Coincidence?

[Fiver]

Is it purely coincidence that the last two generally accepted Ripper victims used the names Jane Kelly - an alias of Catherine Eddowes and of course Mary Jane Kelly?

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.

[etenguy]

Exacty which are the coincidences you point to? Incidentally, I have a cat and a dog myself, and both can be quite noisy. The cat is more prone to get scared and jump sideways, though...

Going to bed now, so you will have my answer tomorrow.

Hi Fisherman

The coincidences exercising me at the moment are:

1. Eddowes used the alias Jane Kelly and the next victim was Mary Jane Kelly

2. The pattern of days for the C5 killings went Fri - Sat - Sun - Fri (a pattern? work pattern perhaps.)

3. The timing between the C5 murders is 1 week, 3 weeks, 5 weeks (followed by the next day in the sequence in 2 above)

4, If Kelly was not the last victim, then if the pattern holds there would be another murder on the first Saturday after 7 weeks (and that is the day the body of Johnny Gill was discovered - he had been mutilated, eviscerated and his genitals mutilated - similar enough to a ripper murder that Phillips was asked to review (he decided it was not a ripper murder)). Not a proven ripper victim but another coincidence.

I guess you can always find patterns if you look hard enough - and likely these are just coincidences - but if there was a pattern, then these were not random murders. I have no theory - just observations.

[packers stem]

And how about the chronological links from Annie Chapman to Pinchin Torso? A woman was murdered most likely a year to the date of Annie Chapman and the fact that Ted Stanley, of 1, Osborne Place (Argents lodging house) heard about the Chapman murder from a shoeblack at the lodging house. Michael Keating, just happened to be asleep in the middle arch on Pinchin Street when the torso was discovered. He was a shoeblack giving his residence at 1, Osborne Place.

Hi Jerry
yes ,the anniversary date of pinchin Street tends to get ignored , wrongly in my opinion.
Had no idea about the other stuff .... quite bizarre

[jerryd]

Which torso murders are you suggesting?

If we're talking only of Whitehall then the arm wasn't found until after Chapman ,although probably deposited on the same day and the torso wasn't found until a couple of days after Stride and Eddowes were killed

I fail to see how a torso victim from the previous year could 'inspire' a serial killer ..... but I can see the clear and obvious chronological links from the Whitehall torso

And how about the chronological links from Annie Chapman to Pinchin Torso? A woman was murdered most likely a year to the date of Annie Chapman and the fact that Ted Stanley, of 1, Osborne Place (Argents lodging house) heard about the Chapman murder from a shoeblack at the lodging house. Michael Keating, just happened to be asleep in the middle arch on Pinchin Street when the torso was discovered. He was a shoeblack giving his residence at 1, Osborne Place.

[packers stem]

Agreed Packers,easy for her to to keep a roof over her head by just nodding off again for a few hours out of the rain.
But we see somebody desperate to be released,and remarkably sober considering they had to be held up not long before.
Don't know about you,but the last time I was that drunk,I was ill for days ;-)

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.


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

[Blotchy's Beer Bucket]

Why ?
All she had to do was stop singing ,roll over and go back to sleep .....
She had a 'free' doss and apparently gave it up in order to wander around in the rain

Agreed Packers,easy for her to to keep a roof over her head by just nodding off again for a few hours out of the rain.
But we see somebody desperate to be released,and remarkably sober considering they had to be held up not long before.
Don't know about you,but the last time I was that drunk,I was ill for days ;-)

[packers stem]

Just to finish off the thought here Fisherman, Kate was found minutes after her murder, therefore a fairly reliable TOD there is obvious. Annie may have been found 1/2 hour after hers.

Brown didn't examine the body until 2 20

[packers stem]

Even if there wasn't, the torso murders could have inspired others... if only to chop bodies up and throw them in the Thames!

Which torso murders are you suggesting?

If we're talking only of Whitehall then the arm wasn't found until after Chapman ,although probably deposited on the same day and the torso wasn't found until a couple of days after Stride and Eddowes were killed

I fail to see how a torso victim from the previous year could 'inspire' a serial killer ..... but I can see the clear and obvious chronological links from the Whitehall torso

[Fisherman]

I am of the view that any noise was most likely the murderer bumping against the fence during his work - however, if I am wrong and it was an animal, I think a dog might make a more discernible noise rather than a cat - but I certainly do not want to argue the case, I have absolutely no evidence.

I think you (Fisherman) and I have agreed to differ on which was more likely to be correct (Phillips or the three witnesses) and I think neither of us is likely to change their view without further evidence to help us. So I would like to ask instead if you find the number of coincidences in this case to be simply coincidences or whether you think they begin to mount to suggest that something else might be going on?

I am of the view that they are just coincidences at the moment, but if we collect many more I think my view might begin to change.

Exacty which are the coincidences you point to? Incidentally, I have a cat and a dog myself, and both can be quite noisy. The cat is more prone to get scared and jump sideways, though...

Going to bed now, so you will have my answer tomorrow.

[packers stem]

As you can see from Wickerman’s post #170 we have an explanation for the blood on the wall therefore the rest of the suggestion that the killer couldn’t have cut her throat from the position that I suggested collapses. I’m not saying that that’s what definitely happened just that it’s a plausible possibility.

I don’t see why you have to talk about cartwheeling and kicking fences? There’s nothing unbelievable or far-fetched about the suggestion that the killer might have changed positions during the mutilations to get better access. The gap between Annie’s body and the fence was relatively narrow so it’s entirely plausible that the killer might have brushed his shoulder against the fence.

Ill ask a question Fishy (anyone else can give an answer too of course) It’s a question that I’ve asked before but I’ve never gotten a specific answer from you.

If the noise of something brushing/falling against the fence heard by Albert Cadosch at around 5.25 wasn’t made by Annie or her killer what could it have been made by? You previously suggested packing cases but I pointed out that there weren’t any in the yard at the time.

The packing case makers were at 25
Cadosch wasn't sure which side he heard from
Not wishing to speak for fishy but maybe that's what he was pointing to

[packers stem]

Hi Blotchy's Beer Bucket

According to the list of possessions for Eddowes, she had no money on her. Isn't it likely she went out to earn her doss money? What is your suggestion for her spending about half an hour hanging about the streets at that time of night?

Why ?
All she had to do was stop singing ,roll over and go back to sleep .....
She had a 'free' doss and apparently gave it up in order to wander around in the rain

[packers stem]

Certain details were reported in the Star of Dec. 24th in reporting on the death of Rose Mylett the article reflects back on the Chapman murder case and the testimony of Dr. Phillips:

"The evidence given by Dr. Phillips on 18 Sept. at the Hanbury-street inquest is incontrovertible proof that Annie Chapman was partially strangled before her throat was cut. When Dr. Phillips was called to see the body he found that the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The face was swollen, the finger-nails and lips were turgid, and in the brain, on the head being opened, he found the membranes opaque and the veins and tissues loaded with black blood. All these appearances are the ordinary signs of suffocation. In Dr. Phillip's own words, "I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, but that death arose from syncope consequent on the loss of blood following the severance of the throat."
https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...r/s881224.html

"All these appearances", not just the tongue protruding between the teeth.
P.S. I think the "18th Sept" date is an error.

Seems the press report is in error
Phillips stated himself that the brain was diseased at the inquest
That will be behind the blood

[etenguy]

There ARE "bloody cats", you know. And they DO sound when they touch something. It may even sound like an arm, a shoulder or an elbow touching something.

I am of the view that any noise was most likely the murderer bumping against the fence during his work - however, if I am wrong and it was an animal, I think a dog might make a more discernible noise rather than a cat - but I certainly do not want to argue the case, I have absolutely no evidence.

I think you (Fisherman) and I have agreed to differ on which was more likely to be correct (Phillips or the three witnesses) and I think neither of us is likely to change their view without further evidence to help us. So I would like to ask instead if you find the number of coincidences in this case to be simply coincidences or whether you think they begin to mount to suggest that something else might be going on?

I am of the view that they are just coincidences at the moment, but if we collect many more I think my view might begin to change.

[Fisherman]

Has anyone ever heard of such a desperate attempt?

Oooooooh YES!!!

Why are you so determined to try anything to discredit Cadosch?

I am not determined to discredit him at all. I am determined to discredit the idea that he must have been telling the truth.

A witness that 99% of voters in the poll saw as honest?

And how do you suppose they researched his honesty? They were perhaps personal aquaintances of his, and did not need to research it? Or? I can assure you, Herlock, that there is nothing I can do to prove that he was not honest. Likewise, no childish poll can prove that he WAS honest. Or 99 per cent honest.

We are now reduced to debating Cadosch’s vocabulary!

Yes, indeed! And if you think that what he said is not the best tool we have to try and weigh him up, you really need to explain how that works.

The noise was overwhelmingly likely to have been the killer.

No, it was not. There is no way to gauge that. I am absolutley certain that it cannot have come from the murder, because realistically, she was loooong dead.

An arm, a shoulder, an elbow.

A head, a penis, a toe? A butt? Thereīs always a but, you know. Guess away, by all means.

Not a ghost, not a bloody cat, not an hallucinating Cadosch (as you suggest)

So YOU must be right and I must be wrong? Now, where have I seen that delusion before?

It was a man hearing a noise that came from probably six feet from where he was standing.

No, we donīt know that. It was a man who CLAIMED to have heard a sound - that was not consistent with "a fall".

From a backyard where a woman was killed and mutilated and nothing else happened apart from that.

And once again, you have no idea. That is the nature of the beast, we canīt tell whether something else happened. There ARE "bloody cats", you know. And they DO sound when they touch something. It may even sound like an arm, a shoulder or an elbow touching something. No wait - you just told us that it CAN NOT have been a cat, so I must be wrong again. And you right.
Right?

Although iHow much clearer does it need to be?

Much, much clearer before interpretation and guesswork turns into fact.

Unless you are desperate to prove otherwise for some reason.

I would not say that I am desperate. If I am, then YOU are equally desperate to make Cadoshīs statement true and fact. Me, I am more like eager not to have people doing that. And the reason is that I donīt like prematurely construed "facts". It has only been a few posts since etenguy told me that Richardsons testimony is proof that Chapman was not there at the time Richardson was.
We cannot treat testimony like gospel. it is that simple. If we like what we hear and want to believe it, fine. If we think it is something we can present as near certainties, then do so. But prepare to have it factually denied.

But, as Al has pointed out, this thread is being drawn the way of the others. I’m heartily sick of it to be honest. I’m out.

Fare thee well!

[Fisherman]

And there’s only one poster here in the habit of posting in bold type all of the time. The poster that you defend purely because he usually disagrees with me.

See post 213. And a few hundred others. Like this one.