Coincidence?

[DJA]

Yeah,I know.

Wanna buy a bridge?

You know who the sexton was.

[Joshua Rogan]

Perhaps one reason they didn't turn up was because they were expected to foot the bill?

[DJA]

The family were living a few miles away.

There were no Welsh or Irish family members.

[etenguy]

To me, the only coincidence is the name Mary really, as Catherine has a direct, and more understandable connection to the name Kelly (making the Kelly connection entirely plausible as a coincidence). But the Mary - Kelly part, as far as we know, only arises with Catherine 30 minutes before she was probably murdered (within the hour anyway), so I can't see how JtR could have heard she used it unless he's police. Also, if she met him with regards to blackmail, then he knows he's got the right one, name notwithstanding. Otherwise, he has to know what she looks like, etc. It gets too tangled, as far as I can work out, how it all fits together.

That said, I do like your thought experiment, but I'm thinking even that quite clever solution to the conundrum runs up against impenetrable walls. And yes, I think avoiding the Royal Conspiracy line is desirable as it really goes nowhere once the evidence comes into play. But I do appreciate the importance of not closing down avenues of ideas, and you've given me something to puzzle over a bit.

- Jeff

Hey Jeff

Of itself, Mary Ann Kelly of 6 Fashion Street (police station alias) is relatively easy for me to reconcile myself with it being just a coincidence. Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street (Pawn Ticket), even of itself, I find more difficult. That she used the two in quick succession and I struggle with feeling that maybe she was channelling Mary Jane Kelly, the next victim. I do not think this means she knew MJK but probably knew of her, perhaps from the Ten Bells. She knew she lived somewhere in Dorset Street and hence the pawn ticket, she was a bit off her game (drunk or hungover) at the police station and messed up her alias. I do not think she was doing this for any conspiracy motive, but was just coming up with an alias at short notice (and when I've done that in the past I have done precisely the same (used the name of someone I barely knew) because it is easier than coming up with an alias from scratch). So I see nothing sinister in this.

When they are both murdered by the same man, one after the other, I feel there must be some connection, it is just too coincidental (though of course coincidences of this nature do happen).

What that connection is I do not know. I doubt any grand conspiracy is involved, but some kind of mistaken identity issue does not seem beyond the realms of possibility to me. If that is the case, I would have to start from the premise the murderer knew neither of them or else the mistaken identity would not have happened. I would also need a reason for the murderer to want to kill one of them - or else the mistaken identity issue is irrelevant to the murderer. I would also need a reason for the murderer to realise his possible mistake, else he would have no reason to act on it. That is how the thought experiment scenario was born, as an attempt to describe a situation where all the above is true. I don't promote that scenario as what happened, but it was reasonable enough for me to think the mistaken identity link is quite possible.

You are right to point out that it is not sufficiently robust to be convincing as it stands and I said I thought I could work up a more convincing scenario, but was not motivated to do so. But having opened the box, I guess it is incumbent on me to do so. So, I'll have a go when I have a little time - it will mean re-reading the Eddowes and Kelly murder materials as I would want to ground any such scenario in the evidence that we have rather than describe something that could have happened but for which there is absolutely no evidence (although it would need a bit of speculation else it would have been evident from the information we have already).

[JeffHamm]

Hey Jeff

Of itself, Mary Ann Kelly of 6 Fashion Street (police station alias) is relatively easy for me to reconcile myself with it being just a coincidence. Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street (Pawn Ticket), even of itself, I find more difficult. That she used the two in quick succession and I struggle with feeling that maybe she was channelling Mary Jane Kelly, the next victim. I do not think this means she knew MJK but probably knew of her, perhaps from the Ten Bells. She knew she lived somewhere in Dorset Street and hence the pawn ticket, she was a bit off her game (drunk or hungover) at the police station and messed up her alias. I do not think she was doing this for any conspiracy motive, but was just coming up with an alias at short notice (and when I've done that in the past I have done precisely the same (used the name of someone I barely knew) because it is easier than coming up with an alias from scratch). So I see nothing sinister in this.

When they are both murdered by the same man, one after the other, I feel there must be some connection, it is just too coincidental (though of course coincidences of this nature do happen).

What that connection is I do not know. I doubt any grand conspiracy is involved, but some kind of mistaken identity issue does not seem beyond the realms of possibility to me. If that is the case, I would have to start from the premise the murderer knew neither of them or else the mistaken identity would not have happened. I would also need a reason for the murderer to want to kill one of them - or else the mistaken identity issue is irrelevant to the murderer. I would also need a reason for the murderer to realise his possible mistake, else he would have no reason to act on it. That is how the thought experiment scenario was born, as an attempt to describe a situation where all the above is true. I don't promote that scenario as what happened, but it was reasonable enough for me to think the mistaken identity link is quite possible.

You are right to point out that it is not sufficiently robust to be convincing as it stands and I said I thought I could work up a more convincing scenario, but was not motivated to do so. But having opened the box, I guess it is incumbent on me to do so. So, I'll have a go when I have a little time - it will mean re-reading the Eddowes and Kelly murder materials as I would want to ground any such scenario in the evidence that we have rather than describe something that could have happened but for which there is absolutely no evidence (although it would need a bit of speculation else it would have been evident from the information we have already).

yes, do have a think about it. And to me, even if one could suggest that Catherine Eddowes had some knowledge of Mary Jane Kelly, the important point is that JtR has to have killed at least one of them because of this connection (the Royal Conspiracy approach has been that it was Eddowes who was killed thinking it was MJK; you've inverted that with MJK being killed as a sort of 'double mistaken identity - killing Eddowes thinking her name was Mary Kelly and so killing Mary Kelly thinking she's the one he should have been looking for in the first place, etc" - becomes a bit inception like really, but I know what you mean I think).

Unfortunately, it is all, I think, based upon either of the aliases being used more than the once, and at the moment it doesn't appear that was likely. However, we do know the names "Mary Ann Kelly" and "Jane Kelly" were used. And while Dorset Street (insert whatever number you like) was a very "prototypical street" for someone of Eddowes social circles, it still adds to the "hmmmm" factor of the whole thing.

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

[Joshua Rogan]

The family were living a few miles away.

There were no Welsh or Irish family members.

And yet, Kelly was said to be fluent in Welsh.

[etenguy]

yes, do have a think about it. And to me, even if one could suggest that Catherine Eddowes had some knowledge of Mary Jane Kelly, the important point is that JtR has to have killed at least one of them because of this connection (the Royal Conspiracy approach has been that it was Eddowes who was killed thinking it was MJK; you've inverted that with MJK being killed as a sort of 'double mistaken identity - killing Eddowes thinking her name was Mary Kelly and so killing Mary Kelly thinking she's the one he should have been looking for in the first place, etc" - becomes a bit inception like really, but I know what you mean I think).

Unfortunately, it is all, I think, based upon either of the aliases being used more than the once, and at the moment it doesn't appear that was likely. However, we do know the names "Mary Ann Kelly" and "Jane Kelly" were used. And while Dorset Street (insert whatever number you like) was a very "prototypical street" for someone of Eddowes social circles, it still adds to the "hmmmm" factor of the whole thing.

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

Hey Jeff

I have worked through a scenario which works but in order to do so I had to establish a few assumptions for which I am unable to find any evidence - they are:

1. That Kate Eddowes used the Jane Kelly alias more than once (or rely on an incredible coincidence which I cannot sanction).
2. That the murderer met with Kate Eddowes between 2pm and 8.30pm on 29th September.

In addition, the supporting evidence I did find could be interpreted in different ways, but is suggestive of the scenario. I am going to review it again tomorrow before posting to avoid any embarrassment through posting too early.

[JeffHamm]

Hey Jeff

I have worked through a scenario which works but in order to do so I had to establish a few assumptions for which I am unable to find any evidence - they are:

1. That Kate Eddowes used the Jane Kelly alias more than once (or rely on an incredible coincidence which I cannot sanction).
2. That the murderer met with Kate Eddowes between 2pm and 8.30pm on 29th September.

In addition, the supporting evidence I did find could be interpreted in different ways, but is suggestive of the scenario. I am going to review it again tomorrow before posting to avoid any embarrassment through posting too early.

Hi etenguy,

I think the first assumption has to be made for things to be other than a coincidence. And I think the evidence that we have is against it, but it's not so far against it that it isn't worth considering. I think, though, if you're going to go with that you are just as safe to suggest she used both the "Mary X Kelly" and "Jane Kelly" aliases, as if Jane Kelly is used presumably because Catherine knew Mary Jane Kelly, then that allows for either of those.

If the second were to be true, then it certainly means there's no mistaken identity (regardless of name) for Catherine Eddowes - JtR met her and targeted her - unless things revert to MJK being hunted by JtR yet he doesn't know what she looks like (or her age, etc; Eddowes was 20 years older than Kelly after all). I've had problems with Kelly being such a target, as it seems to rapidly inflate to require more and more extreme assumptions to be made, but I'm sure I've not thought of all possible avenues and may be biased by how the Royal Conspiracy unfolds. The notion that his allowed for a pre-arranged meeting seems difficult, as Eddowes was in no hurry to get out (she wasn't asking to be released or showing any signs of desperation to get out), and it strikes me unlikely that she would agree to meet JtR in a dark secluded area.

But, I won't presuppose what you've got and I'm just thinking "out loud" so I look forward to seeing what you've come up with. I'm sure it will be interesting and worth mulling over.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

My guess is that the Royal Family had fallen on hard times financially and thus were forced to hire a second rate assassin in order to save a few bucks.

Sorry, not trying to rain on anybody's parade and not knocking anybody personally. We should all be open to new ideas but it seems that this one has a very long way to go before it can be taken seriously. And as others have pointed out, why not just kill the intended victims? The mutilations just increased police efforts to catch the killer which should have been exactly what the Royal Family would not have wanted.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

My guess is that the Royal Family had fallen on hard times financially and thus were forced to hire a second rate assassin in order to save a few bucks.

Sorry, not trying to rain on anybody's parade and not knocking anybody personally. We should all be open to new ideas but it seems that this one has a very long way to go before it can be taken seriously. And as others have pointed out, why not just kill the intended victims? The mutilations just increased police efforts to catch the killer which should have been exactly what the Royal Family would not have wanted.

c.d.

I agree c.d. It's ironic that a Royal Conspiracy is put forth to explain a set of murders which are pretty much the antithesis of what a series of murders committed by a Royal Conspiracy would look like.

- Jeff

[Trapperologist]

I think the first assumption has to be made for things to be other than a coincidence. And I think the evidence that we have is against it, but it's not so far against it that it isn't worth considering. I think, though, if you're going to go with that you are just as safe to suggest she used both the "Mary X Kelly" and "Jane Kelly" aliases, as if Jane Kelly is used presumably because Catherine knew Mary Jane Kelly, then that allows for either of those.

If the second were to be true, then it certainly means there's no mistaken identity (regardless of name) for Catherine Eddowes - JtR met her and targeted her - unless things revert to MJK being hunted by JtR yet he doesn't know what she looks like (or her age, etc; Eddowes was 20 years older than Kelly after all).

But, I won't presuppose what you've got and I'm just thinking "out loud" so I look forward to seeing what you've come up with. I'm sure it will be interesting and worth mulling over.

Here, let me help etenguy with some "evidence". The so-called "Most Important Clue Yet" was a letter to an unidentified "Metropolitan" Missionary. That could well have been the City Missionary who said he knew Mary Kelly and whom the Mission magazine said knew "some" of the victims. Some would mean more than two but suffice to suggest two would have been Mary Kelly and Catherine Eddowes.

Mary came to the once-a-week services which were at Mission Hall in Mission Court on Thrawl Street directly across the street from Catherine's sister. It makes sense Catherine went there even if it was just for refreshments and although Mary said she was 25 but I doubt she was, so there might not have been such an age difference to not make them close. If it was the City Missionary the "letter writer" suspect wrote to, then he would have likely attended as well and may have associated Mary and Kate as a pair. Was Catherine a regular at Mitre Square and did she bring Mary Kelly to mind if he didn't already have her in mind?

[etenguy]

Here, let me help etenguy with some "evidence". The so-called "Most Important Clue Yet" was a letter to an unidentified "Metropolitan" Missionary. That could well have been the City Missionary who said he knew Mary Kelly and whom the Mission magazine said knew "some" of the victims. Some would mean more than two but suffice to suggest two would have been Mary Kelly and Catherine Eddowes.

Mary came to the once-a-week services which were at Mission Hall in Mission Court on Thrawl Street directly across the street from Catherine's sister. It makes sense Catherine went there even if it was just for refreshments and although Mary said she was 25 but I doubt she was, so there might not have been such an age difference to not make them close. If it was the City Missionary the "letter writer" suspect wrote to, then he would have likely attended as well and may have associated Mary and Kate as a pair. Was Catherine a regular at Mitre Square and did she bring Mary Kelly to mind if he didn't already have her in mind?

All help gratefully received.

I thought the earlier post about the mission magazine was very interesting also and it does provide a plausible connection between Catherine and Mary. It is not conclusive but it is suggestive. I do not think it means they necessarily knew each other, but it could well be they crossed paths. I stop short of going further but recognise the possibilities you highlight.

[DJA]

And yet, Kelly was said to be fluent in Welsh.

Yeah and pigs fly

Good try buddy.

[Trapperologist]

That might have been the same source that said Mary was an "artist and a scholar". I think she might have learned a word or two of Welsh from EHV.

She'd already claimed to have been disowned by her family. Do you think her "London family members" showed up to the funeral secretly? A century of research has proven the LCM missionary correct about her origin so we can find him reliable when he talks about knowing the victims.

[Sam Flynn]

I thought the earlier post about the mission magazine was very interesting also and it does provide a plausible connection between Catherine and Mary. It is not conclusive but it is suggestive.

We need to be wary of religious and/or charity groups, who weren't averse to using the victims to gain publicity, as witness the possibly made up story of Dr Barnardo's encounter with Liz Stride.