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?
Well, these are well-known notions if one is even slightly familiar with Lynn's ideas on the Whitechapel murders. Apart from the problem of ignoring solid evidence for Eddowes and Stride having been part-time prostitutes (the evidence consisting of a policeman's statement in the former case, Swedish records and Stride's behavior on the night of Sept. 30 for the latter case) we have the additional discrepancy that (at least to my understanding) it doesn't even matter if victims 3 and 4 were prostitutes for the Double Event murders to have been politically motivated, since victim 5, seen also as politically motivated, undoubtedly was a prostitute. I'm having the impression that Lynn is willing to see C1 and C2 as two random unfortunates slain by Ischemidt, followed up by an anti-Jewish "copycat" provocatory Double Event (with the victims supposedly not being prostitutes this time), followed up by a last murder, of a prostitute this time, but anti-Fenian in its motivation. The whole construct is not only shaky, but reminds me a bit of the Royal Conspiracy theory.
On the other side, I'm completely out there with Lynn on the necessity of researching the motivations of the Double Event as a possible provocatory anti-anarchist/anti-Jewish act, possibly gone wrong from its planning to its execution.
I'm sure Lynn will clarify if I've misunderstood his theory.
Hello Tom. Thanks. Not sure why it came across that I was exempting Polly and Annie as, umm, unfortunates. I believe both were. More to the point, I believe they were soliciting at the time of their demise.
I do recall spending a bit of time doing some "Devil's advocate" vis-a-vis both Polly and Annie in my Isenschmid piece. I did not wish glibly to assume such without what I considered good reason for accepting that as true.
Now, Kate--in my mind--may well have been a casual. I have little reason to doubt that. My point, however, was to ask whether it were the case that she was soliciting at the time of her demise. My answer is that I think not, and for roughly the reasons that I had outlined.
I hope to do a reconstruction soon about Kate and John's sojourn from Thursday night until Kate's murder. I hope that the effect will be the same as this last essay--nothing conclusive but merely food for thought.
Hello Maria. Thanks. As I was saying to Tom, my doubt lies not with the fact (if it is one) that Liz and Kate were likely "casuals" at various times. I believe they may well have been.
What I am on about is whether or not they were soliciting at the time of their murders. Liz looks more likely, in my mind, than Kate.
Also, I am approaching research from a different angle--with the Okhrana in brackets. (That, because of Rachkovski's retroactive rather than proactive handing of the Vasilliev story.) I am interested in Tom's Albert Bachert character and also Rob's thesis about a quick tempered club member.