Coincidence?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Knight's 'Royal Conspiracy' requires
* A group of semi-homeless alcoholic prostitutes decide to blackmail the British government over something provably false.
* The British government decides this is a serious threat to the monarchy.
* With the full resources of the British government at their disposal, the conspirators put together a kill squad made up of a man who wasn't in England, an elderly stroke victim, and a coachman.
* The men assigned to eliminate the blackmailers decide the best way to do this is to murder them in a way that turns the women from nobodies to household names, implicates the Masons, and undermines public confidence in the authorities.
* The British government agrees this is the best way to quietly and secretly eliminate the blackmailers.
* The victims fail to notice or respond when only members of their blackmail club are being messily butchered by the Ripper.
* Over a year after the doctor has stopped murdering or doing anything to implicates the conspiracy, the conspirators decide that he is a threat.
* Rather than kill the elderly doctor, the British government decides to fake his death and put him in an asylum, even though he was well known in the medical community and his picture had appeared in the newspapers.
* The painter then spends decades hiding a child from the authorities and leaving still more clues that implicate the Masons. The conspirators do not decide he is a threat and do nothing to stop the painter.
* The coachman, even though no one else cares, spends more than a decade repeatedly and ineptly failing to kill the painter and the child.

In short, the Royal Conspiracy requires everyone involved - conspirators, killers, and victims to act in an incredibly stupid manner. It's patent nonsense even before we consider that the original source of the story admitted it was a hoax.

Nicely put Fiver. Welcome to Casebook

[JeffHamm]

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.

Yes, another good example, particularly if the graffito wasn't written by JtR (which is of course a possibility).

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Ah, the pawning of the boots, is where the "Jane Kelly" name comes from. I haven't noted that before and was wondering where it came from. The thing with the "Mary Ann Kelly" name is, of course, she only used that when leaving the police station, so to make anything of it requires her killer to be one of the police at the station at that time.

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.

[Sam Flynn]

But Mary Jane Kelly, _6 Dorset Street, found within an anagram of her last 2 aliases in her last 24 hours is really interesting

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.

[JeffHamm]

Thanks Jeff, an interesting post.

I believe that Jane Kelly was the name Eddowes used for pawning some boots and gave an address of 6 Dorset Street. So then using Mary Ann Kelly when leaving the police station, is just another coincidence.

Part of my work involves research (medical - though I am not a medic) and I appreciate that patterns sometimes emerge that are just coincidence as well as the temptation to make data fit the pattern once one emerges. I will avoid that temptation. It is difficult to find too many details about the Johnny Gill murder, though a poster here, Dr Strange, did post a great article on another thread. There is a strong suspect for the Johnny Gill murder (non ripper) but not proven. I will carry on trying to find more details, but prima facie the murder seems very similar to ripper murders (maybe a copy cat) even an ear cut off - but the big differences are he was a young lad and it happened in Bradford. I think some primary research is required to better understand the likelihood of his being a ripper victim or not - I have reason to visit Bradford in a few weeks, so that might be timely. It is odd how it fits the timing pattern so precisely - but these types of coincidences do happen.

Ah, the pawning of the boots, is where the "Jane Kelly" name comes from. I haven't noted that before and was wondering where it came from. The thing with the "Mary Ann Kelly" name is, of course, she only used that when leaving the police station, so to make anything of it requires her killer to be one of the police at the station at that time. I think, therefore, there can be no connection with her murder and giving that name, making it an example of a coincidence. To what extent that might impact upon one's thinking about the "Jane Kelly" is left to each of us.

I also do research, and am used to spurious patterns in data, and also spend a lot of time with data and drawing inferences, or avoiding drawing unfounded ones (I hope), which is like anything else we do - a skill that requires practice and training as there are a lot of pitfalls in the reasoning that can take a long time to learn by trial and error (I stand on the shoulders of giants, who have worked out those mistakes and from whom I've benefited as a result - but that's the nature of research, it builds upon our past errors, letting us make new ones instead I suppose ).

Anyway, I hope you find something interesting in your delving into the Johnny Gill case. Even if, in the end, it is unrelated to the Whitechappel crimes (which it probably is, but that doesn't mean it is proven to be as of yet, so who knows until it's tested. Good luck and enjoy your trip to Bradford.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Kate suggested that she was likely to get a "hiding" for being so late getting back, now what do people make of that statement? I see it as and indication that she wanted to get going, like she had someplace to be...and that she was not above lying to the Police, suggesting that her "partner" would mistreat her. That's not a behavior that is indicated anywhere in the other witness statements, the ones that knew them both. It appears to me that she was in her stealth mode, one that perhaps began with her aliases. If Im correct that she intended to extort some money from parties she believed were connected to the murders, then going underground to stay alive before that meeting took place would be a smart move. But Mary Jane Kelly, _6 Dorset Street, found within an anagram of her last 2 aliases in her last 24 hours is really interesting considering that the next murder assumed to be by the same lad is Mary Jane Kelly, 26 Dorset St, 13 Millers court.

That's why I think it might be a breadcrumb, maybe even for Kelly to look for her or find out what happened. Which would imply that Kate knew Mary. What could he hope to learn from this Mary Kelly if she didn't know Kate.

[packers stem]

Eddowes was living with a man named Kelly, so her use of the Kelly surname is hardly surprising. The idea that someone, like the Terminator hunting Sarah Conners, was deliberately trying to kill a specific woman named Jane Kelly without having any idea what she looked like, is very unlikely. The 1891 Census of England and Wales shows that there were over 1000 Jane Kellys living in London. Anyone blindly trying to find the right Jane Kelly could have killed hundreds of Jane Kellys and not gotten the correct target.

Hi Fiver
I suspect you are more than a little wayward in your figures.
I've checked this many times in the past in the 91 census.
There were around 100 (not 1000) Mary Kelly's in London as a whole ,with all name variants.
If you narrow it down to whitechapel/ spitalfields immediate area it was less than 10 .
With a number ruled out for being either too old or too young , you are left with the number of possible Mary Kelly's as a JTR victim counted on the fingers of one hand.
These weren't any two victims ,they were in all likelihood, the last two.
Any other serial killers who've, by fluke , found their last two victims both went by the same name ?

Thought not .

This should indeed be taken seriously .

I've also heard plenty of nonsense about either the name Mary Kelly or simply Mary Ann being synonymous with prostitution.
This is palpably untrue
The only Mary Ann euphemism related to male prostitutes, as mentioned by Jack Saul at the Cleveland Street trial and if 'Mary Kelly' had been a euphemism for prostitutes I suspect any others who weren't may have changed their names....

[etenguy]

[QUOTE=Al Bundy's Eyes;n725015]

There's got to be a thread in there then! She (according to certain theories) knew all the victims, had secret knowledge, blackmail, a mysterious identity, a Catholic connection and had been to Paris with a wealthy stranger? Never mind a thread, you've got a whole feckin' book!

Note: I hearby claim all copyright for this theory, and all commercial rights including channel 5 documentarys.

[etenguy]

Nothing wrong in going to the bottom with things, so IŽd welcome that. Personally, of course, I have a sequence that brings the Whitehall torso murder into the equation, breaking the pattern up, so I was never going to believe in the maths of the C5 leading up to John Gill anyway. But since I am told that I may just be wrong...

Even if you end up with nothing, you should remember to congratulate yourself on that keen eye of yours. Sooner or later, such things tend to pay off!

We all may be wrong when we work with limited information, though I personally find the Lechmere theory interesting, others are not convinced. Who knows what new information might just appear to help us make up our minds.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

[QUOTE=etenguy;n725014]

Ah, I can be a bit slow sometimes. I am sure you are right about the MJK as JtR theory, but I don't know that one.

There's got to be a thread in there then! She (according to certain theories) knew all the victims, had secret knowledge, blackmail, a mysterious identity, a Catholic connection and had been to Paris with a wealthy stranger? Never mind a thread, you've got a whole feckin' book!

Note: I hearby claim all copyright for this theory, and all commercial rights including channel 5 documentarys.

[etenguy]

[QUOTE=Al Bundy's Eyes;n725012]

I think you mean Miller's Court.

Did I? The person in Mitre Square went by the name of Kelly. Coincidence?

I say it taking the Mick, but there's got to be a MJK as JTR theory out there. It's probably more plausible than some.

Ah, I can be a bit slow sometimes. I am sure you are right about the MJK as JtR theory, but I don't know that one.

[etenguy]

Hi Etenguy,

Sorry my attempt at a little joke to try and get things back on track. Big ask I know but I think it would be great for thread authors to bring threads to a halt once they go off track with a bit of a conclusion based on what has been said or talked about. After a few months maybe the admins could move this summary to the start of the thread to give a new reader an overview before diving into it? Lots of work I realise and I don't know how possible it would be, especially when some threads have lots of pages and tonnes of opinions and info, but it could be really handy!

Tristan

I think that sounds an excellent idea - the summary - but I think too much to ask of the admins here.

Threads do tend to wander, and at the moment Chapman's death is in a lot of minds - I did try to bring the thread back on track because I truly am interested in what anyone can tell me about all the coincidences in this case. It seems though, as you say, we are nearing the end of finding more useful information about my question.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

[QUOTE=etenguy;n725011]

I think you mean Miller's Court.

Did I? The person in Mitre Square went by the name of Kelly. Coincidence?

I say it taking the Mick, but there's got to be a MJK as JTR theory out there. It's probably more plausible than some.

[etenguy]

What about - Was Mary Jane Kelly Jack The Ripper? The REAL MJK, not the poor victim found in Mitre Square. She faked her own death. The evidence is there if we look hard enough! Or make it up, whichever's easiest.

I think you mean Miller's Court - I don't know who Mary Jane Kelly really was. It surprises me the police did not do more to identify the victim, but I guess they were busy and there were plenty of people who hid themselves in Whitechapel. As to whether the victim was the person purporting to be Mary Jane Kelly - well Barnet tells us she was but the later sightings do hold open the smallest possibility it was someone else.

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fisherman - in my more sober moments I agree with you, for god's sake we can find patterns in clouds if we look hard enough. I think the one thing that would convince me that this is more than just coincidence is if we found that Johnny Gill was a ripper victim - but that is not proven and in fact the more I look into that murder, the less likely it seems (there is a suspect in the frame who was not prosecuted but is none the less a strong candidate). However, since there is not too much information easily available about the Johnny Gill murder it is hard to tell - some primary research is needed. I am motivated enough to undertake that, it is just finding the time and the opportunity to go to Bradford - which (coincidently) I will be doing in a few weeks for completely different reasons.

Nothing wrong in going to the bottom with things, so IŽd welcome that. Personally, of course, I have a sequence that brings the Whitehall torso murder into the equation, breaking the pattern up, so I was never going to believe in the maths of the C5 leading up to John Gill anyway. But since I am told that I may just be wrong...

Even if you end up with nothing, you should remember to congratulate yourself on that keen eye of yours. Sooner or later, such things tend to pay off!