Coincidence?

[Sam Flynn]

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!!!

[packers stem]

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

[Losmandris]

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

[JeffHamm]

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 29^th 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 29^th 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

[chameleon1]

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. .

[Trapperologist]

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.

And I would advise caution as well when it comes to what Mary says about herself, including her age, but I guess you have to start somewhere. I'd rather start with someone whose statements are verified or verifiable or reasonably credible. I'm simply assuming Eddowes was one of the two or three victims he knew based on Mary's relative "celebrity" and the proven fact that the missionary got around during his 7 years in a crowded but only one-square mile area, where he specifically targeted prostitutes and shacked-up women, and their shared Thrawl St., one-block location. I'm not even including her use of Mary Kelly or Jane Kelly as an alias and Dorset as an address, or the Pash coincidence.

Do you believe he "rescued" one of Mary's friends like he said, at least? She would only have had to cross paths with one of dozens of women, "upwards of 200" according to him. That might be a slight exaggeration, if upwards means above.

[Sam Flynn]

But you're still dismissing his detailed story and I'm not sure why. Is there some other reason other than his occupation. Is it because the story doesn't fit the canon?

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.

[etenguy]

Hello etenguy,
How could the Ripper know with absolute certainty who Eddowes might have communicated her suspicions to including police officials? Wouldn't killing her pretty much confirm those suspicions and launch a massive manhunt for that particular individual? c.d.

Interesting point - and of course he couldn't know for certain.

Eddowes was murdered during the time 'Jane Kelly' was telling people she had yet to claim the reward, so he could be reasonably certain she had told no officials at that point and would have been unlikely to share with others, in case they claimed the reward in her place. But, of course, it may not have crossed his mind at all.

It is more difficult to explain MJK's murder if he felt it might confirm he was the killer, as more time had passed. However, since no-one was reported as being paid the reward and no police had questioned him, he may have felt reasonably confident. Again, he might have surmised she would not share with anyone else in case they claimed the reward in her place. Though again, it may not even have crossed his mind.

[c.d.]

Hello etenguy,

How could the Ripper know with absolute certainty who Eddowes might have communicated her suspicions to including police officials? Wouldn't killing her pretty much confirm those suspicions and launch a massive manhunt for that particular individual?

c.d.

[etenguy]

I'm not convinced it's anything but a coincidence, but then, that might just be because I've not seen anything convincing to the contrary so far. So I'll be interested to see what you come up with. However, if during your attempts you convince yourself it doesn't work (and I'm not presupposing the result here), it would still be useful to share your thinking all the same, to show how it doesn't work. Obviously, if you have a major "ah ha" moment and come up with something that shows it does work that will get shared. Too often the "negative result" doesn't get shared, despite the fact that the thinking involved is often just as thorough and useful for others to know. Jeff

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 29^th 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 29^th 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.

[c.d.]

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...

Is there any evidence other than she thought she knew who the Ripper was? I think it much more likely she was just talking ****. Before you can extrapolate that to encompass things like higher bidders, conspiracies etc. you need to establish that she had actual evidence in the first place otherwise you are just going down a rabbit hole.

c.d.

[Trapperologist]

Being wary of something isn't the same as being biased against it, and the same applies to any source in this case. Besides, charities and religious missions during the Victorian era were indeed prone to exaggerate or make things up if it meant getting free publicity.

But you're still dismissing his detailed story and I'm not sure why. Is there some other reason other than his occupation. Is it because the story doesn't fit the canon? Is Mary Kelly's story more reliable? She said she's Welsh so he must be wrong?

That must be it then because other people's stories are dismissed even though they were fairly well-known and not known to be liars or publicity seekers, and after research tends to corroborate them.

[Sam Flynn]

Kate said, and for the last time, almost the complete address and full name address of the very next victim in what many believe was a series within 2 aliases that she gave within her last 24 hours.

One to a desk sergeant and the other - i.e. the one with the vital "Dorset Street" and "Jane" on it - she gave to... a bleedin' pawnbroker.

[Sam Flynn]

I knew there was a bias against any religious source of information.

Being wary of something isn't the same as being biased against it, and the same applies to any source in this case. Besides, charities and religious missions during the Victorian era were indeed prone to exaggerate or make things up if it meant getting free publicity.

[Trapperologist]

Thanks for that Sam, there is a great difficulty with trying ro identify good, unimpeachable information.

I knew there was a bias against any religious source of information. That might be why no one is interested in what the police said was “The Best Clue Yet” which was the letter or letters to an unnamed missionary. Or maybe they view Mary as a staunch Roman Catholic Irishwoman from Wales who would never pretend to be from Wales unless she was and wouldn’t darken the doors of a non-Catholic mission. Even when you say we don’t know, it’s based in something you don’t really know. Speculation based in speculation, as someone else said. In this case, debunking on speculative belief.