Coincidence?

[Joshua Rogan]

Quite

From Robinsons testimony

. I then picked her up, and carried her to the side by the shutters. I raised her up against the shutters, and she fell down again. I did not do any more until I got assistance. Another policeman came, and she was taken to the station. When asked for her name, she replied, "Nothing." She was then put into the cell. No one appeared to be in her company when she was first found.

By Mr. Crawford - The latest time I saw the deceased was about ten minutes to nine in the police cell. She was then wearing an apron (pieces of apron produced). To the best of my knowledge that was the apron she was wearing

Now ,that is as leg less as its possible to be..... yet 3 hours and 25 minutes later ....

Hutt

By the jury - It is left to the inspector to judge whether a prisoner is sober or not. About a quarter past twelve the deceased was singing a song to herself, and about half past twelve she said she was able to take care of herself.

Sgt Byfield: "Would it be possible put drunk in a cell at nine o'clock to be perfectly sober at one? - Yes."

Unfortunstely said inspector had gone AWOL at 1am when she was released....
"Out visiting" apparently
So at what point did the inspector say it was ok to release her? would be a pertinent question

Hutt: "The inspector was out visiting, and I was directed by Sergeant Byfield to see if there were any prisoners fit to be discharged....I found the deceased sober."

[Losmandris]

I think that's an obvious conclusion there Harry, yes. Someone is in her room, in the middle of the night, while she is in bed undressed, facing the partition wall from the right hand side of the bed, with no evidence of any break in and only "oh-murder" as sounds emanating from that area...(ergo, no physical attack began with that phrase). Maybe the people that may have been looking for her used someone close to her to get her, maybe she had people looking for her AND a pissed off triangle partner, ...a few possibilities there. Kate, in my opinion, was killed to shut her up, not because she wouldn't talk, so any connection she may have had to Mary might be common acquaintances?

My point is that Im not suggesting an answer here, just suggesting there is evidence there that could very well lead down other avenues other than mad drooling serial mutilator/killer. For both Mary and Kate. And most obviously, Liz. No tidbit of information is useless until proven so, and what Im suggesting hasn't been.

Part of me would love to believe this, that there is something more to this, than just a mundane, tragic series of events, but I just really cant. Has anyone ever speculated that the victims of the Yorkshire Ripper knew each other or may have known who the killer was, so were trying to blackmail him? No. Any other serial killer case? Again no.

The victims in both cases were from the lowest dregs of society, barely functioning from day to day. I don't think they could have had the capacity to involve themselves in anything more than keeping alive, let alone some big scam or conspiracy. No one cared about them, that is why they were targeted.

If the victims were from the upper classes or even the middle classes, then I could see that there could be more to these tales of mystery and intrigue or some grand scheme. With this lot, no chance. Just a series of sad coincidences, unreliable witnesses, inconsistencies in times and no concrete evidence.

Had to be so cynical but I just cant help it here.

Tristan

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is it worth pointing out that just because there’s no record of Eddowes using the Kelly alias before this doesn’t mean that she didn’t? She was a fairly anonymous prostitute after all. Her murder brings her into the spotlight for the first time and so it might have been the case that she used Kelly fairly regularly but we just have no record of it.

[Sam Flynn]

When you just brush aside things like this Sam I wonder if its just the poster not the point.

Not in the least, Michael. And I'm not brushing things aside, I'm acounting for them by means of natural, feasible and probable explanations.

As I said, a bread trail is possible, one that would not automatically lead directly to Mary Jane Kelly of Millers Court...which is a part of 26 Dorset Street

And which was known primarily as Miller's Court, having a cast-iron sign above the entrance which advertised the fact, and it was as "Miller's Court" that its residents - and visitors - referred to it at Kelly's inquest.

which is a part of 26 Dorset Street

Not 6 Dorset Street, though. Or 6 Fashion Street, for that matter.

a bread trail is possible, one that would not automatically lead directly to Mary Jane Kelly

Why would Catherine Eddowes want to do that? Why didn't she come straight out with it and claim to be Mary Jane Kelly of 13 Miller's Court... on the two separate occasions that she gave bogus, and different, aliases to the pawnbroker and the police.

Why drag someone else into a pledge given to a pawnbroker, anyway? Come to think of it, what did she expect the City Police to do with the (incorrect and inaccurate) information she provided at the cells? It was of no use to anyone, not even as a breadcrumb trail.

[etenguy]

The same applies to her giving her name as "Nothing" when she arrived drunk at the police station and the same word turning up in the Goulston Street Graffito. Another pure coincidence, almost certainly.

Hi Sam

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. Yes, we have very reasonable explanations for why she might have chosen that name and that address, but that these are so close to the next victim is more difficult to ignore. I am still on the side of the argument which says it is a coincidence, but I think it disingenuous to suggest it is as silly as the Nothing connection.

[Sam Flynn]

I am still on the side of the argument which says it is a coincidence, but I think it disingenuous to suggest it is as silly as the Nothing connection.

I don't do disingenuous, though.

[etenguy]

I don't do disingenuous, though.

Well then, I respect your opinion, but I struggle to dismiss such a coincidence as thoroughly as you.

[Trapperologist]

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.

Florence's insider info came from the daughter of her friend and fellow painter, Violet Overton-Fuller. So I think either Florence was wrong or she was telling the truth. I think she was telling the truth. I think we have more reason to believe it now with some of the other information on the other forum about Captain Verney. Maybe he was the one being blackmailed or giving hush money.

I don't doubt that Catherine and Mary knew each other and Mary could have informed her about the insider story in connection with Sickert and Florence Pash. Catherine supposedly liked to impersonate fire engines. Who knows if she didn't impersonate Mary?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Florence's insider info came from the daughter of her friend and fellow painter, Violet Overton-Fuller. So I think either Florence was wrong or she was telling the truth. I think she was telling the truth. I think we have more reason to believe it now with some of the other information on the other forum about Captain Verney. Maybe he was the one being blackmailed or giving hush money.

I don't doubt that Catherine and Mary knew each other and Mary could have informed her about the insider story in connection with Sickert and Florence Pash. Catherine supposedly liked to impersonate fire engines. Who knows if she didn't impersonate Mary?

As I learnt much to my chargin, the fire engine was a later embellishment

[packers stem]

Sgt Byfield: "Would it be possible put drunk in a cell at nine o'clock to be perfectly sober at one? - Yes."



Hutt: "The inspector was out visiting, and I was directed by Sergeant Byfield to see if there were any prisoners fit to be discharged....I found the deceased sober."

As for your first point
The opinion of a PC is only as relevant as anybody else's , it doesn't carry extra weight .
When someone is so drunk they can't stand without assistance then head hitting the pillow = out for the night in my opinion and many others would share that view .
I'm sure many of us have been similarly drunk on occasion through our lives

The second point I really don't get other than it shows that Hutt contradicted himself

Still doesn't help us understand where Collard had disappeared to or why

[packers stem]

Has anyone ever speculated that the victims of the Yorkshire Ripper knew each other or may have known who the killer was, so were trying to blackmail him? No. Any other serial killer case? Again no.

Can Sutcliffe's victims all be placed living (or staying) on the same side of one street within 10 doors ?

Any other 'serial killer' who's last two victims both used the same pseudonym on the night they died?

Any other serial killer cut out organs at the roadside in darkness?

There are reasons aplenty why JTR is very different to the typical late 20th century serial killers that people seek to pigeon hole him into

[Monty]

Apologies, I’m late to this discussion.

Collards whereabouts is significant why?

Monty

[packers stem]

Is it worth pointing out that just because there’s no record of Eddowes using the Kelly alias before this doesn’t mean that she didn’t? She was a fairly anonymous prostitute after all. Her murder brings her into the spotlight for the first time and so it might have been the case that she used Kelly fairly regularly but we just have no record of it.

She might have used the name Victoria Saxe Coburg Gotha .... but we have no record of that either

[Herlock Sholmes]

She might have used the name Victoria Saxe Coburg Gotha .... but we have no record of that either

Yes but I’m not suggesting a relevance in the fact that she used the name Kelly. Kelly might have been a name that she used regularly for all we know and this seems a reasonable, plausible possibility when you consider her relationship with John Kelly. You might prefer the Dan Brown method but that’s up to you of course.

[packers stem]

Apologies, I’m late to this discussion.

Collards whereabouts is significant why?

Monty

He was ' out visiting ' at 1am
Just wondering who he may be likely to visit at this hour