Coincidence?

[JeffHamm]

Hey Jeff

Of itself, Mary Ann Kelly of 6 Fashion Street (police station alias) is relatively easy for me to reconcile myself with it being just a coincidence. Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street (Pawn Ticket), even of itself, I find more difficult. That she used the two in quick succession and I struggle with feeling that maybe she was channelling Mary Jane Kelly, the next victim. I do not think this means she knew MJK but probably knew of her, perhaps from the Ten Bells. She knew she lived somewhere in Dorset Street and hence the pawn ticket, she was a bit off her game (drunk or hungover) at the police station and messed up her alias. I do not think she was doing this for any conspiracy motive, but was just coming up with an alias at short notice (and when I've done that in the past I have done precisely the same (used the name of someone I barely knew) because it is easier than coming up with an alias from scratch). So I see nothing sinister in this.

When they are both murdered by the same man, one after the other, I feel there must be some connection, it is just too coincidental (though of course coincidences of this nature do happen).

What that connection is I do not know. I doubt any grand conspiracy is involved, but some kind of mistaken identity issue does not seem beyond the realms of possibility to me. If that is the case, I would have to start from the premise the murderer knew neither of them or else the mistaken identity would not have happened. I would also need a reason for the murderer to want to kill one of them - or else the mistaken identity issue is irrelevant to the murderer. I would also need a reason for the murderer to realise his possible mistake, else he would have no reason to act on it. That is how the thought experiment scenario was born, as an attempt to describe a situation where all the above is true. I don't promote that scenario as what happened, but it was reasonable enough for me to think the mistaken identity link is quite possible.

You are right to point out that it is not sufficiently robust to be convincing as it stands and I said I thought I could work up a more convincing scenario, but was not motivated to do so. But having opened the box, I guess it is incumbent on me to do so. So, I'll have a go when I have a little time - it will mean re-reading the Eddowes and Kelly murder materials as I would want to ground any such scenario in the evidence that we have rather than describe something that could have happened but for which there is absolutely no evidence (although it would need a bit of speculation else it would have been evident from the information we have already).

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

[etenguy]

To me, the only coincidence is the name Mary really, as Catherine has a direct, and more understandable connection to the name Kelly (making the Kelly connection entirely plausible as a coincidence). But the Mary - Kelly part, as far as we know, only arises with Catherine 30 minutes before she was probably murdered (within the hour anyway), so I can't see how JtR could have heard she used it unless he's police. Also, if she met him with regards to blackmail, then he knows he's got the right one, name notwithstanding. Otherwise, he has to know what she looks like, etc. It gets too tangled, as far as I can work out, how it all fits together.

That said, I do like your thought experiment, but I'm thinking even that quite clever solution to the conundrum runs up against impenetrable walls. And yes, I think avoiding the Royal Conspiracy line is desirable as it really goes nowhere once the evidence comes into play. But I do appreciate the importance of not closing down avenues of ideas, and you've given me something to puzzle over a bit.

- Jeff

Hey Jeff

Of itself, Mary Ann Kelly of 6 Fashion Street (police station alias) is relatively easy for me to reconcile myself with it being just a coincidence. Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street (Pawn Ticket), even of itself, I find more difficult. That she used the two in quick succession and I struggle with feeling that maybe she was channelling Mary Jane Kelly, the next victim. I do not think this means she knew MJK but probably knew of her, perhaps from the Ten Bells. She knew she lived somewhere in Dorset Street and hence the pawn ticket, she was a bit off her game (drunk or hungover) at the police station and messed up her alias. I do not think she was doing this for any conspiracy motive, but was just coming up with an alias at short notice (and when I've done that in the past I have done precisely the same (used the name of someone I barely knew) because it is easier than coming up with an alias from scratch). So I see nothing sinister in this.

When they are both murdered by the same man, one after the other, I feel there must be some connection, it is just too coincidental (though of course coincidences of this nature do happen).

What that connection is I do not know. I doubt any grand conspiracy is involved, but some kind of mistaken identity issue does not seem beyond the realms of possibility to me. If that is the case, I would have to start from the premise the murderer knew neither of them or else the mistaken identity would not have happened. I would also need a reason for the murderer to want to kill one of them - or else the mistaken identity issue is irrelevant to the murderer. I would also need a reason for the murderer to realise his possible mistake, else he would have no reason to act on it. That is how the thought experiment scenario was born, as an attempt to describe a situation where all the above is true. I don't promote that scenario as what happened, but it was reasonable enough for me to think the mistaken identity link is quite possible.

You are right to point out that it is not sufficiently robust to be convincing as it stands and I said I thought I could work up a more convincing scenario, but was not motivated to do so. But having opened the box, I guess it is incumbent on me to do so. So, I'll have a go when I have a little time - it will mean re-reading the Eddowes and Kelly murder materials as I would want to ground any such scenario in the evidence that we have rather than describe something that could have happened but for which there is absolutely no evidence (although it would need a bit of speculation else it would have been evident from the information we have already).

[DJA]

The family were living a few miles away.

There were no Welsh or Irish family members.

[Joshua Rogan]

Perhaps one reason they didn't turn up was because they were expected to foot the bill?

[DJA]

Yeah,I know.

Wanna buy a bridge?

You know who the sexton was.

[Joshua Rogan]

Murdered on the 9th,buried 19th.

There were reports that the funeral was postponed at least once, awaiting the arrival of her relatives.

Daily News 14 Nov;
"The funeral of the deceased woman Kelly will not take place till after the arrival from Wales of some of her relatives and friends who are expected to reach London this evening. The remains, according to present arrangements, will be interred wither tomorrow or on Friday, at the new Chingford cemetery."

15 Nov;
"The relatives of the murdered woman, who were expected yesterday, have not yet arrived.-The funeral has been again postponed, and may not take place until Monday."

16 Nov;
"The funeral of the deceased woman will take place on Monday."

19 Nov;
"It has now been definitely decided that the funeral shall take place at half-past twelve to-day."

[JeffHamm]

Thanks Jeff - there is absolutely no reason you should buy in to it, it is purely my imagination and there is no evidence to support it. I just wanted to move away from the Royal Conspiracy Theory. It is also shot through with holes. Could I refine the idea into a plausible theory? I think I could but I do not intend to try, it was just a thought experiment. There are all sorts of scenarios we might imagine but without some evidence to support them they are nothing more than that.

I will tell you where I am. I find the name and address coincidence just a bit too coincidental. I don't believe some grand conspiracy theory results from that coincidence but I believe it might have some part to play in the murders. Of course, it may not. I just haven't reached the point that I can reconcile this level of coincidence, yet.

To me, the only coincidence is the name Mary really, as Catherine has a direct, and more understandable connection to the name Kelly (making the Kelly connection entirely plausible as a coincidence). But the Mary - Kelly part, as far as we know, only arises with Catherine 30 minutes before she was probably murdered (within the hour anyway), so I can't see how JtR could have heard she used it unless he's police. Also, if she met him with regards to blackmail, then he knows he's got the right one, name notwithstanding. Otherwise, he has to know what she looks like, etc. It gets too tangled, as far as I can work out, how it all fits together.

That said, I do like your thought experiment, but I'm thinking even that quite clever solution to the conundrum runs up against impenetrable walls. And yes, I think avoiding the Royal Conspiracy line is desirable as it really goes nowhere once the evidence comes into play. But I do appreciate the importance of not closing down avenues of ideas, and you've given me something to puzzle over a bit.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Why does Mary's trail stop once you get to the West End?

She was a local girl.

Shows up in the 1881 census being treated for VD.
Baptized at St.Leonards.
Paddy picked up the family's trail.

Edit. 1861

[DJA]

Dutch Catholics.

Name translates as Morning Star.

[Trapperologist]

Good point, D. 10 days is a long time. The Mad Trapper's family didn't show up either to claim him (except for mistaken ones) but he was in the bush for years.

Why does Mary's trail stop once you get to the West End? The media was all over the story of the "attractive" victim of JTR. Then it stopped. Or did it stop when someone found out Morganstone was Morgenstern? It sounds Jewish although I take it he wasn't.

[DJA]

Murdered on the 9th,buried 19th.

[Errata]

The whole lack of family thing has to me always smacked of bovine fecal matter. We tend to relate to our modern age when bodies are kept on ice and no burial takes place until all the respective parties have been involved. This was not the case at the time. The lack of family is more likely down to the fact that it took longer to get a confirmed identity, and even longer to identify, locate and converse with the family, let alone invite them to the funeral.

Like Jews. If you can’t get there in 24 hours, you will not be attending. Our funerals tend to be a lot sparser than Christian ones for that reason. I personally have never been to a Jewish funeral that had more than 20 people. And I’ve been one of three people at a funeral.

I’m with you. Her family would’ve had more than 24 hours probably, but probably not more than 72 to get off work, arrange for transportation, assemble etc. if they weren’t in London, it just wouldn’t be feasible unless they were filthy rich.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

They could always send a distant relative or friend to represent them. What about her "cousin" who got her into the life that ended up getting her killed? I'm not saying she didn't show up but she could have at least stepped forward and identified herself. An appeal should have been made for the family to come forward. Why not?

Barnett identified Mary as the person he hardly knew.

The whole lack of family thing has to me always smacked of bovine fecal matter. We tend to relate to our modern age when bodies are kept on ice and no burial takes place until all the respective parties have been involved. This was not the case at the time. The lack of family is more likely down to the fact that it took longer to get a confirmed identity, and even longer to identify, locate and converse with the family, let alone invite them to the funeral.

[Trapperologist]

Hello Trapperologist,

I don't think any of the points you cited are significant on their own but take on that appearance when listed together.

There could be a very simple explanation for using an alias. She might have been on the run from an abusive husband or boyfriend or may have been trying to duck legal troubles.

She was identified by Barnett.

Were her relatives contacted? I don't know but it is easy to see why they might not have wanted to be in the middle of it all. "Hey, aren't you the parents of that prostitute that was butchered like an animal"?

They could always send a distant relative or friend to represent them. What about her "cousin" who got her into the life that ended up getting her killed? I'm not saying she didn't show up but she could have at least stepped forward and identified herself. An appeal should have been made for the family to come forward. Why not?

Barnett identified Mary as the person he hardly knew.

[Trapperologist]

Already know

Not unless his initials are EHV.