Coincidence?

[Michael W Richards]

Mary Jane Kelly lived at 13 Miller's Court. 26 Dorset was being used as a storeroom at the time of the Kelly murder.

Catherine Eddowes gave the addresses of 6 Dorset Street and 6 Fashion Street. Catherine Eddowes gave aliases of Jane Kelly and Mary Ann Kelly.

Your 'match' requires picking only the parts you want in the order you want, while ignoring Ann, Fashion, 13, Millers, and Court. Even if the Ripper had been in the police station when Eddowes was released and took the time to riffle though her pockets, read the pawn tickets, and then put them back, he would had 3 names and addresses as Eddowes also carried a pawn ticket for Emily Birrell, 52 White's Row. the Ripper would have no way of deriving 'Mary Jane Kelly, 13 Millers Court' from the available information, nor any reason to seek out any of the aliases of a woman he had just murdered.

We know that the Saturday, 13 October 1888 East London Observer, Casual Ward Superintendent of Mile End claimed that Eddowes said "I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him." That same issue gives accounts of 4 other people who claimed they knew the Ripper. If Catherine Eddowes truly said that, then why did she spend the day pawning boots and trying to borrow money from her daughter? If Eddowes truly did know the Ripper's identity, why did she agree to meet the killer alone at 1:30AM? At the very least a person with any particle of brain would have brought John Kelly along for the blackmail attempt.

I can see that your not as well versed in the basics, ....so, 26 Dorset Street was a boarding house, not a storeroom. Marys room was originally the parlour of 26 Dorset Street, not of a storeroom. There is no reason to doubt the witness that stated what Kate said, and for the last time, almost the complete address and full name address of the very next victim in what many believe was a series within 2 aliases that she gave within her last 24 hours.

I don't care if you dont find that worth looking into, Im not selling anything. I just point it out and have declared I find it interesting and worth further investigation.

[Fiver]

There is evidence that Kate was intending to sell information she had, therefore its hardly out of context to suggest she might have sought higher bidders, secondly, Mary Jane lived in a converted parlour room in the rear of 26 Dorset St, which opened to a courtyard in which she resided at #13. Either address was sufficient to find her. Eddowes used Jane Kelly first, then Mary Kelly...…..so...…..like I said, she used almost all of Marys complete name, as she is known, and her address....Mary Jane Kelly, _6 Dorset St......22 of 23 characters of it, using the street abrev.

To say its has nothing in common with the names of the very next supposed Ripper victim is simply denying whats there on paper, Im sure in favor of some less probable theory.. in the grander scheme. As is usually the case here..."he couldn't have killed Annie, because he wasn't available to kill the others" kind of dizzying logic.

Ill bet if people had been focusing on solving just one of the murders instead of a theoretical group something more might have been accomplished, some truth revealed.

Mary Jane Kelly lived at 13 Miller's Court. 26 Dorset was being used as a storeroom at the time of the Kelly murder.

Catherine Eddowes gave the addresses of 6 Dorset Street and 6 Fashion Street. Catherine Eddowes gave aliases of Jane Kelly and Mary Ann Kelly.

Your 'match' requires picking only the parts you want in the order you want, while ignoring Ann, Fashion, 13, Millers, and Court. Even if the Ripper had been in the police station when Eddowes was released and took the time to riffle though her pockets, read the pawn tickets, and then put them back, he would had 3 names and addresses as Eddowes also carried a pawn ticket for Emily Birrell, 52 White's Row. the Ripper would have no way of deriving 'Mary Jane Kelly, 13 Millers Court' from the available information, nor any reason to seek out any of the aliases of a woman he had just murdered.

We know that the Saturday, 13 October 1888 East London Observer, Casual Ward Superintendent of Mile End claimed that Eddowes said "I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him." That same issue gives accounts of 4 other people who claimed they knew the Ripper. If Catherine Eddowes truly said that, then why did she spend the day pawning boots and trying to borrow money from her daughter? If Eddowes truly did know the Ripper's identity, why did she agree to meet the killer alone at 1:30AM? At the very least a person with any particle of brain would have brought John Kelly along for the blackmail attempt.

[Michael W Richards]

Catherine Eddowes gave the addresses of 6 Dorset Street and 6 Fashion Street.

Mary Jane Kelly lived at 13 Miller's Court.

That is not 99% of Mary Jane Kelly's address, it has nothing in common. There is no evidence that Eddowes knew Kelly. The is no evidence that Eddowes was trying to sell information about Mary Jane Kelly to anyone,

There is evidence that Kate was intending to sell information she had, therefore its hardly out of context to suggest she might have sought higher bidders, secondly, Mary Jane lived in a converted parlour room in the rear of 26 Dorset St, which opened to a courtyard in which she resided at #13. Either address was sufficient to find her. Eddowes used Jane Kelly first, then Mary Kelly...…..so...…..like I said, she used almost all of Marys complete name, as she is known, and her address....Mary Jane Kelly, _6 Dorset St......22 of 23 characters of it, using the street abrev.

To say its has nothing in common with the names of the very next supposed Ripper victim is simply denying whats there on paper, Im sure in favor of some less probable theory.. in the grander scheme. As is usually the case here..."he couldn't have killed Annie, because he wasn't available to kill the others" kind of dizzying logic.

Ill bet if people had been focusing on solving just one of the murders instead of a theoretical group something more might have been accomplished, some truth revealed.

[Losmandris]

We need to be wary of religious and/or charity groups, who weren't averse to using the victims to gain publicity, as witness the possibly made up story of Dr Barnardo's encounter with Liz Stride.

Have to agree here. No real insights just a couple of basics that could well have been gleamed from local gossip.

Tristan

[etenguy]

We need to be wary of religious and/or charity groups, who weren't averse to using the victims to gain publicity, as witness the possibly made up story of Dr Barnardo's encounter with Liz Stride.

Thanks for that Sam, there is a great difficulty with trying ro identify good, unimpeachable information.

[Sam Flynn]

I thought the earlier post about the mission magazine was very interesting also and it does provide a plausible connection between Catherine and Mary. It is not conclusive but it is suggestive.

We need to be wary of religious and/or charity groups, who weren't averse to using the victims to gain publicity, as witness the possibly made up story of Dr Barnardo's encounter with Liz Stride.

[Trapperologist]

That might have been the same source that said Mary was an "artist and a scholar". I think she might have learned a word or two of Welsh from EHV.

She'd already claimed to have been disowned by her family. Do you think her "London family members" showed up to the funeral secretly? A century of research has proven the LCM missionary correct about her origin so we can find him reliable when he talks about knowing the victims.

[DJA]

And yet, Kelly was said to be fluent in Welsh.

Yeah and pigs fly

Good try buddy.

[etenguy]

Here, let me help etenguy with some "evidence". The so-called "Most Important Clue Yet" was a letter to an unidentified "Metropolitan" Missionary. That could well have been the City Missionary who said he knew Mary Kelly and whom the Mission magazine said knew "some" of the victims. Some would mean more than two but suffice to suggest two would have been Mary Kelly and Catherine Eddowes.

Mary came to the once-a-week services which were at Mission Hall in Mission Court on Thrawl Street directly across the street from Catherine's sister. It makes sense Catherine went there even if it was just for refreshments and although Mary said she was 25 but I doubt she was, so there might not have been such an age difference to not make them close. If it was the City Missionary the "letter writer" suspect wrote to, then he would have likely attended as well and may have associated Mary and Kate as a pair. Was Catherine a regular at Mitre Square and did she bring Mary Kelly to mind if he didn't already have her in mind?

All help gratefully received.

I thought the earlier post about the mission magazine was very interesting also and it does provide a plausible connection between Catherine and Mary. It is not conclusive but it is suggestive. I do not think it means they necessarily knew each other, but it could well be they crossed paths. I stop short of going further but recognise the possibilities you highlight.

[Trapperologist]

I think the first assumption has to be made for things to be other than a coincidence. And I think the evidence that we have is against it, but it's not so far against it that it isn't worth considering. I think, though, if you're going to go with that you are just as safe to suggest she used both the "Mary X Kelly" and "Jane Kelly" aliases, as if Jane Kelly is used presumably because Catherine knew Mary Jane Kelly, then that allows for either of those.

If the second were to be true, then it certainly means there's no mistaken identity (regardless of name) for Catherine Eddowes - JtR met her and targeted her - unless things revert to MJK being hunted by JtR yet he doesn't know what she looks like (or her age, etc; Eddowes was 20 years older than Kelly after all).

But, I won't presuppose what you've got and I'm just thinking "out loud" so I look forward to seeing what you've come up with. I'm sure it will be interesting and worth mulling over.

Here, let me help etenguy with some "evidence". The so-called "Most Important Clue Yet" was a letter to an unidentified "Metropolitan" Missionary. That could well have been the City Missionary who said he knew Mary Kelly and whom the Mission magazine said knew "some" of the victims. Some would mean more than two but suffice to suggest two would have been Mary Kelly and Catherine Eddowes.

Mary came to the once-a-week services which were at Mission Hall in Mission Court on Thrawl Street directly across the street from Catherine's sister. It makes sense Catherine went there even if it was just for refreshments and although Mary said she was 25 but I doubt she was, so there might not have been such an age difference to not make them close. If it was the City Missionary the "letter writer" suspect wrote to, then he would have likely attended as well and may have associated Mary and Kate as a pair. Was Catherine a regular at Mitre Square and did she bring Mary Kelly to mind if he didn't already have her in mind?

[JeffHamm]

My guess is that the Royal Family had fallen on hard times financially and thus were forced to hire a second rate assassin in order to save a few bucks.

Sorry, not trying to rain on anybody's parade and not knocking anybody personally. We should all be open to new ideas but it seems that this one has a very long way to go before it can be taken seriously. And as others have pointed out, why not just kill the intended victims? The mutilations just increased police efforts to catch the killer which should have been exactly what the Royal Family would not have wanted.

c.d.

I agree c.d. It's ironic that a Royal Conspiracy is put forth to explain a set of murders which are pretty much the antithesis of what a series of murders committed by a Royal Conspiracy would look like.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

My guess is that the Royal Family had fallen on hard times financially and thus were forced to hire a second rate assassin in order to save a few bucks.

Sorry, not trying to rain on anybody's parade and not knocking anybody personally. We should all be open to new ideas but it seems that this one has a very long way to go before it can be taken seriously. And as others have pointed out, why not just kill the intended victims? The mutilations just increased police efforts to catch the killer which should have been exactly what the Royal Family would not have wanted.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

Hey Jeff

I have worked through a scenario which works but in order to do so I had to establish a few assumptions for which I am unable to find any evidence - they are:

1. That Kate Eddowes used the Jane Kelly alias more than once (or rely on an incredible coincidence which I cannot sanction).
2. That the murderer met with Kate Eddowes between 2pm and 8.30pm on 29th September.

In addition, the supporting evidence I did find could be interpreted in different ways, but is suggestive of the scenario. I am going to review it again tomorrow before posting to avoid any embarrassment through posting too early.

Hi etenguy,

I think the first assumption has to be made for things to be other than a coincidence. And I think the evidence that we have is against it, but it's not so far against it that it isn't worth considering. I think, though, if you're going to go with that you are just as safe to suggest she used both the "Mary X Kelly" and "Jane Kelly" aliases, as if Jane Kelly is used presumably because Catherine knew Mary Jane Kelly, then that allows for either of those.

If the second were to be true, then it certainly means there's no mistaken identity (regardless of name) for Catherine Eddowes - JtR met her and targeted her - unless things revert to MJK being hunted by JtR yet he doesn't know what she looks like (or her age, etc; Eddowes was 20 years older than Kelly after all). I've had problems with Kelly being such a target, as it seems to rapidly inflate to require more and more extreme assumptions to be made, but I'm sure I've not thought of all possible avenues and may be biased by how the Royal Conspiracy unfolds. The notion that his allowed for a pre-arranged meeting seems difficult, as Eddowes was in no hurry to get out (she wasn't asking to be released or showing any signs of desperation to get out), and it strikes me unlikely that she would agree to meet JtR in a dark secluded area.

But, I won't presuppose what you've got and I'm just thinking "out loud" so I look forward to seeing what you've come up with. I'm sure it will be interesting and worth mulling over.

- Jeff

[etenguy]

yes, do have a think about it. And to me, even if one could suggest that Catherine Eddowes had some knowledge of Mary Jane Kelly, the important point is that JtR has to have killed at least one of them because of this connection (the Royal Conspiracy approach has been that it was Eddowes who was killed thinking it was MJK; you've inverted that with MJK being killed as a sort of 'double mistaken identity - killing Eddowes thinking her name was Mary Kelly and so killing Mary Kelly thinking she's the one he should have been looking for in the first place, etc" - becomes a bit inception like really, but I know what you mean I think).

Unfortunately, it is all, I think, based upon either of the aliases being used more than the once, and at the moment it doesn't appear that was likely. However, we do know the names "Mary Ann Kelly" and "Jane Kelly" were used. And while Dorset Street (insert whatever number you like) was a very "prototypical street" for someone of Eddowes social circles, it still adds to the "hmmmm" factor of the whole thing.

I'm not convinced it's anything but a coincidence, but then, that might just be because I've not seen anything convincing to the contrary so far. So I'll be interested to see what you come up with. However, if during your attempts you convince yourself it doesn't work (and I'm not presupposing the result here), it would still be useful to share your thinking all the same, to show how it doesn't work. Obviously, if you have a major "ah ha" moment and come up with something that shows it does work that will get shared. Too often the "negative result" doesn't get shared, despite the fact that the thinking involved is often just as thorough and useful for others to know.

- Jeff

Hey Jeff

I have worked through a scenario which works but in order to do so I had to establish a few assumptions for which I am unable to find any evidence - they are:

1. That Kate Eddowes used the Jane Kelly alias more than once (or rely on an incredible coincidence which I cannot sanction).
2. That the murderer met with Kate Eddowes between 2pm and 8.30pm on 29th September.

In addition, the supporting evidence I did find could be interpreted in different ways, but is suggestive of the scenario. I am going to review it again tomorrow before posting to avoid any embarrassment through posting too early.

[Joshua Rogan]

The family were living a few miles away.

There were no Welsh or Irish family members.

And yet, Kelly was said to be fluent in Welsh.