Coincidence?

[JeffHamm]

it seems to me that since Joe Barnett read the news about the murders to Mary, that if she at least knew any of the prior victims even in passing, she would have said something to him. It seems inconceivable that would not have come up in their conversations, and Barnett would have passed that on to the police when he mentioned how he read the news to her. The complete lack of any indication that such a conversation, or any mention of even so much as an "Oh I've heard of her ..." type comment, from Kelly, suggests there was no social connection between Mary and any of the prior victims. Also, the fact that Joe Barnett does not himself indicate any recognition or familiarity with any of the prior victims also suggests that there was no connection. None of the partners of any of the victims make any comment that could even remotely suggest acquaintanceship between victims, let alone close connections. it's possible only in the sense we can conceive of it because the evidence tells us they were living in the same area of London. But there were a lot of people living transitory lives in that area, and it is not possible to derive a connection between the victims from the evidence we have, and such a relationship predicts that certain types of evidence should be available to us in the statements we have - such as an indication of any sort of a later victim showing recognition of the previous one. And that is entirely absent other than in the links of speculation we can make. But those are just hypotheses, they are not in and of themselves data.

- Jeff

[etenguy]

Nichols resided at 18 Thrawl Street before moving next to Eddowes.

Eddowes went hopping.

Nichols was murdered.

Eddowes returns for her reward.

I apologise for being a bit slow, but I don't understand your post. Are you suggesting Eddowes was sourcing victims for the murderer?

[DJA]

I checked back on my sources. The London City Mission Magazine said their missionary knew "some" of the victims. I guess I make the assumption, fair or not, that one of the other ones was Catherine Eddowes since her sister lived across the street from the Thrawl St. Mission where he had services and that's where he would have met Mary and got to know her. His services were once a week so Mary and Catherine couldn't miss each other.
"All the victims of the recent crimes in the East End lived in this district, and frequented the common lodging houses which are situated within its boundaries. Some of them were well known to the Missionary, especially the last of the series,..." LCMM, Nov 1

Nichols resided at 18 Thrawl Street before moving next to Eddowes.

Eddowes went hopping.

Nichols was murdered.

Eddowes returns for her reward.

[etenguy]

We should start a list of all the significant clues found by the police.

The back of an envelope will suffice. It's going to be a short list.

I can't say that the GSG was a significant clue - but it might have been. Given your statement, with which I agree, it makes the decision to erase it before being photographed even less understandable to me.

[Simon Wood]

We should start a list of all the significant clues found by the police.

The back of an envelope will suffice. It's going to be a short list.

[Trapperologist]

I don't see why that should be the case. Kelly was a comparatively recent arrival in Spitalfields (1887), and there was an age gap of more than 20 years between her and Eddowes. They lived at different places at different times, and were in more-or-less steady relationships, so I find it unlikely that they'd have have had the opportunity to make each other's acquaintance.

The same rationale applies in varying degrees to the other victims, by the way, whether we consider them in pairs or - certainly - as a group of five.

I checked back on my sources. The London City Mission Magazine said their missionary knew "some" of the victims. I guess I make the assumption, fair or not, that one of the other ones was Catherine Eddowes since her sister lived across the street from the Thrawl St. Mission where he had services and that's where he would have met Mary and got to know her. His services were once a week so Mary and Catherine couldn't miss each other.
"All the victims of the recent crimes in the East End lived in this district, and frequented the common lodging houses which are situated within its boundaries. Some of them were well known to the Missionary, especially the last of the series,..." LCMM, Nov 1

[etenguy]

I daresay it would have been more uncanny if there'd also been a Ripper victim named Mary [something] Kelly of 16 or 26 Fashion Street.

Indeed it would.

I appreciate you see nothing especially remarkable about this coincidence, and I agree it is likely to have no significance to the murder victims or the murderer. Nevertheless, for one victim to use a name and address so similar to the next victim I think is noteworthy. Of itself, we probably should not read to much into it, but this is, in my view, an unlikely coincidence and remarkably so.

I am sure that if there was a murder today of a woman who had used the alias Jane Smith of 6 Somerset Street and a few weeks later a woman called Mary Jane Smith of 26 Somerset Street is murdered by what the police considered to be the same murderer - they would find that significant, even if three prior murders by the same murderer had no such connection.

[Sam Flynn]

I find this to be a more usual coincidence - we can probably all find connections in our pasts, it is the contemporary use of an alias and address that happened to be pretty much the next victim's name and address which I find a more remarkable coincidence. I accept it is a coincidence, but a part of me finds it so remarkable, I can't quite put it down.

I daresay it would have been more uncanny if there'd also been a Ripper victim named Mary [something] Kelly of 16 or 26 Fashion Street.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten.

You don't recall that Kelly (MJK) was known for a time as Davies, and the next victim to turn up dead (Mylett) had also been known as Davis?

Does that mean anything?

I find this to be a more usual coincidence - we can probably all find connections in our pasts, it is the contemporary use of an alias and address that happened to be pretty much the next victim's name and address which I find a more remarkable coincidence. I accept it is a coincidence, but a part of me finds it so remarkable, I can't quite put it down.

[Sam Flynn]

Mary Jane Kelly, _6 Dorset street...those are within her 2 aliases. The next victim is Mary Jane Kelly, 26 Dorset, 13 Millers Court.

Again, she didn't say "blank 6" Dorset Street, just "6 Dorset Street". She also gave "6 Fashion Street" as her address on the previous day, and a different name.

The fact that the murders are consecutive, combined with Kates aliases, is likely revealing, not coincidental.

Even the coincidence is hardly worth writing home about. Both the names she gave were extremely common, both streets were renowned for their doss-houses, her boyfriend's name was Kelly, and she was known to others by the name of Kelly.

If Kate wanted to "reveal" anything about a link to Mary Jane Kelly, then why didn't she use that name, and why didn't she give her address as Miller's Court? What on earth was the point of "implicating" a real person in the trifling acts of pawning of a pair of boots and being drunk on the streets? And if, for some utterly unfathomable reason, she wanted to "implicate" the real Mary Jane Kelly of 13 Miller's Court, why be so cryptic about it?

This conspiratorial woo-woo makes no sense whatsoever.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Eten.

You don't recall that Kelly (MJK) was known for a time as Davies, and the next victim to turn up dead (Mylett) had also been known as Davis?

Does that mean anything?

r
Lets not foget that both of those women were reported to be married to those men with those surnames, Kate was not married. Kate did not get JK tattooed over her TC. That people called her Kate Kelly has everything to do with the company she was in, not about any commitments she made.

Mary Jane Kelly, _6 Dorset street...those are within her 2 aliases. The next victim is Mary Jane Kelly, 26 Dorset, 13 Millers Court. The fact that the murders are consecutive, combined with Kates aliases, is likely revealing, not coincidental.

[Wickerman]

The coincidence is not that she chose to use an alias, but that her alias was pretty much the name of the next victim and she claimed a very similar address. I do not draw a conclusion from that, but it is an observation which is unusually coincidental - ie, I have never come across that in any other serial murderer case (though of course I have not researched them all) and is worthy of remark. .......

Hi Eten.

You don't recall that Kelly (MJK) was known for a time as Davies, and the next victim to turn up dead (Mylett) had also been known as Davis?

Does that mean anything?

[Michael W Richards]

What connection to MJK? This all sounds like piss in the wind, to me. A good idea for a film maybe but it has no basis in reality. You're just taking a coincidence in the case and letting your imagination run with it.

I know we've been here before but it bears repeating if the goal was to "silence" Eddowes, the killer should've stopped after the throat cut. Instead, he hung around Mitre Square, increasing the risk of capture exponentially to make superfluous mutilations and organ harvesting. Nope. Sorry, Michael. It's piffle, good sir. PIFFLE.

It was worth reading that rebuttal if only for "piffle" Harry, I don't hear or see that often.

We have evidence that Kate said to a friend that she intended to turn in someone she thought was the Jack everyone was looking for..then she is killed by what is presumed to be that Jack. And you don't see a "silence" possibility just in that small factoid? At the very least its possible within just that fact that the person she sought to squeal on killed her first. Probably had to kill her that night too, couldn't be sure if she said anything while she was in Bishopsgate. He does have the fact that it would appear she wants to negotiate before saying anything going for him.

She uses 2 fake names in her last 24 hours, gets fall down drunk without the money to do so, after being released goes the opposite direction of where Kelly would be, and becomes the ONLY city jurisdiction "ripper" murder victim. What you don't want to see is a story Harry, but Im afraid that if anyone is to solve anything about any of these cases, tenuous links with a plausible connective storyline to accompany them is about the best your gonna get. No smoking guns, which means no firm attachments to any suppositions about who, or how many people killed just the Canonical Group, let alone the other 7 or 8 victims in that file.

Any mutilations on any of the victims could be accomplished by a large number of people in that area at that time, your presumption is that only a mad killer would do some things that weve seen. I strongly reject that notion. Why were they done? That's the real question. I believe that in a few cases the near replication of certain acts coupled with the specific goals attributed to the cuts and the circumstances suggest yes, there was such a madman around. But in the majority of the other cases that specificity, that measured approach to obtaining his target, is absent. Like in Kates case. Surely you don't believe that Kate was killed so her culprit could obtain a kidney and partial uterus? Or some apron section. Well, Pollys killer did just that, he cut how and where he needed to in order to obtain a complete uterus. "..no meaningless cuts...".

See any meaningless cuts on Kate, or Mary? How about most of them, if a specific objective was on his mind.

[DJA]

Peggy and the kids are singing "I who have nothing" again.

Back to the shoe shop Al.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Ironically his surname was Woodward and he initially fronted a band as Tommy Scott.

Lots of stars use stage names. ( Wait for it..............). It's not unusual!

Thank You, Thank You, I'm here all week.