Coincidence?

[packers stem]

Hi Packers Stem

There was blood at the Eddowes murder site. If Eddowes had been killed elsewhere and carried to where her body was found, would there not have been a blood trail?

Also the horrific mutilations were surely carried out the site the body was found, with the intestines removed and placed in order that further mutilations and organ removal could be carried out.

Or, do you suggest the mutilations were carried out elsewhere and the removed organs and intestines placed back inside the body, to carry it to that corner in Mitre square, and then removed again as she was, placed how she was found without a trail of blood spilt along the way?

I think the above is highly unlikely and if it had happened, surely there would be evidence of that, if only the blood trail.

Hi Etenguy
People are obsessed by blood trails .
She had four layers of clothing including a jacket for blood to soak through before reaching saturation levels where it would be dripping through the jacket ..... and we're only talking a couple of yards of movement .
Yes, the intestines would be dumped on the shoulder after depositing the body and the severed piece ,placed 'by design' as Brown put it .
This would take seconds.

A small amount of clotted blood on the left of the neck means little, the neck would still be oozing blood for some time ,as indeed it was with Nichols, the Pinchin street torso too bizarrely.
When you consider the rain mixing with the blood ,possible guttering flow from the buildings, a tiny bit of blood appears more than it was .
It doesn't compare with the pound of clotted blood next to Stride and the description of a 'river' of blood flowing into the gutter .
Somebody will come along and try the 'strangulation' point and yet there is no evidence of such..... and you have to ask why he didn't strangle Stride ? Blood everywhere there .
Would his initial MO change between Stride and Eddowes?
He hadn't been 'disturbed' at this point in time .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, I'm not going to reply to your split post to me ,not because I can't or don't want to but because it will continue to go around in circles and does little for the thread.
All I will say is that I have asked you for evidence of why Eddowes was killed in situ and all you supplied was that people at the time believed she was .
That isn't evidence.
If it was ,we would have to conclude that Nichols was killed elsewhere as they were the thoughts of Llewelyn .
I'll leave it there until you can come back with something more convincing

The generally accepted version is, and always has been, that she was killed where she was found. You’re proposing an alternative scenario therefore the burden of proof is with you. I see no evidence that she was killed elsewhere. I believe that she was killed by the same man that killed Nichols, Chapman, Kelly and possibly Stride and that they were all killed where they were found so I see no reason for any difference with Eddowes. I also stress that I believe that she was killed by a single man with no accomplice. There was no trails of blood or blood behind any fences. The police searched but found nothing that lead them to believe other than she was killed where she was found. I can see no logical reason why anyone would want to move her body unless it’s being suggested (or even better, there’s evidence for) that she was killed in someone’s house.

Your argument appears to be to be based on the darkness and the time available. As I said in an earlier post Jeff showed how the killer might easily have had more than the 5 minutes usually suggested. Not a massive amount of extra time but it might easily have been 2 or 3 minutes. Brown saw no issue with her being killed where she was found and in the time available. As we weren’t there it’s difficult to accurately assess the level of darkness or how it might have affected the mutilations but again Brown appeared not be concerned about this.

There can be no issue with raising doubts and I’d be the first to admit that I have an in-built aversion to conspiracy theories. Of course conspiracies and cover-ups have occurred in the past and will occur in the future but I just don’t see one here. And it’s my opinion that when someone gets into the CT frame of mind the temptation is to see something sinister in every single coincidence, error or discrepancy. This is why a conspiracy needs more than this or we would end up explaining everything in terms of conspiracy. So my position is to reject conspiracy until strong evidence surfaces and, as yet, it hasn’t.

[etenguy]

Herlock, I'm not going to reply to your split post to me ,not because I can't or don't want to but because it will continue to go around in circles and does little for the thread.
All I will say is that I have asked you for evidence of why Eddowes was killed in situ and all you supplied was that people at the time believed she was .
That isn't evidence.
If it was ,we would have to conclude that Nichols was killed elsewhere as they were the thoughts of Llewelyn .
I'll leave it there until you can come back with something more convincing

Hi Packers Stem

There was blood at the Eddowes murder site. If Eddowes had been killed elsewhere and carried to where her body was found, would there not have been a blood trail?

Also the horrific mutilations were surely carried out the site the body was found, with the intestines removed and placed in order that further mutilations and organ removal could be carried out. Plus the buttons found and the piece of ear that dropped from her clothes. Plus the blood was coagulated and yet the body warm - that couldn't have happened if the body was moved after the mutilations in the timeframe the murder took place.

Or, do you suggest the mutilations were carried out elsewhere and the removed organs and intestines placed back inside the body, to carry it to that corner in Mitre square, and then removed again as she was, placed how she was found without a trail of blood spilt along the way?

I think the above is highly unlikely and if it had happened, surely there would be evidence of that, if only the blood trail.

[packers stem]

Herlock, I'm not going to reply to your split post to me ,not because I can't or don't want to but because it will continue to go around in circles and does little for the thread.
All I will say is that I have asked you for evidence of why Eddowes was killed in situ and all you supplied was that people at the time believed she was .
That isn't evidence.
If it was ,we would have to conclude that Nichols was killed elsewhere as they were the thoughts of Llewelyn .
I'll leave it there until you can come back with something more convincing

[packers stem]

What you have to bear in mind concerning the Whitehall torso guys was that the one torso covered the length of time of the first 4 of the c5 ... it's not an escalation, it's a 'tit for tat' in part .

Someone is killed in the 10 days prior to Nichols ( in all likelihood) .

The arm is dropped into the Thames on the same day as Chapman was killed ( again ,in all likelihood)

The torso was almost certainly deposited in a location of great difficulty but also great significance, on the same weekend as the double event .
Not seeing a possible significance here is criminal in terms of investigation .....
but hey .... it's ripperology and little surprises me

[etenguy]

Its undeniable that when details are published about sensational murders there will be more people that are spurred on to act. I don't mean copycats, or mimics, I mean people with their own mental issues and desires, emboldened by and attracted to the "fame" that acting out ones demented fantasies produces. Negative/Positive press...doesn't matter to those guys. They still like the Fame.

I wonder if Jack was at all emboldened by Torso man?

Good point - and if it was the press talk that emboldened him, maybe the need for each murder to outdo the other was part of the reason for escalating mutilations.

[Michael W Richards]

I'd say the reports in the newspapers, and the talk on the street emboldened him more than anything else

That's my take, and Sam is probably right about the possible catalyst(s).

[Observer]

I doubt that a killer(s) who threw the odd body part over a hedge, or plopped a body into the Thames once in a Blue Moon was going to inspire him. If he was emboldened at all, it was more likely to have been by the guys who did for Emma Smith and/or Martha Tabram.

I'd say the reports in the newspapers, and the talk on the street emboldened him more than anything else

[Sam Flynn]

I wonder if Jack was at all emboldened by Torso man?

I doubt that a killer(s) who threw the odd body part over a hedge, or plopped a body into the Thames once in a Blue Moon was going to inspire him. If he was emboldened at all, it was more likely to have been by the guys who did for Emma Smith and/or Martha Tabram.

[Michael W Richards]

I have no theory, indeed I think a cover up or conspiracy very unlikely. Nevertheless, before a theory comes some doubt, perhaps resulting from coincidences, which leads to a what if and then some research and then possibly a theory or an explanation. I personally am at the stage of noticing a few coincidences which suggest the seemingly random killings appear to have a pattern. If there is a pattern, it suggests something else might be going on. I don't know what, if anything. However, having noticed the pattern and name similarity, it is worth exploring what they might mean, hence this thread. They mean nothing, or we may be able to explain them away. Someone else may already have researched these and can lay down some facts about them.

Comments so far:

a) Pattern of murder timings (fri, sat, sun, fri plus gaps of 1, 3 & 5 weeks)
This either may be sheer coincidence, or point to a work based schedule which might help us establish what work the murderer may have done, or may line up with some other pattern of the murderer's life or at the extreme might be part of some stand-alone pattern the murderer was following for some reason.

b) The two Kelly's
The last two victims both used the same name, coincidence? Possibly mistaken identity. Was Eddowes impersonating MJK, especially given the address she used? Probably just a coincidence, but what if?

c) And Johnny Gill body found at 7 weeks post MJK, plus the next saturday, in a ripper-like manner - mutilated and genitals mutilated. Was it just a coincidence of timing? Was it a ripper killing? If so, why did victim age and gender change as well as the location?

These are just observations and questions, but may lead to something more.

Its undeniable that when details are published about sensational murders there will be more people that are spurred on to act. I don't mean copycats, or mimics, I mean people with their own mental issues and desires, emboldened by and attracted to the "fame" that acting out ones demented fantasies produces. Negative/Positive press...doesn't matter to those guys. They still like the Fame.

I wonder if Jack was at all emboldened by Torso man?

[Michael W Richards]

Interesting how many people went to ground.
We know Conway and his sons waited over two weeks but before Eddowes identity was known the police were apparently making exhaustive enquiries looking for a Kelly in Dorset Street !
You'd think following no help at no 6 ,as written on the ticket , McCarthy's shop would have been the next port of call ?

Ive wondered just how close Conway may still have been with Kate, and whether John Kelly represented just a "a partner", as characterized by Kelly himself.

[etenguy]

The problem for me though Eten is that no one is being specific. No one will say what they believe happened or why or who they believe was involved. In the absence of anything approaching solid all that we’re doing is finding coincidences.

I prefer to look at likelihood’s. A case in point is whether the killer had time to do what he did? I’ve no doubt that it would have been tight but there’s no conclusive evidence that he couldn’t have done it. In a very good post elsewhere Jeff Hamm illustrated how there could have been more time available (as we all know about the pitfalls of timings) and so, for me, I ask what’s more likely - some form of conspiracy or that the killer had a couple of minutes more than was actually stated? It’s the latter for me every time unless something more concrete is put forward. It’s difficult to debate a theory when we don’t actually know what that theory involves. So I’m in the dark as to what this conspiracy involved or who was involved or why it occurred.

I have no theory, indeed I think a cover up or conspiracy very unlikely. Nevertheless, before a theory comes some doubt, perhaps resulting from coincidences, which leads to a what if and then some research and then possibly a theory or an explanation. I personally am at the stage of noticing a few coincidences which suggest the seemingly random killings appear to have a pattern. If there is a pattern, it suggests something else might be going on. I don't know what, if anything. However, having noticed the pattern and name similarity, it is worth exploring what they might mean, hence this thread. They mean nothing, or we may be able to explain them away. Someone else may already have researched these and can lay down some facts about them.

Comments so far:

a) Pattern of murder timings (fri, sat, sun, fri plus gaps of 1, 3 & 5 weeks)
This either may be sheer coincidence, or point to a work based schedule which might help us establish what work the murderer may have done, or may line up with some other pattern of the murderer's life or at the extreme might be part of some stand-alone pattern the murderer was following for some reason.

b) The two Kelly's
The last two victims both used the same name, coincidence? Possibly mistaken identity. Was Eddowes impersonating MJK, especially given the address she used? Probably just a coincidence, but what if?

c) And Johnny Gill body found at 7 weeks post MJK, plus the next saturday, in a ripper-like manner - mutilated and genitals mutilated. Was it just a coincidence of timing? Was it a ripper killing? If so, why did victim age and gender change as well as the location?

These are just observations and questions, but may lead to something more.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Three or four times I’ve explained to you that that isn’t what I believe happened and yet you went on to post the same untruth again. Three or four times! Is that honest posting Fishy? Or a lie? It’s a lie.

OR IS IT A FACT ? [/QUOTE]

I don’t understand your point Fishy?

It is certainly a fact. I’ve repeatedly told you what I believe happened and you’ve repeatedly posted otherwise to make a point. It’s in black and white Fishy so I really can’t see why you are contesting this point?

[Herlock Sholmes]

a) The ‘no’ didn’t have to have been the start of the attack. It’s a word. It can be used in many contexts and in answer to a billion questions.
and then this . ..... oh dear

You appear to find it unbelievable that the word ‘no’ could have been used in a conversation or in answer to a question. I find that a bit....unbelievable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And indeed the killer was on Chapman’s right hand side when he cut her throat [you worked out it can’t be don’t from her left side didn’t you, left to right, as Gavin Bromley rightfully sai

d

Again there is no other way of putting this but to say that this is untrue. If you recall, the conversation at the time was about whether the killer could have brushed against the fence whilst doing the mutilations. It wasn’t talking about when he killed her. The fact that I was obviously talking about the killer brushing against the fence after the ‘no’ provides the context for this. You were saying that he couldn’t have brushed against the fence whilst mutilating Annie (as per my previous posts) and so I pointed this out and I was correct in doing so as no one can say for certain what position or positions the killer took whilst mutilating Annie. You’ve conflated one point for another.