Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coincidence?

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

  • Coincidence?

    Is it purely coincidence that the last two generally accepted Ripper victims used the names Jane Kelly - an alias of Catherine Eddowes and of course Mary Jane Kelly?

    There is debate about the Stephen Knight theory (for another thread), but his suggestion that Catherine Eddowes was mistaken for Mary Jane Kelly seems plausible. At least to me. However, that would suggest the victims were not random - or at least the final two were not random. Could Mary Jane Kelly have been the murderer's intended victim and the others used to obscure the fact? That would point to some kind of conspiracy - I know they don't go down well here generally - but it is a bit of a coincidence.

  • #2
    Originally posted by etenguy View Post
    Is it purely coincidence that the last two generally accepted Ripper victims used the names Jane Kelly - an alias of Catherine Eddowes and of course Mary Jane Kelly?

    There is debate about the Stephen Knight theory (for another thread), but his suggestion that Catherine Eddowes was mistaken for Mary Jane Kelly seems plausible. At least to me. However, that would suggest the victims were not random - or at least the final two were not random. Could Mary Jane Kelly have been the murderer's intended victim and the others used to obscure the fact? That would point to some kind of conspiracy - I know they don't go down well here generally - but it is a bit of a coincidence.
    The Knight theory (which won’t be mentioned again by me on this thread) suggests a connection between the victims of course but, apart from that theory, I can’t think of any other reason why Kelly would have been an intended final victim. It’s not impossible of course but I’d certainly need some weighty evidence. Extraordinary claims require etc....So, unsurprisingly, I go for coincidence over conspiracy.
    Regards

    Herlock






    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by etenguy View Post
      Is it purely coincidence that the last two generally accepted Ripper victims used the names Jane Kelly - an alias of Catherine Eddowes and of course Mary Jane Kelly?

      There is debate about the Stephen Knight theory (for another thread), but his suggestion that Catherine Eddowes was mistaken for Mary Jane Kelly seems plausible. At least to me. However, that would suggest the victims were not random - or at least the final two were not random. Could Mary Jane Kelly have been the murderer's intended victim and the others used to obscure the fact? That would point to some kind of conspiracy - I know they don't go down well here generally - but it is a bit of a coincidence.
      Alice Carroll could have been using the name Mary Kelly

      and there you have a motive for her murder, and to make it look like she was killed by the ripper

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • #4
        Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest solution is likely to be the correct one. Therefore a coincidence is more likely than a conspiracy.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Enigma View Post
          Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest solution is likely to be the correct one. Therefore a coincidence is more likely than a conspiracy.
          That is not how it works.

          Have a read.

          Occam's razor - Wikipedia
          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by etenguy View Post
            Is it purely coincidence that the last two generally accepted Ripper victims used the names Jane Kelly - an alias of Catherine Eddowes and of course Mary Jane Kelly?

            There is debate about the Stephen Knight theory (for another thread), but his suggestion that Catherine Eddowes was mistaken for Mary Jane Kelly seems plausible. At least to me. However, that would suggest the victims were not random - or at least the final two were not random. Could Mary Jane Kelly have been the murderer's intended victim and the others used to obscure the fact? That would point to some kind of conspiracy - I know they don't go down well here generally - but it is a bit of a coincidence.
            Yes, because cases often have little coincidences. Like the leather apron found in the back of 29 Hanbury St.

            "Mary Ann Kelly" was the name of Eddowes' common-law husband's ex-missus. She probably used it ironically.

            Comment


            • #7
              In life ,you get very very occasional coincidences.....
              Ripperology is jam packed with them .
              Where there are too many percieved coincidences it's advisable to lift yourself outside of the box and consider what else may be going on .
              Unfortunately, very few in this field are willing to do that
              You can lead a horse to water.....

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                "Mary Ann Kelly" was the name of Eddowes' common-law husband's ex-missus. She probably used it ironically.
                Wasn't the case at all.

                Someone's spelling mistake still echos thru' the years.

                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                  In life ,you get very very occasional coincidences.....
                  Ripperology is jam packed with them .
                  Where there are too many percieved coincidences it's advisable to lift yourself outside of the box and consider what else may be going on .
                  Unfortunately, very few in this field are willing to do that
                  Doubt there are enough of us to qualify as "few"

                  There was a term Carl Jung used for coincidences ...... synchronicity.
                  Last edited by DJA; 10-09-2019, 10:23 AM.
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Is it purely coincidence that the last two generally accepted Ripper victims used the names Jane Kelly - an alias of Catherine Eddowes and of course Mary Jane Kelly?

                    There is debate about the Stephen Knight theory (for another thread), but his suggestion that Catherine Eddowes was mistaken for Mary Jane Kelly seems plausible. At least to me. However, that would suggest the victims were not random - or at least the final two were not random. Could Mary Jane Kelly have been the murderer's intended victim and the others used to obscure the fact? That would point to some kind of conspiracy - I know they don't go down well here generally - but it is a bit of a coincidence.
                    A bit of a coincidence i hear you say ,Hmmmmm , 80,000 prostitutes in London 1888 and jack the the rippers last two victims, one gave her name as Mary Ann Kelly ,the others name was Mary Jane Kelly . Thats probably the biggest coincidence ive ever heard . Knights book / theory was right on money

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Not to mention Eddowes giving the soup kitchen behind Stride's address as her abode to the police.

                      Then there's "nobody" and GSG.

                      Stride's BS Man and Eddowe's handbill with the name of an army sapper.
                      Last edited by DJA; 10-09-2019, 10:57 AM.
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        All well and good linking Kate Conway/Eddowes/Kelly with Mary Kelly, but has no relevance to any other victim. Unless you get into the business of earlier killings being random to create a smokescreen for the final kill.
                        Total chance. How many aliases and variations crop up in the records?
                        Also,if such an elaborate scheme was set for the ultimate fate of Mary Kelly, how the hell did the killer accidentally murder the wrong woman?
                        I suppose though, if he was a geriatric who'd suffered a stroke?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If Kelly and Eddowes had both used the name Winnifred Featherstonhaugh then I’d see a reason for suspicion but Jane Kelly? Come on. This is conspiracy theorist thinking. This is nothing to do with ‘thinking outside the box’ it’s about staying within the realms of plausibility. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and bog standard names like JANE and KELLY don’t even come close. We know that prostitutes gave used other names. This is a massive...so what.
                          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 10-09-2019, 11:16 AM.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                            Could Mary Jane Kelly have been the murderer's intended victim and the others used to obscure the fact?
                            If that were his intention, then why did he end on such a crescendo with Mary Kelly's (indoor) murder? Surely that would have drawn more attention to her than necessary. Why not bump her off somewhat less spectacularly in the middle of a series of "decoy" murders?

                            Why, for that matter, choose such an elaborate and risky method as open-air evisceration, when he could simply have strangled or stabbed his victims or bashed them over the head, whether they were decoys or not?
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                              Is it purely coincidence that the last two generally accepted Ripper victims used the names Jane Kelly - an alias of Catherine Eddowes and of course Mary Jane Kelly?

                              There is debate about the Stephen Knight theory (for another thread), but his suggestion that Catherine Eddowes was mistaken for Mary Jane Kelly seems plausible. At least to me. However, that would suggest the victims were not random - or at least the final two were not random. Could Mary Jane Kelly have been the murderer's intended victim and the others used to obscure the fact? That would point to some kind of conspiracy - I know they don't go down well here generally - but it is a bit of a coincidence.
                              Kate Eddowes used 2 names in her last 24 hours, within that anagram is "Mary Jane Kelly, 6 Dorset Street." I submit that the specific given names, despite the fact Kelly was not unusual as a surname, combined with the number 6 and Dorset street to me represent one of 2 things....Kate was leaving a trail that led to Mary, or 2, Kate was just using a combination of real details about someone she knew, and maybe had on her mind at the time, to create a fictional person.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X