Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coincidence?

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Okay, etenguy! Well, if there is a reoccurring trait in studying the Ripper, this is it - what seems to be (and may be) coincidences arrive thick and fast. And being human, we are all looking for patterns, to try and understand as best as we can what happened. To me, this has always meant that I try not to overinvest in these kinds of things. And I try not to speak of coincidences when there is nothing coinciding as such - the Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Friday thing is not something that stands out to me as coincidental at all, I´m afraid. There are too few occasions for the sequence not to look completely innocent to my eyes, and weekends were always ripe with crime anyway. Furthermore, Eddowes´man was named Kelly, and that tends to blunt that coincidence rather badly.

    The Gill date, however, was something that made me raise my eyebrows when I read it. It is kind of eerie, and in that case, the sequence must be regarded as beyond trivial. Way beyond it, actually. Well spotted, and very interesting per se.
    However! Before it can become truly useful in our search, one must accept that a common killer was into some sort of magical numerical thinking, and I have a really hard time trying to accept that. Therefore, I tend to accept that although the sequence stands out as truly remarkable, what is seems to imply sounds very improbable to my ears.

    So I end up with a stance of the whole thing amounting to nothing - and the reassuring thought that there was a Pickfords depot in Bradford, should I be wrong...
    Thanks Fisherman - in my more sober moments I agree with you, for god's sake we can find patterns in clouds if we look hard enough. I think the one thing that would convince me that this is more than just coincidence is if we found that Johnny Gill was a ripper victim - but that is not proven and in fact the more I look into that murder, the less likely it seems (there is a suspect in the frame who was not prosecuted but is none the less a strong candidate). However, since there is not too much information easily available about the Johnny Gill murder it is hard to tell - some primary research is needed. I am motivated enough to undertake that, it is just finding the time and the opportunity to go to Bradford - which (coincidently) I will be doing in a few weeks for completely different reasons.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trapperologist View Post
      Then there's the fact that Catherine bought boots from Florence Pash's cousin when she went hopping and Florence Pash said she knew Mary Kelly.
      The bit about Eddowes buying the boots is possibly true, but the bit about Florence Pash's alleged claim that she knew Mary (Jane) Kelly is rather dubious, tied up as it is with the Sickert saga.

      I say "possibly true" because, whilst John Kelly/Eddowes bought the boots at Arthur Pash's shop, I don't see how this means that Pash himself, as opposed to a shop assistant, sold the boots to them. Even if they'd dealt with Pash personally, I find it extremely unlikely that he'd tell his (presumably) insider story about the Ripper to a couple of raggedy strangers who'd dropped in to buy a pair of cheap boots. If he told them, then he must have been in the habit of telling many others, yet we only know about (Florence) Pash's alleged insider info from one or two decidedly iffy sources, and then only in connection with various Sickert theories.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

        the answer is Yes. Can we start a new thread now please?

        Tristan
        Hi Tristan

        I think you are probably correct, but I still think it worth exploring. There is lots of room for lots of thread here and I'd be happy to contribute to any you start - what is it that you want to examine more closely?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

          Hi Tristan

          I think you are probably correct, but I still think it worth exploring. There is lots of room for lots of thread here and I'd be happy to contribute to any you start - what is it that you want to examine more closely?
          Hi Etenguy,

          Sorry my attempt at a little joke to try and get things back on track. Big ask I know but I think it would be great for thread authors to bring threads to a halt once they go off track with a bit of a conclusion based on what has been said or talked about. After a few months maybe the admins could move this summary to the start of the thread to give a new reader an overview before diving into it? Lots of work I realise and I don't know how possible it would be, especially when some threads have lots of pages and tonnes of opinions and info, but it could be really handy!

          Tristan

          Comment


          • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

            Hi Tristan

            I think you are probably correct, but I still think it worth exploring. There is lots of room for lots of thread here and I'd be happy to contribute to any you start - what is it that you want to examine more closely?
            What about - Was Mary Jane Kelly Jack The Ripper? The REAL MJK, not the poor victim found in Mitre Square. She faked her own death. The evidence is there if we look hard enough! Or make it up, whichever's easiest.
            Your evening of swing has been cancelled.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

              Thanks Fisherman - in my more sober moments I agree with you, for god's sake we can find patterns in clouds if we look hard enough. I think the one thing that would convince me that this is more than just coincidence is if we found that Johnny Gill was a ripper victim - but that is not proven and in fact the more I look into that murder, the less likely it seems (there is a suspect in the frame who was not prosecuted but is none the less a strong candidate). However, since there is not too much information easily available about the Johnny Gill murder it is hard to tell - some primary research is needed. I am motivated enough to undertake that, it is just finding the time and the opportunity to go to Bradford - which (coincidently) I will be doing in a few weeks for completely different reasons.
              Nothing wrong in going to the bottom with things, so I´d welcome that. Personally, of course, I have a sequence that brings the Whitehall torso murder into the equation, breaking the pattern up, so I was never going to believe in the maths of the C5 leading up to John Gill anyway. But since I am told that I may just be wrong...

              Even if you end up with nothing, you should remember to congratulate yourself on that keen eye of yours. Sooner or later, such things tend to pay off!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                What about - Was Mary Jane Kelly Jack The Ripper? The REAL MJK, not the poor victim found in Mitre Square. She faked her own death. The evidence is there if we look hard enough! Or make it up, whichever's easiest.
                I think you mean Miller's Court - I don't know who Mary Jane Kelly really was. It surprises me the police did not do more to identify the victim, but I guess they were busy and there were plenty of people who hid themselves in Whitechapel. As to whether the victim was the person purporting to be Mary Jane Kelly - well Barnet tells us she was but the later sightings do hold open the smallest possibility it was someone else.

                Comment


                • [QUOTE=etenguy;n725011]

                  I think you mean Miller's Court.

                  Did I? The person in Mitre Square went by the name of Kelly. Coincidence?

                  I say it taking the Mick, but there's got to be a MJK as JTR theory out there. It's probably more plausible than some.
                  Your evening of swing has been cancelled.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

                    Hi Etenguy,

                    Sorry my attempt at a little joke to try and get things back on track. Big ask I know but I think it would be great for thread authors to bring threads to a halt once they go off track with a bit of a conclusion based on what has been said or talked about. After a few months maybe the admins could move this summary to the start of the thread to give a new reader an overview before diving into it? Lots of work I realise and I don't know how possible it would be, especially when some threads have lots of pages and tonnes of opinions and info, but it could be really handy!

                    Tristan
                    I think that sounds an excellent idea - the summary - but I think too much to ask of the admins here.

                    Threads do tend to wander, and at the moment Chapman's death is in a lot of minds - I did try to bring the thread back on track because I truly am interested in what anyone can tell me about all the coincidences in this case. It seems though, as you say, we are nearing the end of finding more useful information about my question.

                    Comment


                    • [QUOTE=Al Bundy's Eyes;n725012]
                      Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                      I think you mean Miller's Court.

                      Did I? The person in Mitre Square went by the name of Kelly. Coincidence?

                      I say it taking the Mick, but there's got to be a MJK as JTR theory out there. It's probably more plausible than some.
                      Ah, I can be a bit slow sometimes. I am sure you are right about the MJK as JtR theory, but I don't know that one.

                      Comment


                      • [QUOTE=etenguy;n725014]
                        Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                        Ah, I can be a bit slow sometimes. I am sure you are right about the MJK as JtR theory, but I don't know that one.
                        There's got to be a thread in there then! She (according to certain theories) knew all the victims, had secret knowledge, blackmail, a mysterious identity, a Catholic connection and had been to Paris with a wealthy stranger? Never mind a thread, you've got a whole feckin' book!

                        Note: I hearby claim all copyright for this theory, and all commercial rights including channel 5 documentarys.
                        Your evening of swing has been cancelled.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          Nothing wrong in going to the bottom with things, so I´d welcome that. Personally, of course, I have a sequence that brings the Whitehall torso murder into the equation, breaking the pattern up, so I was never going to believe in the maths of the C5 leading up to John Gill anyway. But since I am told that I may just be wrong...

                          Even if you end up with nothing, you should remember to congratulate yourself on that keen eye of yours. Sooner or later, such things tend to pay off!
                          We all may be wrong when we work with limited information, though I personally find the Lechmere theory interesting, others are not convinced. Who knows what new information might just appear to help us make up our minds.

                          Comment


                          • [QUOTE=Al Bundy's Eyes;n725015]
                            Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                            There's got to be a thread in there then! She (according to certain theories) knew all the victims, had secret knowledge, blackmail, a mysterious identity, a Catholic connection and had been to Paris with a wealthy stranger? Never mind a thread, you've got a whole feckin' book!

                            Note: I hearby claim all copyright for this theory, and all commercial rights including channel 5 documentarys.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                              Eddowes was living with a man named Kelly, so her use of the Kelly surname is hardly surprising. The idea that someone, like the Terminator hunting Sarah Conners, was deliberately trying to kill a specific woman named Jane Kelly without having any idea what she looked like, is very unlikely. The 1891 Census of England and Wales shows that there were over 1000 Jane Kellys living in London. Anyone blindly trying to find the right Jane Kelly could have killed hundreds of Jane Kellys and not gotten the correct target.
                              Hi Fiver
                              I suspect you are more than a little wayward in your figures.
                              I've checked this many times in the past in the 91 census.
                              There were around 100 (not 1000) Mary Kelly's in London as a whole ,with all name variants.
                              If you narrow it down to whitechapel/ spitalfields immediate area it was less than 10 .
                              With a number ruled out for being either too old or too young , you are left with the number of possible Mary Kelly's as a JTR victim counted on the fingers of one hand.
                              These weren't any two victims ,they were in all likelihood, the last two.
                              Any other serial killers who've, by fluke , found their last two victims both went by the same name ?

                              Thought not .

                              This should indeed be taken seriously .

                              I've also heard plenty of nonsense about either the name Mary Kelly or simply Mary Ann being synonymous with prostitution.
                              This is palpably untrue
                              The only Mary Ann euphemism related to male prostitutes, as mentioned by Jack Saul at the Cleveland Street trial and if 'Mary Kelly' had been a euphemism for prostitutes I suspect any others who weren't may have changed their names....
                              You can lead a horse to water.....

                              Comment


                              • Kate suggested that she was likely to get a "hiding" for being so late getting back, now what do people make of that statement? I see it as and indication that she wanted to get going, like she had someplace to be...and that she was not above lying to the Police, suggesting that her "partner" would mistreat her. That's not a behavior that is indicated anywhere in the other witness statements, the ones that knew them both. It appears to me that she was in her stealth mode, one that perhaps began with her aliases. If Im correct that she intended to extort some money from parties she believed were connected to the murders, then going underground to stay alive before that meeting took place would be a smart move. But Mary Jane Kelly, _6 Dorset Street, found within an anagram of her last 2 aliases in her last 24 hours is really interesting considering that the next murder assumed to be by the same lad is Mary Jane Kelly, 26 Dorset St, 13 Millers court.

                                That's why I think it might be a breadcrumb, maybe even for Kelly to look for her or find out what happened. Which would imply that Kate knew Mary. What could he hope to learn from this Mary Kelly if she didn't know Kate.
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X