Lynn's Eddowes article
I'd be curious to know what others think of Lynn's thesis. Does his argument make you think 'Hmmm, it might just be possible that Eddowes was killed by someone other than the man who killed Chapman.'? I enjoyed the article, and will need to read some of the denser parts over again to fully understand the significance of Lynn's argument. However, one part that bothered me a bit was the rather labored argument for the victims to have no been prostitutes. In Eddowes' case, we have a homeless lush with no means of making money. In almost every case, in the East End at that time, a woman such described would be a casual or full-time prostitute. Plain and simple. Add to this the fact that a policeman stated he knew her to be a prostitute and there's really nothing to debate. Even more cut and dried is Polly Nichols, who for some reason Lynn tried to argue might not be a prostitute. Of course she was. And so was Annie Chapman. I thought trying to argue the inarguable had a negative overall impact on Lynn's article. Also, and this is a very minor critique, the illustration of the facial wounds is inaccurate.
Overall, I enjoyed the article. But just as the JI article raised the question (how can you explain Eddowes when JI was in jail at the time?), this article raises the question...did Eddowes' killer kill Stride and Kelly, and if not, who did and why?