Who Chose the Murder Sites?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Harry,

1.Whitechapel was a small, overcrowded slum, so for the victims to live in close proximity to one another is nothing out of the ordinary. And Eddowes didn't give Miller's Court as her address. If she had, you might be onto something, but all that would prove is that Eddowes was familiar with MJK. It wouldn't give a political bent to the murders.


2. Apart from the majority of the medical opinion which found this to be the work of the same killer, and the police investigating a lone suspect.

As for #1, if you were to check the statistics for the number of Unfortunates living within the East End at that time it might explain how people could live in a small crowded area and still not know each other. As for the aliases, I wont belabor the point that having a murder victim use aliases which include the full name and partial address of the subsequent victim, supposedly by the same killer, is oddly coincidental and perhaps significant to the investigations.

#2, the man that saw and/or examined 4 of the 5 victims, the ONLY physician to do so, saw great differences with Liz Strides wounds and the skill and knowledge used by Kates killer. I don't find it difficult to accept the opinion of someone who saw firsthand the wounds we discuss, only the opinion of someone who critiques that opinion without any direct examination having been done.

All that links Polly Nichols murder to Mary Kellys is opinion, hardly a case closed scenario.

[spyglass]

To Spy and Michael Richards

thank you for fleshing out your ideas for me on the connection with the special branch, conspiracy stuff.

I don't put much into, mainly because I don't think there is any evidence there was a connection.

The only thing is that there was a file in the special branch ledgers on the WC murders correct?

HI Abby,
That is correct,
I'm not certain but I think they have destroyed it now ( I stand to be corrected on that ) and when it was allowed to be viewed, much of it had been blacked out.
Trevor Marriott is the knowledge on that, and a thread on these forums dedicated to it.

regards

[jerryd]

To Spy and Michael Richards

thank you for fleshing out your ideas for me on the connection with the special branch, conspiracy stuff.

I don't put much into, mainly because I don't think there is any evidence there was a connection.

The only thing is that there was a file in the special branch ledgers on the WC murders correct?

Hi Abby,

I'm sure my view differs from Michael's to a degree and the whole thing with Clan-na-gael, Parnell, the Times, Spymaster Jenkinson, Robert Anderson, etc. is very complicated but here is my take in a nutshell.

Mitre Square was a hot spot for Clan activity in 1885. Burton and Cunningham were preparing to blow up the Tower of London (which they did) and Burton was living in Mitre Square at the time. He had actually moved from lodgings at one house in the square to #5 Mitre Square, which was occupied by PC Wilson and his wife. #5 was right next door to #3 where PC Richard Pearse was residing during the Eddowes murder.

An 1885 news report I found with the heading "Alleged Design to blow up a Police Station" in summary states a man with an Irish brogue and slouch hat approached a woman and offered her two sovereigns to place a parcel on the doorstep of the 'Commercial-road police station'. He told her that being a woman she would not be easily detected and after she placed the parcel she was to leave the spot immediately or there would be great consequences. Later in the article Inspector Abberline (who was instrumental in collecting evidence in the Burton case in 1885) stated he had received letters on more than one occasion threatening him with death on behalf of a"society" who had pledged themselves to avenge the arrest of Burton and Cunningham. Who was this society? My guess is, the Invincibles ,who were also responsible for the Phoenix park murders.

Fast forward to September of 1888. Mitre square seemed to be over-active with police presence the night of the Eddowes murder. Around the corner was the Rose and Crown coffee shop that was used by Abberline in 1889 to sequester a witness in the Cleveland Street scandal. It is possible the coffee shop was used as a police "stake out" spot in 1888 for unlawful Clan activity. PC Pearse may have been placed in the square for that purpose, I don't know for sure. Catherine Eddowes would have walked right past the Rose and Crown on her way to the square.

So, it's not unreasonable to think the Clan was paying women to do their dirty work for them in the bombings. Could the murdered ripper victims had been those women and were threatening to expose the conspirators? Of course there is a lot more to this story. As I've said, it is very complicated. At least it is for me.

[spyglass]

Hi Abby,

I'm sure my view differs from Michael's to a degree and the whole thing with Clan-na-gael, Parnell, the Times, Spymaster Jenkinson, Robert Anderson, etc. is very complicated but here is my take in a nutshell.

Mitre Square was a hot spot for Clan activity in 1885. Burton and Cunningham were preparing to blow up the Tower of London (which they did) and Burton was living in Mitre Square at the time. He had actually moved from lodgings at one house in the square to #5 Mitre Square, which was occupied by PC Wilson and his wife. #5 was right next door to #3 where PC Richard Pearse was residing during the Eddowes murder.

An 1885 news report I found with the heading "Alleged Design to blow up a Police Station" in summary states a man with an Irish brogue and slouch hat approached a woman and offered her two sovereigns to place a parcel on the doorstep of the 'Commercial-road police station'. He told her that being a woman she would not be easily detected and after she placed the parcel she was to leave the spot immediately or there would be great consequences. Later in the article Inspector Abberline (who was instrumental in collecting evidence in the Burton case in 1885) stated he had received letters on more than one occasion threatening him with death on behalf of a"society" who had pledged themselves to avenge the arrest of Burton and Cunningham. Who was this society? My guess is, the Invincibles ,who were also responsible for the Phoenix park murders.

Fast forward to September of 1888. Mitre square seemed to be over-active with police presence the night of the Eddowes murder. Around the corner was the Rose and Crown coffee shop that was used by Abberline in 1889 to sequester a witness in the Cleveland Street scandal. It is possible the coffee shop was used as a police "stake out" spot in 1888 for unlawful Clan activity. PC Pearse may have been placed in the square for that purpose, I don't know for sure. Catherine Eddowes would have walked right past the Rose and Crown on her way to the square.

So, it's not unreasonable to think the Clan was paying women to do their dirty work for them in the bombings. Could the murdered ripper victims had been those women and were threatening to expose the conspirators? Of course there is a lot more to this story. As I've said, it is very complicated. At least it is for me.

And who was the mystery man that James Blenkinsop encountered asking if he had seen a man and woman pass by ?

[jerryd]

And who was the mystery man that James Blenkinsop encountered asking if he had seen a man and woman pass by ?

Good question, Spyglass. He was respectably dressed. Maybe an undercover cop, who knows? Weeks before Catherine Eddowes was murdered she was photographed in life. It was a strange angle, the picture was. My feeling is, it was a surveillance photograph of her. All speculation, of course.

[spyglass]

Good question, Spyglass. He was respectably dressed. Maybe an undercover cop, who knows? Weeks before Catherine Eddowes was murdered she was photographed in life. It was a strange angle, the picture was. My feeling is, it was a surveillance photograph of her. All speculation, of course.

Hi,
Am I correct in thinking also that Eddowes was supposed to have said that she knew who the killer was, and would collect the reward money ?
Am I also correct in thinking that no rewards had been offered until after the MJK murder?
Sorry but have no books at hand at present.

Regards

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,

I think Crossinghams has the potential as a meeting place for the above, or for Kate as well. Dorset street was a common denominator for some victims. My point is that there has been no connection between any of them proven, although as I say, its not inconceivable that Dorset brought some together.

Not proven, but like I said, suggested by the press and other accounts.

Here is another possibility, not proof, that Catherine Eddowes had a good possibility of also knowing MJK. The "warehouse" at 26 Dorset Street was only separated by the partition wall from Mary Kelly. It was occupied by the homeless a few weeks before the murder on Nov. 9th. If Eddowes was one of these homeless people, as the article states, she would have almost undoubtedly run past Mary Kelly at some point.

The Daily Telegraph
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1888

Dorset-street is made up principally of common lodging-houses, which provide not less than 600 registered beds. In one of these establishments Annie Chapman, the Hanbury-street victim lived. Curiously enough, the warehouse at No. 26, now closed by large doors, was until a few weeks ago the nightly resort of poor homeless creatures, who went there for shelter. One of these women was Catherine Eddowes, the woman who was murdered in Mitre-square.

[Harry D]

As for the aliases, I wont belabor the point that having a murder victim use aliases which include the full name and partial address of the subsequent victim, supposedly by the same killer, is oddly coincidental and perhaps significant to the investigations.

I'll repeat, Eddowes was living with a man with the surname Kelly, and the alias she used was the same name as that man's wife. So it wasn't as if Eddowes plucked 'Mary Ann Kelly' from thin air.

#2, the man that saw and/or examined 4 of the 5 victims, the ONLY physician to do so, saw great differences with Liz Strides wounds and the skill and knowledge used by Kates killer. I don't find it difficult to accept the opinion of someone who saw firsthand the wounds we discuss, only the opinion of someone who critiques that opinion without any direct examination having been done.

These women were murdered and mutilated in high-risk, poorly lit locations. Any discrepancies in skill are negligible when measured against the statistical improbability of multiple killers roaming the streets with the same MO & signature.

[caz]

Oh, you know, that murders that vary quite a bit in terms of actions taken by the killer, venues and motivations are connected anyway because someone just guessed they were,.... that "he" forgoes his trademark actions only on some kills,.... that his skill and knowledge using a knife is variable depending on the day,... that he has specific targets, then for no reason, he doesn't,...that having a possible motive for the murder isn't as probable as a murderer without any...those kinds of things.

The entire legend of a Jack the Ripper is based upon speculation, opinion and guesswork Jon, you know it, I know it, and anyone who has put in the time knows it too. Some prefer to propagate that dogma rather than really address the foundations of some of the principle problems within it....the varied methodology, victimology, knowledge, and skill,...as well as the juxtapositioning of other known killers to this same area including terrorists. I believe the big story that Fall was the Parnell Commission, and its been held in the shadow of a very long standing urban myth.

Hi Michael,

Not this old guff again.

I watched the first part of In Plain Sight the other night on ITV, about one of Scotland's most notorious killers, Peter Manuel aka "The Beast of Birkenshaw". He raped and bludgeoned a 17 year-old girl to death on a golf course, but went on to shoot dead a 45 year-old mother, her 16 year-old daughter and 41 year-old sister in their own home, before serving a sentence for burglary, then stalked, raped and strangled another 17 year-old girl, before finally shooting dead a 45 year-old man, his 42 year-old wife and their 11 year-old son - all in a two-year period.

But something's terribly wrong here, if no one man could vary his act to this degree, so I wonder how he came to be convicted and hanged (after conducting his own defence) and why he confessed. If only he had used your arguments above, he might have demonstrated to the jury that he was a fictional bogeyman - the stuff of legend, an urban myth - and the murders were really committed by an assortment of individuals for domestic or political reasons. In fact, he might still have been with us, a nice old man of about 90, telling us how he was wrongly suspected.

What do you reckon?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Fish

...she had recently been living with Barnett there. don't think shes going to bring clients home, or even prostituting, while she was with him...

...there is no evidence, witness testimony or otherwise that she did...

...I think the circumstances lead to her knowing him even if loosely.
Does a prostitute client relationship usually involve, singing, drinking together, hanging out in ones room for a while? maybe grabbing a bite to eat? not to me it dosnt. it seems more like she knew this guy, liked him and possibly looking for a new boyfriend sugar daddy having recently broken up with Barnett.

But I admit she could have used her room for prostitution and blotchy could have been strictly a client, I just lean towrd no. no bigee.

Hi Abby,

Once Joe had slung his hook, why could Kelly not have been back to where she was on the day she first met him? We know she was a prostitute who shacked up with him from that day forward, no period of courtship required. We also know that while he was earning he had the luxury to ask her not to sell her services any more, and she had the luxury to agree. Now he was gone and she was penniless, so while I can certainly see her searching again for Mr. Right, and see Blotchy as the object of her search, there is no reason why she could not have met him down the pub that very night and - as with Joe - invited him to share her bed and her life without further ado. She may have known him already, but for how long? Or he may have considered himself a client, while Kelly was hoping for more. Who knows?

And while you may not see it as evidence, witness testimony or otherwise, that she brought a single paying customer back, a certain George Hutchinson did make a police statement to that effect (after Blotchy slipped through her fingers, perhaps, or was sent packing?) and described Kelly being quite taken with a second potential sugar daddy.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I could use the same sarcastic rhetoric when addressing someone who thinks that 5 women are connected by a killer when zero evidence exists to prove that.

Oh go on, Michael. Be as sarcastic as you like, though I'm not sure it'll make up for the fact that there is zero evidence to prove several killers were going round offing Spitalfields unfortunates, either for being bad wives or girlfriends, or for "knowing too much", or for practising blackmail.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Just to "bolster" my suggestion Fisherman, lets look at what kind of money was at stake for some of the Double Agents...how about a witness asking for 10,000L to testify at the hearings? In todays currency,...using a scale that Sam Flynn gave me a few years back, (20L in 1888 equating to approx. 1500L Sterling in 2010), that's almost 3/4 of a million in todays money.

How many people would kill to protect that kind of money in London in 1888? How many would blackmail someone to get some of the money floating about these agencies and self rule organizations.? How many government people would lose careers and livelihoods if it became public knowledge that they had terrorists on HM payroll, some who were involved in the Jubillee Bomb Plot on the Queen the year before? What would happen if the general public learned about these deals with terrorists? Think anyone who lost family to local bombings would be angry?

My point is this...knowledge of senior members of the most secretive agencies in the government having terrorists on the gov't payroll could have brought down the government, let alone just the Security agencies involved. Lots of people had dangerous secrets that could have been exposed at that same time that Fall.

Why must we put all our eggs in an unproven serial killer premise when solid motives for murder abound in some of these cases?

You ARE having us on, aren't you, Michael? The women who were killed were engaged full time in their sickly or alcoholic struggle in a tiny area of the East End where fourpence would help see them through the next 24 hours. They were never going to leave except in a box and they had no expectation of anything better.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Why were only the poorest female unfortunates singled out, if there was something political behind the murders? Was it to make it look to everyone as though a lone male predator was going round Whitechapel looking to satisfy an urge to murder and mutilate its most vulnerable women?

If so, how did they come up with this truly inspired idea many decades before it became common knowledge that killers of this type have always been around and will go on popping up at all too short intervals?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Once Joe had slung his hook, why could Kelly not have been back to where she was on the day she first met him? We know she was a prostitute who shacked up with him from that day forward, no period of courtship required. We also know that while he was earning he had the luxury to ask her not to sell her services any more, and she had the luxury to agree. Now he was gone and she was penniless, so while I can certainly see her searching again for Mr. Right, and see Blotchy as the object of her search, there is no reason why she could not have met him down the pub that very night and - as with Joe - invited him to share her bed and her life without further ado. She may have known him already, but for how long? Or he may have considered himself a client, while Kelly was hoping for more. Who knows?

And while you may not see it as evidence, witness testimony or otherwise, that she brought a single paying customer back, a certain George Hutchinson did make a police statement to that effect (after Blotchy slipped through her fingers, perhaps, or was sent packing?) and described Kelly being quite taken with a second potential sugar daddy.

Love,

Caz
X

HI Caz
I pretty much agree with everything you say in your first paragraph.

your second paragraph though--well I don't believe Hutch's Aman story, for many reasons.

It just seems to me that mary probably didn't use her place for prostitution, and if she did, Blotchy wasn't the normal prostitute client quickie.

[caz]

Hi Abby,

I know you don't believe Hutch saw Kelly picking up a customer, but you did say there was no evidence or witness testimony for it, and that is what I wanted to correct.

Have a great weekend.

Love,

Caz
X