the way home from hop picking in his interview in the Star on Oct 3rd.
We came along in company with another man and woman who had worked in the same fields, but who parted with us to go to Chatham when we turned off towards Maidstone. The woman said to Kate, ‘I have got a pawn ticket for a flannel shirt. I wish you'd take it, since you're going up to town. It is only in for 9d, and it may fit your old man. So Kate took it and we trudged along. It was in at Jones's, Church-street, in the name of Emily Burrell. She put the ticket back in our box and we moved on. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Hi, Alan and Robert
I think it would be interesting if we could read the police interview with Jones the pawnbroker. It's worth noting that the dating of tickets is an important piece of business to a pawnbroker because at a certain date, the property becomes his if the debt isn't paid. Of course, mistakes can always be made, but in my own mind I can't dismiss the ticket out of hand, particularly when it's generally agreed that Kelly is fudging his testimony. Why take his word over the physical evidence? That's what the ticket is.
I'm not certain of the chain of events--Kelly's inquest testimony comes after the police interview of Jones? If so, it's also worth noting
that Crawford's line of questioning comes after the police spoke with Jones and collected Kelly's boots.
Another interesting thing about Kelly's testimony is that someone (presumably Jones) spots him drinking as his boots are being pawned. If his accounting of money is accurate, then where did he get the funds for drinking? The drinking is information Kelly withholds, so it seems someone is providing Crawford with some information.
I assume the Jones interview is lost. I've never seen it, or a press interview with him. I'd love to know if Jones was perhaps emphatic about the date because he remembered Kate and John. Or if like Kelly, he's not sure and Crawford is just bullying Kelly for some reason.
Just some ideas,
Dave
PS Regarding Kate leaving Mile End earlier than was the custom, sometimes people got out of working for their bed if they said they had gainful employment elsewhere. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 945
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 6:53 pm: |
|
Hi Dave
I see your point - a pawnbroker isn't likely to write the wrong date on a ticket...unless he took advantage of their drunken state to write 28th instead of 29th - then they'd have had one day less to pay off the debt. 
Be that as it may, I think that Kate wasn't with Kelly on the Friday. From Wilkinson's inquest testimony in the Sourcebook : " Kelly was there on Friday and Saturday nights. Deceased was not there on Friday or Saturday." And when he came back with his book he said that Kelly had slept in bed number 52, single, on Friday and Saturday night.
It's possible that the boots were pawned Friday, and all the money bar sixpence spent on food and drink (including the alcoholic kind), leaving them broke again. Hence Kate had to go to the Casual ward, but they still had the food for their breakfast next day.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 732
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 6:54 pm: |
|
G'day Everyone,
I am well aware of Kelly's inquest testimony and I have read many newspaper reports. I've read through 'The Ultimate Companion/Sourcebook' and I know about the boot pawning and about Emily Burrel's flannel shirt, but my confusion is where she slept the night before her murder.
I also know that John Kelly was surprised at how early Kate turned up to meet him the next morning, and about how she said there had been some "bother" at the casual ward. That sounds like a good enough lie!
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 71
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 7:12 pm: |
|
Unfortunately that's everyone else's confusion as well. The only thing you can say is where she did not sleep, which was the lodging house. As you know she said she was going to sleep at Mile End casual ward but all of this evidence shows that there is at least a possibility that that was merely an excuse in order to go somewhere else. However if anyone had a clue where that somewhere else was, undoubtedly there would have been at least 63 books written about it by now! |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 946
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 7:29 pm: |
|
Leanne never believes that anyone was tucked up where they said they were. Look at Poor Old Joe!
I'm going to bed - honest!
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 8:03 pm: |
|
Hi, Robert
Good point, but breakfast was something like tea and sugar, I think? I'm not sure, but perhaps that could be had for under two pennies? And if Kate was at Mile End, she wouldn't have had to pay for a bed.
I could've sworn there was testimony from someone at Mile End who saw Kate there Friday night. Isn't there where the "I know who Jack the Ripper is" story comes from, Mile End? I've looked but can't find the right passage. Maybe it was Thursday night I'm thinking of.
I agree that Kelly's at Flower and Dean at night. But I think there might have been a little binge that afternoon with the money Kelly made from his job (whatever it was). Then the boots get pawned to pay for lodging. Kate opts for Mile End (or wherever she went) and saves her pennies for breakfast the next morning. Something like that, and all I think Kelly is trying to cover up is a little drinking. It's just an alternate theory and I hope the speculation's not too wild. But I don't dismiss the ticket because it's a business record and the whole point for keeping them is accuracy.
I think we could stand to hear from Jones 
Cheers,
Dave |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 72
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 8:40 pm: |
|
The passage I posted the other day did say it was the superintendent at Mile End that she said "I think I know who he is" to, but someone else rightly pointed out that some reports say it was the Shoe Lane superintendent.
Anyway, I wasn't suggesting that Kelly was trying to cover something up, I was suggesting that Kate was. Look at the evidence.
Kelly says to her "you take the bed" she says "no, you take it, I'll go to the casual ward".
Kelly says "we can get a bed anyway, Fred won't turn us away" she says "no, I'll go to the casual ward".
Now it turns out they may well have had money for the bed and Kate says, you've guessed it "I'll go to the casual ward". Sounds to me like she was pretty determined not to sleep in the same place as Kelly that night.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily have to be anything sinister. They have just spent several weeks in the country together hop-picking, presumably thrown together most of the time. And frankly, no matter how attached to your partner you are, sometimes you just have to get away from them and have some time to yourself. It could mean nothing more than that.
In truth I suspect she did sleep at Mile End, because surely the police would have checked and if it turned out she didn't then there would have been mention in the police reports of investigations into where she did sleep. |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 113
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 9:02 pm: |
|
Hi,
I think the inquest testimony the doss house owner/manager? indicates that he would not have given a bed to someone, even a regular, who did not have the money up front. A double bed was 8d, and a single 4d. Between them, they only had a reported 6d and Kate took 2d and Kelly took 4d. Kate might have simply realised that with only 6d, they weren't going to get a double bed and presumably two people weren't allowed to share a single.
Although Kate's desire to "sleep elsewhere" could fit in with the prostitution idea, there does seem to be more innocent explanations already in the testimony we have. And I would expect, as Alan's pointed out, that presumably the police looked into her sleeping at the casual ward. But then again, no mention is made at the inquest by any officer indicating this was verified. It does get frustrating when one tries to verify any of the statements. So many seem to be the only source of the information.
- Jeff |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 6:10 am: |
|
Ap,For a moment there I thought you were describing my first month in the army.Sure conditions in the hop fields were tough,but then it was for just one month a year,and at least the hop pickers had the chance to leave if they so desired.
No two people will have the same experience,but people did return to this so called slave labour each year,and most enjoyed it.
After my first month in an army camp labelled by the locals as hell camp,I too enjoyed that existance,and I was sorry that after the six months there,I had to leave.
People can and do adapt to what may seem pimitive conditions,and most like the citizens of Whitechappel retain respect.It annoys me that because of five or six brutal murders,these people ,and especially the female victims,have unjustly,and with little evidence,been described as whores and misfits,and the area they inhabited,a cesspool of crime and degradation.
Then again,it sells books. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 951
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 5:53 pm: |
|
Hi all
I think they probably had some food late Saturday morning, as well as tea - Kelly mentions food, and there was some partly digested farinaceous matter in Kate's stomach (though it's possible she may have got something to eat later in the day at Aldgate).
I'm afraid the whole thing's a gigantic muddle!
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 125
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 8:55 pm: |
|
Robert, A farinaceous dish refers to dishes made from pasta, noodles, rice, polenta or gnocchi. These take approx 60 - 90 minutes for a human to digest. The time is slowed down due to the amount of alcohol the person has injested. With Kate, we know she had a large amount of alcohol in her system and was asleep most of the time she was at BPS, so fair guess would be somewhere between 5:00 PM and the time she was arrested and taken to BPS around 8:00 PM.
Shannon
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 739
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 9:44 am: |
|
G'day,
This is something I thought about during the day: Catharine Eddowes was known to stay in the 'shed', which was a nightly refuge for ten or twenty homeless creatures who were without means to pay for their beds. The 'Daily Telegraph' 10 Nov. reported that this shed was located at 26 Dorset Street, (Barnett and Kelly's address).
If she was known to often stay here, then that means she often had no means to pay for a bed. At the time of the Ripper murders, I believe McCarthy's shed was used to store costermonger's barrows.
As I'm now going to bed, I thought I'd post this comment and read the responses when I get up tomorrow!
LEANNE
|
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 127
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 9:51 am: |
|
Leanne, why would she choose a night in a shed when a couple of quick "tricks" could provide her the 4d needed for a real bed, unless she would rather sleep in the hay, then roll in it...
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 956
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 10:56 am: |
|
I've often wondered about the shed. If McCarthy owned 26 Dorset Street, as it seems he did, then presumably he was allowing these homeless folks in free. Yet I have trouble believing that McCarthy was a philanthropist!
I think I remember Chris finding that by the 1891 census, 26 Dorset Street plus 13 room were all let to tenants, and that there were three different 13 rooms as a result. I just wonder why McCarthy didn't do it sooner.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 128
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Robert, an educated guess would be taxes. If he claimed the shed as a residence he would be accountable to the district... The shed may have been provided as a service to customers of his store. Buy something, get a discount or free lodging. Its a thought.
Shannon |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 758
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 8:44 pm: |
|
G'day Shannon,
A couple of quick "tricks", would've provided Kate with enough money to buy a few more drinks!
By allowing destitute people to sleep in his shed for free, McCarthy could have been tempting them to return on the occasions when they could afford to pay for a nice soft bed!
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 121
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 6:50 pm: |
|
Hi Shannon-I think pasta,gnocci,noodles etc wouldn't have been as available as the odd (Very odd Mrs Lovett job!!) Pie made from pastry! hence the farinaceous material would have been very freely available from pie shops around the East end at the time
Cheers
Suzi |
Nicholas Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
G'day Lea,
Great to see ya again mate. Honey, you've got to stay away from the newspaper reports and stick to the official documents. Newspapers will get you unstuck all the time. They eithe rcontradict themselves or the creativve imagination of some budding journalist will throw things right of track.
Your old mate
Jules |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2910
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Regarding Eddowes and prostitution I thought the following quotes from Sam Hudson’s work might provoke some discussion.
I should point out that Hudson does appear to be quoting another source here for his somewhat startling information.
‘That a policeman stated that Catherine Eddowes had been seen frequently soliciting men in the vicinity of Aldgate High Street.’
‘The police theory is that the man and woman who had met in Aldgate Street, most probably by appointment made the previous night, watched the police constable pass around the square, and then they entered it for an immoral purpose. Whilst the woman lay upon the ground her throat was cut.’ |
Scott Nelson
Inspector
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 5:51 pm: |
|
Researcher John Carey found the above excerpts in the UK newspaper, The Derby Daily Telegraph, October 1, 1888. The relevant part reads..."indeed one of the policemen who saw the body (Eddowes) in the mortuary expressed his confident opinion that he had seen the woman walking several times in the neighborhood of Aldgate-High Street...[t]he police theory is that the man and woman, who met in Aldgate, watched the policeman [Watkins] pass around the square, and then they entered it for an immoral purpose."
A somewhat similar account can be found in the New York Times, October 2, 1888: "The only trace considered of any value is the story of a watchboy who saw a man and a woman leave Aldgate station, going towards Mitre-square. The man returned shortly afterward alone. The police have a good description of him....a policeman swears he was not absent over 15 minutes from Mitre-square, and must have been watched by both man and woman as he went through, they following.",
Unfortunately the Derby account is not posted in the Press Reports, but the NY Times version is. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2915
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
Thanks for that Scott… nicely done.
There is also another reference from Hudson concerning the murder of Eddowes which you might be able to confirm as well.
‘The foreman of a gang of street cleaners said he was working at the time the murder is supposed to have occurred, not more than twenty yards from the spot where the body was found; he heard no cry.’
Hudson seems also to cast doubts on the veracity of the patrolling policeman that night. |
Belindafromhenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Hi this is very interesting. I read on one of the threads that Catharine Eddowes used to bed down at 26 Dorset Street, in a sort of shed that Jack McCarthy leant out, according to a newspaper article, which I find very interesting. Could anyone please direct me to this newspaper article? |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1048
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
Hi Belinda,
The topic of the alleged shed Eddowes was supposed to have stayed in is covered in Don Souden's article, "Grave-Spitting & Other Tall Tales" in the October 2005 issue of Ripper Notes. It's the sample article from that issue, so should be online here in a few days. I'll link to it when it's up.
In the meantime, for the first version of the story, see the October 3, 1888 Daily Telegraph, which doesn't say where off Dorset-street the supposed shed was supposed to be. It wasn't until after MJK's murder that the claim was modified to say that it was right next door to her.
Don rightly points out that there really isn't much to support the story, and, in fact, it doesn't really seem to fit in with what we know about Eddowes at all.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2932
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 3:40 pm: |
|
Hudson also points out a contradiction in Kelly’s inquest statement:
‘Witness (Kelly) then said he had never known her go out on the streets for an immoral purpose, that he would never permit her to do so…’
He then contradicted himself as to her street character, saying: When she left me we had no money to pay our lodgings. She went over to see her daughter to get a trifle from her in order that I might not see her walking the streets at night.’
Personally I feel that Hudson’s contradiction might be a trifle in itself, as there is a difference between being ‘out on the streets for an immoral purpose’ and ‘walking the streets at night’ because you can’t afford the price of lodgings for the night. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page