Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

C-5: Killed While Soliciting or Not?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    I thought Kate saying she would get a ´damn good hiding´ was just her being cheeky. I have never seen anything to indicate John Kelly was other than kind.

    But if the comment was ever thought to be serious, a good follow up question or thought would be why did she want out of gaol? She could have spent the night and made up something to tell her partner the next morning or midday. Or maybe she could have earned a few pennies after being let out.

    My general thought about Kate´s actions is that she was chasing after money, whether from her daughter or some other way. John Kelly said he stood barefooted outside the pawn shop. Did he still have his old boots or was he barefoot thereafter? Was Kate intent on getting enough to redeem the boots or get John a new, old pair? If John had no shoes at all I would say that was an eme
    In the direction Kate was heading, could she have been going toward a mission or similar that might give out old clothes and shoes? I have read about Victorian churches and missions that opened at certain times and paupers lined up to receive what there was, first in line served, others not so much.
    Kelly had been told that Kate had been locked up for drunkenness. He was expecting her to be released the following morning, though perhaps not as early as she actually was.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    I thought Kate saying she would get a ´damn good hiding´ was just her being cheeky. I have never seen anything to indicate John Kelly was other than kind.

    But if the comment was ever thought to be serious, a good follow up question or thought would be why did she want out of gaol? She could have spent the night and made up something to tell her partner the next morning or midday. Or maybe she could have earned a few pennies after being let out.

    My general thought about Kate´s actions is that she was chasing after money, whether from her daughter or some other way. John Kelly said he stood barefooted outside the pawn shop. Did he still have his old boots or was he barefoot thereafter? Was Kate intent on getting enough to redeem the boots or get John a new, old pair? If John had no shoes at all I would say that was an emergency.

    In the direction Kate was heading, could she have been going toward a mission or similar that might give out old clothes and shoes? I have read about Victorian churches and missions that opened at certain times and paupers lined up to receive what there was, first in line served, others not so much.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
    There are all kinds of reasons why she may have headed back, e.g. she may have thought that she'd dropped the pawn ticket for Kelly's boots, and was trying to find it. Easy to overlook something when rummaging through pockets while drunk. But I guess we'll never know.
    Another reason why she may have feared a good hiding.👍🏻

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    There are all kinds of reasons why she may have headed back, e.g. she may have thought that she'd dropped the pawn ticket for Kelly's boots, and was trying to find it. Easy to overlook something when rummaging through pockets while drunk. But I guess we'll never know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
    I suppose there is a chance that the 'hiding' she apparently expected was because Kelly would have feared for her safety with JTR at large.
    That’s possible, but her drinking was the underlying problem, the reason Conway allegedly said he’d one day hang for her.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    I hope it’s OK to add Alice into the mix here.

    She seems to have been in a fairly stable relationship with John McCormack, but such was her desire for drink that she scarpered to the pub with the rent money. What kind of a reception could she have expected when next they met?

    (One of the early reports said that Alice appeared to be of the ‘unfortunate class’ because of the way she dressed.)

    I think HR may have missed a trick by not considering that Kate may have been forced into prostitution to avoid a beating from her man. And ditto, Alice, if she’d made it onto the list.
    One press report used very strange wording about Alice, allegedly from McCormack:

    ‘McCormack, while admitting that the wretched woman was addicted to drink, denied she was a prostitute in the ordinary acceptation of the term.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    I suppose there is a chance that the 'hiding' she apparently expected was because Kelly would have feared for her safety with JTR at large.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    As far as I know, there is no evidence that Kelly mistreated Kate. Conway on the other hand almost certainly had. Her drunkenness was cited as the reason their relationship broke down and her injuries while living with him are on record.

    Given the dire financial straits she and Kelly were in - he had had to pawn his boots to enable them to eat - it’s likely that he would have been extremely angry to learn that she had managed to obtain money and promptly spent it on drink. Kate’s conversation with Hutt on leaving Bishopsgate Police Station may have expressed a genuine fear of Kelly’s reaction and Hutt’s response supports that:

    ”I shall get a damn fine hiding when I get home." She tells him.
    Hutt replies, " And serve you right, you had no right to get drunk."


    A fear of encountering Kelly before she had earned sufficient money to placate him may well have been the reason why she avoided Spitalfields on her release and headed back to Aldgate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
    Indeed Gary. Im shocked you cannot figure it out quite frankly.

    Have an example.

    I am drink impaired. I leave the pub. Its raining. I decide I'm hungry.

    I decide, despite having no coat or umbrella, that the only kebab for me is some dodgy kebab shop on teh other side of town which I seem to remember serve a killer doner. Its a hour walk. So off I go. Passing a host of other equally good kebab shops as I get soaked.

    That decision I took is not rational - I am getting soaked, its a long way and Im trudging along based on some half remembered notion of their kebabs being better than all others. But it is a rational thought. Im hungry. Im off to get a kebab. Its a drink impaired decision. Instead of doing teh logical thing Im off doing something not very sensible but still rational.

    If I decided that instead of walking Im going to ride my pink elephant - thats not a rational decision nor a rational thought.


    Lets say I leave the pub and decide, its raining, I have the car, Im driving to the kebab shop.

    Thats a rational thought - I have a car and I can drive - but its a drink impaired, not very rational, decision that makes little sense if I was sober. As Im likely to crash, lose my licence and hurt someone.

    Alternatively, lets say instead of driving, I decide Im taking the submarine and head for the river.

    Thats not rational thought (I have no submarine) nor a rational decision.

    Now I know deep wown you know this. Your argument was weak and now its reduced to trying to score points based on a wilful, feigned attempt to not understand.

    Everyone knows that alchohol impairs your decision making skills...and Kate was, biologically and based on evidence, still under the influence 4 hours after being legless.

    It is therefore illogical to conclude that the direction she took upon release was based upon some rational process of thought.

    A non-drink impaired decision would have been, upon leaving, as an example:

    Im off to find my man.

    I better try and find a bed.

    I will go to my usual lodgings.

    A drink impaired decision would have been, upon leaving, as an example:

    That guy in the pub fancied me rotten, I'll go find him.

    This is not my shoe.....that guy in the street stole my shoe, I better look for it.

    That bitch Kelly was eyeing up my man...I'll sort her out.


    All rational thoughts but drink impaired decisions.

    Now given your previous form I know you will take some pointless aspect and try and stretch out the argument.

    And best of luck to you.

    But I'll leave you to it as I have made my point, backed it up, demonstrated why youre trying to decide what Kate did without appreciating her being drunk is pointless, explained the obvious to you, and patiently addressed your ever more feeble counters.

    Readers can decide who they feel made their argument best.

    Have a good one!

    P
    A masterclass.

    Now perhaps we can get back to discussing why Kate acted as she did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    Ah, so she may have been capable of rational thought but not rational decision-making.
    Indeed Gary. Im shocked you cannot figure it out quite frankly.

    Have an example.

    I am drink impaired. I leave the pub. Its raining. I decide I'm hungry.

    I decide, despite having no coat or umbrella, that the only kebab for me is some dodgy kebab shop on teh other side of town which I seem to remember serve a killer doner. Its a hour walk. So off I go. Passing a host of other equally good kebab shops as I get soaked.

    That decision I took is not rational - I am getting soaked, its a long way and Im trudging along based on some half remembered notion of their kebabs being better than all others. But it is a rational thought. Im hungry. Im off to get a kebab. Its a drink impaired decision. Instead of doing teh logical thing Im off doing something not very sensible but still rational.

    If I decided that instead of walking Im going to ride my pink elephant - thats not a rational decision nor a rational thought.


    Lets say I leave the pub and decide, its raining, I have the car, Im driving to the kebab shop.

    Thats a rational thought - I have a car and I can drive - but its a drink impaired, not very rational, decision that makes little sense if I was sober. As Im likely to crash, lose my licence and hurt someone.

    Alternatively, lets say instead of driving, I decide Im taking the submarine and head for the river.

    Thats not rational thought (I have no submarine) nor a rational decision.

    Now I know deep wown you know this. Your argument was weak and now its reduced to trying to score points based on a wilful, feigned attempt to not understand.

    Everyone knows that alchohol impairs your decision making skills...and Kate was, biologically and based on evidence, still under the influence 4 hours after being legless.

    It is therefore illogical to conclude that the direction she took upon release was based upon some rational process of thought.

    A non-drink impaired decision would have been, upon leaving, as an example:

    Im off to find my man.

    I better try and find a bed.

    I will go to my usual lodgings.

    A drink impaired decision would have been, upon leaving, as an example:

    That guy in the pub fancied me rotten, I'll go find him.

    This is not my shoe.....that guy in the street stole my shoe, I better look for it.

    That bitch Kelly was eyeing up my man...I'll sort her out.


    All rational thoughts but drink impaired decisions.

    Now given your previous form I know you will take some pointless aspect and try and stretch out the argument.

    And best of luck to you.

    But I'll leave you to it as I have made my point, backed it up, demonstrated why youre trying to decide what Kate did without appreciating her being drunk is pointless, explained the obvious to you, and patiently addressed your ever more feeble counters.

    Readers can decide who they feel made their argument best.

    Have a good one!

    P

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Nope Gary. You are trying it again. Being impaired in your decisionmaking skills does not mean you forget you have a partner or whatever.

    But it does mean you forget your own name?

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Therefore assuming she was making rational or sober decisions as to where she was heading off to on release is most probably a mistake.

    Ah, so she may have been capable of rational thought but not rational decision-making.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
    No idea Gary. Best I know was gin, the tipple of choice apparently for unfortunates, was 4d a glass.

    How posted a link to a list of what Things cost recently but I cannot Access it so you could check that.

    p
    I assumed you might know because you described gin as ‘filthy cheap’.

    I did check Pennies... and it told me that gin was 2d a half pint. However, numerous press reports suggest it was more like 2s a half pint - twelve times as expensive.

    I’m sure I’ve come across references to unfortunates drinking rum. I’ll see if I can dig them out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    Not if she was so drunk that she was incapable of rational thought. In that scenario, her reappearance in Aldgate was a complete coincidence.
    You keep trying to twist things Gary. Its fun to deal with but its not advancing your theories.

    No body said she wasnt capable of rational thought. They said her ability to make decisions would have been impaired.

    They are two very different things.
    She was probably so drunk that she didn’t realise that singing in her cell, asking to be let out and insisting she was sober would lead to her being turned out of her safe, dry and relatively comfortable cell onto the hazardous streets of Whitechapel. She’d probably forgotten there was a murderer on the loose, and forgotten that Spitalfields was her home turf.
    She obviously didnt give a shit there was a murderer on the loose when she was sober or she wouldnt have allowed herself to get so drunk in teh first place.

    BUt I agree...asking to be let out of her dry cell is indicative of being impaired with respect to decision making. because of her being drunk.

    And when she told her gaoler that she was fearful of getting a good hiding when she got home, that was just drunken babbling, she probably couldn’t remember that she even had an old man.
    Nope Gary. You are trying it again. Being impaired in your decisionmaking skills does not mean you forget you have a partner or whatever.

    You know that of course.

    p

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
    Hi Anna

    Thats a good point but it is mitogated to some extent by the fact that teh record as it stands showed she asked to be let out and then asked what time it was.

    If she was hiding from someone or something or establishing an alibi....then it would be more logical for her to ask what time it was first then ask to be let out.

    P
    Only if she was capable of rational thought, Mr P.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X