Coincidence?

[Trevor Marriott]

It beats me how you can keep criticising others for “wildly speculating” about the validity of witness statements combined with your blanket dismissal as unreliable of just about everyone involved in the case and yet you can propose this unsupported nonsense as fact! How can you possibly state a ‘definite’ Irish connection with Kelly’s murder? Even the odds alone suggest that Kelly was killed by the same man that killed the other victims. The fact that she was killed indoors is easily and plausibly explained. Some kind of conspiracy or plot can always be found if you try hard enough.

Not speculating if you accept that Mary Kelly was not Mary Kelly but someone hiding under that alias who was a target for the Fenians, and her death made to look like the work of the killer who had killed one or more of the others seems quite plausible to me, and thats why no one has been able to trace the murdered Mary Kelly.

For a more detailed explanation you should read the chapter on Mary Kelly in my book "Jack the Ripper-The real Truth"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Truth-Trevor-Marriott/dp/1728912997/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3TGMXBF17MT28&keywords=trevor+marriott&qid=1572040992&s=books&sprefix=Trevor+Marriott%2Caps%2C396&sr=1-1

[c.d.]

Not speculating if you accept that Mary Kelly was not Mary Kelly but someone hiding under that alias who was a target for the Fenians, and her death made to look like the work of the killer who had killed one or more of the others seems quite plausible to me, and thats why no one has been able to trace the murdered Mary Kelly.

For a more detailed explanation you should read the chapter on Mary Kelly in my book "Jack the Ripper-The real Truth"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Truth-Trevor-Marriott/dp/1728912997/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3TGMXBF17MT28&keywords=trevor+marriott&qid=1572040992&s=books&sprefix=Trevor+Marriott%2Caps%2C396&sr=1-1

Well that begs the question why should we accept it without any evidence to support it?

c.d.

[c.d.]

JTR: Hello, down-and-out forty-something woman. I'm Jack.
Woman #1: Hello. I'm Mary.
JTR: Die, stumpet!

Three hours and another dead Mary later...

JTR: Hello, down-and-out forty-something woman. I'm Jack.
Woman #3: Hello. I'm Emily.
JTR: What a pretty name! Well, I bid you a good night.

Yeah, this pretty much sums it up for me. But Sam, you forgot to include his next question -- "say, by any chance have you ever gone by the name of Mary?"

Posts seem to be going off the deep end of late. People are using speculation as the basis for even more outlandish speculation.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

Not speculating if you accept that Mary Kelly was not Mary Kelly but someone hiding under that alias who was a target for the Fenians, and her death made to look like the work of the killer who had killed one or more of the others seems quite plausible to me, and thats why no one has been able to trace the murdered Mary Kelly.

For a more detailed explanation you should read the chapter on Mary Kelly in my book "Jack the Ripper-The real Truth"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Truth-Trevor-Marriott/dp/1728912997/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3TGMXBF17MT28&keywords=trevor+marriott&qid=1572040992&s=books&sprefix=Trevor+Marriott%2Caps%2C396&sr=1-1

Ummm, isn't that just circular? If I speculate something for which there is no evidence, and argue that when you accept what I say as true that means I'm not speculating anymore, and if I'm not speculating that means it is true, so if you accept what I say as being true it somehow actually becomes true despite there being no other evidence of its truth other than it being accepted as true? Hmmmm, I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ummm, isn't that just circular? If I speculate something for which there is no evidence, and argue that when you accept what I say as true that means I'm not speculating anymore, and if I'm not speculating that means it is true, so if you accept what I say as being true it somehow actually becomes true despite there being no other evidence of its truth other than it being accepted as true? Hmmmm, I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way.

- Jeff

You beat me to it Jeff.

[JeffHamm]

You beat me to it Jeff.

To be fair, I'm sure that's not what Trevor means, but the way it is written seems to say pretty much that, so his intent has gotten lost in the ether I suspect.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Yeah, this pretty much sums it up for me. But Sam, you forgot to include his next question -- "say, by any chance have you ever gone by the name of Mary?"

Posts seem to be going off the deep end of late. People are using speculation as the basis for even more outlandish speculation.

c.d.

Yes, much of this has just been an exercise in speculation, but I think the posts are careful to be clear on the fact that's what's going on here. There's nothing inherently wrong with doing so, provided one doesn't forget that's what one is doing of course. The idea of such activities is to see what the best "story" (or hypothesis if you will) one can generate when considering some set of evidence in isolation, in this case the multiple instances of victims with the name (or alias) including Mary, Ann, or Jane (particularly Mary Ann), and some include Kelly as well. Other than that, pretty much all else is ignored other than the order of the murders themselves. Then, and this is the critically important part, once you find the best "story", you then reintroduce the rest of the evidence we have. Once we do that last step, all the stories are shown to be lacking. The idea is, if you can show even the best, or most plausible, story that is based upon the names being an important "clue" is still worse than just considering it a coincidence, then that ends up being a way to decide if coincidence is the best explanation. It's not enough to just conclude a coincidence is the best explanation if it is not put to the test somehow. This kind of exercise is just one way to actually put that hypothesis to the test as it must be better than even the best "not a coincidence" theory. And so far, that's how it is turning out. Probably not a surprise to most, certainly not to me anyway, but assuming it would be the best and actually testing if it is the best explanation are two different things.

- Jeff

[etenguy]

Yes, much of this has just been an exercise in speculation, but I think the posts are careful to be clear on the fact that's what's going on here. There's nothing inherently wrong with doing so, provided one doesn't forget that's what one is doing of course. The idea of such activities is to see what the best "story" (or hypothesis if you will) one can generate when considering some set of evidence in isolation, in this case the multiple instances of victims with the name (or alias) including Mary, Ann, or Jane (particularly Mary Ann), and some include Kelly as well. Other than that, pretty much all else is ignored other than the order of the murders themselves. Then, and this is the critically important part, once you find the best "story", you then reintroduce the rest of the evidence we have. Once we do that last step, all the stories are shown to be lacking. The idea is, if you can show even the best, or most plausible, story that is based upon the names being an important "clue" is still worse than just considering it a coincidence, then that ends up being a way to decide if coincidence is the best explanation. It's not enough to just conclude a coincidence is the best explanation if it is not put to the test somehow. This kind of exercise is just one way to actually put that hypothesis to the test as it must be better than even the best "not a coincidence" theory. And so far, that's how it is turning out. Probably not a surprise to most, certainly not to me anyway, but assuming it would be the best and actually testing if it is the best explanation are two different things.

- Jeff

I find myself in complete agreement with you. The danger is that once you have developed your hypothesis (or story), it is too easy to fall into the trap of relying on selective data or ignoring inconvenient facts or generating data to fit your story rather than the other way round. Developing an Aunt Sally to then test it against all the data you have before evaluating the likelihood of its veracity is a tried and trusted methodology.

[Roy Corduroy]

Mary Ann Kelly,29,was laid in the mortuary of the church that she was baptized in.

Guess who the Vestry medical officer was!

Guess who the Vestry medical officer was!

Gimme a minute ...

I got it! - He was Jack the Ripper. Your suspect, Dr. Sutton.

Honestly, you should write an article for Ripperologist. Or simply start a thread here under Suspects. Named Dr. Sutton. Just like George Hutchinson Suspect has about 4,000 threads. Or Walter Sickert. Or Charles Lechmere has a couple thousand threads. Even Fogelma has a suspect thread or two.

Because the way you do it now DJA it is like a jigsaw puzzle. Except you give us pieces here and there. I DON"T hAVE ALL the Pieces of the JiGSAw puzzle on the same table. Some are in the bedroom Under the bed, some pieces are in the parlor playing Ouija, some are in the den, on the front porch, out back of the Jewish Soup Kitchen, at London Hospital in Ward 16, upstairs from the Elephant Man's private domain. Well you get the idea. The pieces are all over the place.

Because I know you must have given this a lot of time and thought. So why not bring it to completion and allow us the pleasure.

Roy

[JeffHamm]

I find myself in complete agreement with you. The danger is that once you have developed your hypothesis (or story), it is too easy to fall into the trap of relying on selective data or ignoring inconvenient facts or generating data to fit your story rather than the other way round. Developing an Aunt Sally to then test it against all the data you have before evaluating the likelihood of its veracity is a tried and trusted methodology.

Hi etenguy,

Just to how how easy it is to find coincidences, there's also "Elizabeth Long", witness at Chapman's inquest, and the next victim is "Elizabeth Stride", there's two Elizabeths, first a witness then a victim, and going back to "Mary Ann Connolly" (Pearly Poll; witness) followed by "Mary Ann Nichols" (victim). Basically, if one looks for connections, one can find them, doesn't mean those connections are important or informative though.

- Jeff

[etenguy]

Hi etenguy,

Just to how how easy it is to find coincidences, there's also "Elizabeth Long", witness at Chapman's inquest, and the next victim is "Elizabeth Stride", there's two Elizabeths, first a witness then a victim, and going back to "Mary Ann Connolly" (Pearly Poll; witness) followed by "Mary Ann Nichols" (victim). Basically, if one looks for connections, one can find them, doesn't mean those connections are important or informative though.

- Jeff

Wasn't Elizabeth Stride also called Long Liz?

[Sam Flynn]

Just to how how easy it is to find coincidences, there's also "Elizabeth Long", witness at Chapman's inquest, and the next victim is "Elizabeth Stride", there's two Elizabeths, first a witness then a victim, and going back to "Mary Ann Connolly" (Pearly Poll; witness) followed by "Mary Ann Nichols" (victim).

Yes, indeed. Because all these names were exteremely common.

[JeffHamm]

Yes, indeed. Because all these names were exteremely common.

Exactly my point, and what is being made clear the more we explore the alternative notion that the similarity between Eddowes' alias and Mary Jane Kelly's name is informative, because that would imply finding other similarities should be hard to do. But it's not, there are many instances where names are in common, and if one gets creative, one can spot a pattern. But that's because humans are very good at spotting patterns, we're actually not good at spotting randomness (hence we see animals in the clouds, or shapes in TV static when that was still a thing, or shapes in tea leaves, etc). In other words, common names will be shared by many random people, that's sort of the definition of a common name after all, and that's the underlying idea behind the coincidence hypothesis. And, the results of these exercises is showing that the coincidence hypothesis works really well because we can find all sorts of shared common names.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Wasn't Elizabeth Stride also called Long Liz?

Oh well done, yes! So basically, the connection between Eddowes and MJK is hardly a rare or uncommon thing to find, so the coincidence explanation isn't pushing something that is actually a low probability explanation. There's all sorts of connections between names, and aliases, once we look for other examples. If such coincidences were very very rare, then we shouldn't see other examples, but they are all over the place once the data is looked at in order to put the idea to the test. It's not enough to come up with a story, that story has to be tested. Once we test the "the connection between Eddowes' aliases and MJK's name is so unlikely it can't be a coincidence", we find that assumption is actually false, and connection between names is actually quite common, because, as Sam points out, the names are very common names.

- Jeff

[Trapperologist]

Mary and Kate knowing each other would not be uncommon either. "The Ten Bell was where several of the victims of Jack the Ripper drank most notably Catherine Eddowes and Mary Kelly." (Ghost-story.com). How could they not know each other from there if not from the Thrawl Street Mission especially if Mary was outside under the lamp with first dibs on gentlemen going in. Denial sounds like conspiracyaphobia.

As for the City Missionary who said he knew Mary and one or two others, presumably including Kate, possibly just looking for publicity: If he really wanted publicity he could have mentioned how he "rescued" Millers Court witness Sarah Lewis through marriage, straightening her out so she was saved from being the Ripper's next victim. She was identified as one of the dozens he married off to their partners. He could have mentioned her anonymously. Although I can see how it's not much of a rescue if she walks off, like Mary, so she still could have been killed. Luckily she was staying with friends.