Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coincidence?

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

  • Not in the slightest. I'm merely advising caution - not only in terms of what the missionary said, but also in extrapolating that to "prove" that Eddowes' and Kelly's paths crossed. Even if the mission was correct in what it said, that's a million miles way from concluding that the 25 year old Kelly knew the 46 year old Eddowes.


    I suppose Felicity Lowdes is entitled to her opinion on this matter . ........ makes for interesting reading. .

    Comment


    • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

      Not sure I have succeeded, but I think the below is a decent start.

      Catherine Eddowes used the alias Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street at a pawnbrokers. We do not know if she used this alias more widely or not. Later when being released from the drunk tank, she tells the police her name is Mary Ann Kelly of 6 Fashion Street. Within an hour of doing so, she is dead. Five weeks later Mary Jane Kelly of 13 Miller’s Court (part of 26 Dorset Street) is murdered. So we have the fourth victim of the C5 using a very similar name and address to the fifth victim, having being murdered a day or so after boasting she knew the identity of JtR. This seems an unlikely train of events to happen entirely by chance, though of course it is possible.

      So the question I asked myself is, is there an explanation of events that does not rely on coincidence but is in fact causal? I thought there was a good possibility that there was. I think I have found one such scenario. I cannot say that this actually happened, as some of it relies on a bit of speculation.for which there is no direct supporting evidence. So it is not a theory but rather a scenario which demonstrates that the coincidences could have had a part to play in the murders without resorting to a conspiracy.

      The assumptions that are made for which there is no direct supporting evidence (but are not outlandish, I think) are:
      • That Eddowes used the alias Jane Kelly of Dorset Street more widely.
      • That Eddowes boasted of knowing the Ripper’s identity more widely.
      • That Eddowes met the murderer between 2pm and 8.30pm on 29th September.
      I do not want this post to become too long, so I will simply provide a bare bones version of the scenario below. If it sparks any interest, I’ll be happy to supply more detailed reasoning and expand on the evidence we do have that supports (or can be interpreted as supporting) this scenario. The evidence I call upon to support this scenario is as follows;
      • Use of aliases (pawn ticket / police station)
      • Boasts about having Ripper knowledge made at Mile End
      • Catherine Eddowes attending a pre-arranged appointment
        • asking about time at release twice (p249 complete history)
        • going in wrong direction for Mile End or Whitechapel after release
      • Press reports identifying Catherine Eddowes identity as murdered victim
      Bare Bones Scenario
      Catherine Eddowes, for whatever reason, decides to use the alias Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street, we know this as it was on the pawn ticket. I think it likely that she at least knew of Mary Jane Kelly and was using a variant of her name and approximate address, since it is not uncommon for an alias to be based on a real but distant person. Having established an alias for one purpose, I think it reasonable to assume she will have used it on other occasions when it suited her.

      Catherine Eddowes told the casual ward superintendent at Mile End that she thought she knew the identity of JtR and was going to claim the reward. I think it unlikely she had such information, as she did not share it’s details with anyone as far as we know. Also I argue she would have made a bee line to claim any such reward if she did have the information. Having shared with the superintendent that she had such knowledge, I think it reasonable to speculate she also told others she had that knowledge, even though it is likely she did not. Nevertheless, it is because she claimed such knowledge that brought her to the attention of the murderer and made her a potential target.

      On 29th September, Eddowes leaves John Kelly at 2.00pm in Houndsditch and she is next recorded as being found in a drunken stupor at 8.30pm in Aldgate and is taken to the drunk tank at Bishopsgate. When she left John Kelly she had no money, so how she managed to find money to buy enough drinks to get into such a state is unknown. One possible explanation is she earned a small amount (sold something or took a client) and headed to a pub to spend it on drink. The murderer having heard a rumour of a Jane Kelly claiming to know his identity discretely tracks Eddowes down to the pub and she is pointed out to him as Jane Kelly. He approaches her and makes an appointment with her to meet him in Mitre Square for ‘business’ at 1.30am.

      Just before 1.00am, while in the drunk tank at Bishopsgate, Eddowes asks to be released. She is judged sober enough and it is then she gives her name as Mary Ann Kelly of 6 fashion Street, mixing up her alias as she is at the very least hungover. She asks the time twice, not getting an answer the first time, suggesting the time was important to her (which supports that she may need to be some where at a certain time). She then heads in the opposite direction to where she might buy a bed to go to Mitre Square (again suggesting she had an appointment). She could have picked up a client on her way to Mile End/Whitechapel if she needed money and there is known reason for her to go in the opposite direction unless it was to keep an appointment.

      Eddowes is murdered by someone who believes she is called Jane Kelly. Later he finds out that the person he killed is Kate Eddowes. He makes a few discrete enquiries and discovers Jane Kelly claimed to live in Dorset Street. When he discovers Mary Jane Kelly lives in Dorset Street, he corrects what he thinks is his mistake by targeting MJK as his next victim.
      Hi etenguy,

      Interesting idea, which I'll have to ponder more, but one question comes to mind. If JtR met Eddowes in the pub, where she's using the alias Jane Kelly, then regardless of what her name ends up being in the paper, doesn't he know he's killed the right one since he met the one who was in the pub saying she knew JtR? It seems to me if he met her earlier in the day, he can't be confused if it was her later.

      I'm also not sure that asking the time when in the drunk tank is all that indicative of having a meeting to go to, but it's not inconsistent either I suppose. Anyway, I think the general idea is not too far fetched particularly with regards to JtR possibly seeking out Eddowes (if she did make boasts of knowing JtR's identity). It's the subsequent flow on to then MJK being selected next that starts feeling more "iffy". I'll give it some more thought though. Thanks for sharing.

      - Jeff

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

        There is evidence that Kate was intending to sell information she had, therefore its hardly out of context to suggest she might have sought higher bidders, secondly, Mary Jane lived in a converted parlour room in the rear of 26 Dorset St, which opened to a courtyard in which she resided at #13. Either address was sufficient to find her. Eddowes used Jane Kelly first, then Mary Kelly...…..so...…..like I said, she used almost all of Marys complete name, as she is known, and her address....Mary Jane Kelly, _6 Dorset St......22 of 23 characters of it, using the street abrev.

        To say its has nothing in common with the names of the very next supposed Ripper victim is simply denying whats there on paper, Im sure in favor of some less probable theory.. in the grander scheme. As is usually the case here..."he couldn't have killed Annie, because he wasn't available to kill the others" kind of dizzying logic.

        Ill bet if people had been focusing on solving just one of the murders instead of a theoretical group something more might have been accomplished, some truth revealed.
        A couple of questions if I may. Who do you think the killer was in this case? A Policeman, someone who worked in the Pawn shop or a criminal from the underworld? Also who were these higher bidders? What is the evidence of their existence?

        Tristan

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

          Eddowes was born in 1842. Keely was born around 1863.

          The 1891 Census of England and Wales shows there were over 900 women living in London named Mary Kelly and who who were born between 1840 and 1870. If the Ripper was targeting Mary Kelly, but had no idea what she looked like, he could have killed hundreds of Mary Kallys and not gotten the right one.




          There were roughly 5.5 million people living in London at the time of the Ripper murders. Total membership on this site is a bit less than that.
          I do wish people would check their facts correctly
          Attached Files
          You can lead a horse to water.....

          Comment


          • JTR: Hello, down-and-out forty-something woman.
            Woman #1: Hello, mister.
            JTR: What's your name and address?
            Woman #1: Elizabeth Jones of 5 Great Pearl Street.
            JTR: I'll bid you a good evening, then. Mind how you go.

            Some hours and several tries later...

            JTR: Hello, down-and-out forty-something woman.
            Woman #8: Hello, mister.
            JTR: What's your name and address?
            Woman #8: Mary O'Kelly of 22 Devonshire Street.
            JTR: Die, strumpet!!!
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              JTR: Hello, down-and-out forty-something woman.
              Woman #1: Hello, mister.
              JTR: What's your name and address?
              Woman #1: Elizabeth Jones of 5 Great Pearl Street.
              JTR: I'll bid you a good evening, then. Mind how you go.

              Some hours and several tries later...

              JTR: Hello, down-and-out forty-something woman.
              Woman #8: Hello, mister.
              JTR: What's your name and address?
              Woman #8: Mary O'Kelly of 22 Devonshire Street.
              JTR: Die, strumpet!!!
              Regards

              Herlock






              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

                A couple of questions if I may. Who do you think the killer was in this case? A Policeman, someone who worked in the Pawn shop or a criminal from the underworld? Also who were these higher bidders? What is the evidence of their existence?

                Tristan
                Kate claimed she knew who was responsible for the killings, that's who I believe she sought to extort funds from, and I doubt very much this had anything to do with the police. I do think the police had wind of something going to happen there, or near there though....3 detectives nearby, 1 PC in the square itself and 1 retired officer, 2 foot patrols coming from each direction. And someone who may have appeared to be Kate upon reflection and a man with a jaunty scarf.

                The Mary Kelly aliases bit to me seems like a message for someone. Maybe John Kelly. "If something happens to me go see Mary Kelly on Dorset st." Its at least possible at this point.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                  I do wish people would check their facts correctly
                  I checked and sourced them.

                  Eddowes was born in 1842. Keely was born around 1863.

                  The 1891 Census of England and Wales shows there were over 900 women living in London named Mary Kelly and who who were born between 1840 and 1870. If the Ripper was targeting Mary Kelly, but had no idea what she looked like, he could have killed hundreds of Mary Kallys and not gotten the right one.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    Kate claimed she knew who was responsible for the killings, that's who I believe she sought to extort funds from, and I doubt very much this had anything to do with the police.
                    If the newspaper report is correct and Eddowes thought she knew who the Ripper was, which makes more sense?

                    1) Report the killer to the authorities and try to collect the reward.

                    2) Go by yourself at 1:30AM to meet a homicidal maniac and try to blackmail him.

                    Anyone with functioning brain cells would pick #1, The newspaper account said Eddowes had planned to do #1.

                    Going by yourself at 1:30AM to meet a homicidal maniac and try to blackmail him would be an act of mind-numbing stupidity.




                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                      If the newspaper report is correct and Eddowes thought she knew who the Ripper was, which makes more sense?

                      1) Report the killer to the authorities and try to collect the reward.

                      2) Go by yourself at 1:30AM to meet a homicidal maniac and try to blackmail him.

                      Anyone with functioning brain cells would pick #1, The newspaper account said Eddowes had planned to do #1.

                      Going by yourself at 1:30AM to meet a homicidal maniac and try to blackmail him would be an act of mind-numbing stupidity.



                      Your own perspective is obviously what you wish to see, so why argue with you? Why take 100L when 500, 1000, 5000L might be available, now that's a poor persons perspective.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • The Eddowes blackmail/extortion theory relies on the killer being from the better classes. It makes no sense if he's a poor unknown. The reward would be far more than the killer had. Not knocking any particular theory, but I feel that this extortion scenario is preferred by those who favour a wealthy killer, hence it's popularity with Royal Conspiracy theorists. If we assume that Kate did genuinely know who Jack was, if he was just another working class Whitechapel inhabitant then this scheme to blackmail doesn't stand up.
                        Likewise, just because someone says they saw Lord Lucan riding Shergar doesn't mean they actually know the whereabouts of either.
                        Your evening of swing has been cancelled.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                          Your own perspective is obviously what you wish to see, so why argue with you? Why take 100L when 500, 1000, 5000L might be available, now that's a poor persons perspective.
                          My perspective is that a semi-homeless alcoholic prostitute attempting to blackmail a man who was messily butchering semi-homeless alcoholic prostitutes would never agree to meet this homicidal maniac alone at 1;30 in the morning. If Eddowes had arranged a meeting with the Ripper, she would have brought John Kelly.

                          My perspective is that a woman who thinks she is about to gain a large wad of cash would not spend hours pawning a pair of boots and trying to bum money off of her daughter. She would arrange to meet her blackmail victim in the middle of the day, in a place where there were witnesses, she would bring along the man she is living with, and he would be armed.

                          My perspective is that Catherine Eddowes was not a suicidal idiot.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            The Mary Kelly aliases bit to me seems like a message for someone. Maybe John Kelly. "If something happens to me go see Mary Kelly on Dorset st." Its at least possible at this point.
                            Catherine Eddowes was a poverty-stricken, semi-homeless prostitute, not a character in s spy thriller. If she wanted to pass a message on to John Kelly, she would have turned to him and said "John, if something happens to me, I want you to go see Mary Jane Kelly at 13 Millers Court."

                            Comment


                            • Another 2 coincidences....1: Mary Kelly 1871 living in Cleveland street born Glamorgan

                              And 2 : Thomas Kelly living at 13 Millers Court in 1891 born 1856 Spitalfields Dockside Labourer.
                              Click image for larger version

Name:	thomas kelly 1891 millers court.JPG
Views:	51
Size:	140.9 KB
ID:	725773

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                JTR: Hello, down-and-out forty-something woman.
                                Woman #1: Hello, mister.
                                JTR: What's your name and address?
                                Woman #1: Elizabeth Jones of 5 Great Pearl Street.
                                JTR: I'll bid you a good evening, then. Mind how you go.

                                Some hours and several tries later...

                                JTR: Hello, down-and-out forty-something woman.
                                Woman #8: Hello, mister.
                                JTR: What's your name and address?
                                Woman #8: Mary O'Kelly of 22 Devonshire Street.
                                JTR: Die, strumpet!!!
                                Down-and-out forty-something woman: Hello, I know you are the Ripper. Give me money.
                                JTR: I don't have any money right now, but if we could meet at 1:30 in the morning I will have something for you. Make sure you come alone.
                                Down-and-out forty-something woman: You seem a trustworthy sort. What could possible go wrong?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X