Coincidence?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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."

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Lots of supposition here. Drunk people are rather difficult to predict, they tend to do things that they would not do when sober. Trying to guess at the motives/behaviour of a drunk person 130 odd years after the event is pretty dicey as far as I would be concerned.

Tristan

As an experienced drinker of many years standing / stumbling, never mind 130 years, drunk folk do stuff that defies logic at the time. Bless'em.

[Michael W Richards]

Haven't you often argued that MJK's murder suggested a personal connection? MJK's killer was so familiar with her that he mistook his intended target for someone else altogether?

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.

[Harry D]

Calling it Coincidence is a lazy way of dismissing what seems to be significant information Sam. From an investigation standpoint.

Haven't you often argued that MJK's murder suggested a personal connection? MJK's killer was so familiar with her that he mistook his intended target for someone else altogether?

[Michael W Richards]

Lots of supposition here. Drunk people are rather difficult to predict, they tend to do things that they would not do when sober. Trying to guess at the motives/behaviour of a drunk person 130 odd years after the event is pretty dicey as far as I would be concerned.

Tristan

When Kate used the first alias, there is no evidence she was drunk. When the second one involving Mary Kelly is used, when checking out of Bishopsgate, she was presumably sober enough to be released. So I don't see a a need to suggest she was confused or incoherent. She likely was when she used "nothing" though. As to guessing motives, Im interested in why she did what she did, the motivations possible as catalysts evolve naturally from those facts.

[Losmandris]

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

Lets get some context here again....these name choices were made within her last 24 hours of life, a period which is always critically important for forensic investigation of crimes. She did not identify herself as anyone named Kelly in her 2nd last choice, "nothing. I submit she was probably known as Kate Conway more readily than Kate Kelly, and we don't have any evidence she ever adopted Kellys surname informally. So why does she suddenly decide she needs an alias at all, and why doesn't she use her own given name with Kellys surname? Surely that's clandestine enough. Mary Jane was not as common a pair of given names as is being portrayed, and associating with a known bad street isn't likely what anyone would want from an alias. She used that street because she wasn't currently affiliated with it. But someone its likely she knew, was. They pawned the boots Friday night according to the ticket, so why did she leave to stay in a work house? They would have had doss money. Why was she drunk at 8pm Saturday when as far as we know she had no money, and if that's the case, who bought her drinks and why? What was she doing in Mitre Square of all places at 1:30am? Whats with "nothing" as an alias? Why did she turn left instead of right outside Bishopsgate?

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. The Millers Court address would not be required to find Mary in the court.) If she disappeared, how would John or anyone find out what happened to her, maybe that bread crumb led to someone who would have that answer. Or, she was hinting she knew where Mary was, if someone she knew was looking for her.

Calling it Coincidence is a lazy way of dismissing what seems to be significant information Sam. From an investigation standpoint.

Lots of supposition here. Drunk people are rather difficult to predict, they tend to do things that they would not do when sober. Trying to guess at the motives/behaviour of a drunk person 130 odd years after the event is pretty dicey as far as I would be concerned.

Tristan

[FISHY1118]

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.

Always strikes me how easy people like Florence Pash are quickly dismissed as having any credibility when it comes to the Sickert story. Its been well established that she was indeed a very close associate of Sickerts. She more than likely did know kelly through him, and if people dig a little deeper they will find that Sickert, Eddowes and Kelly also knew each other , and very well .

[Michael W Richards]

It's only interesting if we ignore the fact that she used "Ann" as a middle name in one alias and gave Fashion Street as one of her false addresses. For the other false address, she actually said "6 Dorset Street" - a single house that was home to a few people. I doubt that she meant "blank [meaning twenty-] 6 Dorset Street", which was a well-known multi-occupancy dwelling with a number of rooms in a courtyard at the back - a dwelling which was almost invariably known (and sign-posted) as Miller's Court, not 26 Dorset Street. Finally, as others have noted, the names Mary, Jane, and Ann for that matter, were very common indeed, and Eddowes was in a steady relationship with a man named Kelly.

It's almost certainly coincidental that she chose those particular aliases, and it's easy to see why she should have picked them, without looking for any mysterious explanations.

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

Lets get some context here again....these name choices were made within her last 24 hours of life, a period which is always critically important for forensic investigation of crimes. She did not identify herself as anyone named Kelly in her 2nd last choice, "nothing. I submit she was probably known as Kate Conway more readily than Kate Kelly, and we don't have any evidence she ever adopted Kellys surname informally. So why does she suddenly decide she needs an alias at all, and why doesn't she use her own given name with Kellys surname? Surely that's clandestine enough. Mary Jane was not as common a pair of given names as is being portrayed, and associating with a known bad street isn't likely what anyone would want from an alias. She used that street because she wasn't currently affiliated with it. But someone its likely she knew, was. They pawned the boots Friday night according to the ticket, so why did she leave to stay in a work house? They would have had doss money. Why was she drunk at 8pm Saturday when as far as we know she had no money, and if that's the case, who bought her drinks and why? What was she doing in Mitre Square of all places at 1:30am? Whats with "nothing" as an alias? Why did she turn left instead of right outside Bishopsgate?

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. The Millers Court address would not be required to find Mary in the court.) If she disappeared, how would John or anyone find out what happened to her, maybe that bread crumb led to someone who would have that answer. Or, she was hinting she knew where Mary was, if someone she knew was looking for her.

Calling it Coincidence is a lazy way of dismissing what seems to be significant information Sam. From an investigation standpoint.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes indeed, Herlock.

Well bloody hell

[Sam Flynn]

Has someone actually suggested this link Sam?

Yes indeed, Herlock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Has someone actually suggested this link Sam?