Coincidence?

[Michael W Richards]

Yeah, does it mean 'one of' as in one half of a duo say, or 'one of' a number of individual suspects?
There's loads of these interesting if totally unhelpful tidbits in the papers. They're obviously based on something, but what?

To me it reads one of the men sought, Im not sure you need limit it to a duo. That's interesting, because as far as I can recall very few people openly speculated about more that one man...only in Kellys case did that possibility become Pardon worthy.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Youll see disclaimers like that in most of the press releases citing a "suspect", but the part that I found interesting is "

A statement has been widely circulated to the effect that one of the supposed criminals was traced to Liverpool, that he had left the city, and that the police had lost sight of him".

Note the "one of".

Yeah, does it mean 'one of' as in one half of a duo say, or 'one of' a number of individual suspects?
There's loads of these interesting if totally unhelpful tidbits in the papers. They're obviously based on something, but what?

[Michael W Richards]

And lo, Ripperology was born!

Youll see disclaimers like that in most of the press releases citing a "suspect", but the part that I found interesting is "

A statement has been widely circulated to the effect that one of the supposed criminals was traced to Liverpool, that he had left the city, and that the police had lost sight of him".

Note the "one of".

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

An article just caught my eye from the Evening news on Oct 11th;

"..do not profess to have any distinct theory as to the identity of the murderer, or any tangible information likely to lead to an arrest. They are, however, deluged with suggestions from various quarters as to the solution of the mystery, but none of these have been found to be of any practical value."[/I]

And lo, Ripperology was born!

[Michael W Richards]

An article just caught my eye from the Evening news on Oct 11th;

"During yesterday frequent inquiries were made of the Liverpool head constable, Captain Bower, as well as at the detective office, with reference to the action of the Liverpool police in regard to tracing the person or persons supposed to be concerned in the recent atrocities in Whitechapel. A statement has been widely circulated to the effect that one of the supposed criminals was traced to Liverpool, that he had left the city, and that the police had lost sight of him. As a matter of fact, the head constable and the detective department knew nothing of the circumstance until the statements in the newspapers were brought under their notice. The head constable has given instructions for the various railway stations and the departing steamships to be closely watched, and an efficient staff of detectives are endeavouring to give every possible assistance to the London police, but up to last night no trace, so far as Liverpool is concerned, has been found of the criminal. The reward offered for the discovery of the assassin is posted up outside the police stations, and during the day it was eagerly perused by a large number of persons. The Liverpool police do not profess to have any distinct theory as to the identity of the murderer, or any tangible information likely to lead to an arrest. They are, however, deluged with suggestions from various quarters as to the solution of the mystery, but none of these have been found to be of any practical value."

As we all know Liverpool was a departure point for the Americas, and Tumblety escaped England using that route, but that was in November, and this is just days after the so called Double Event. Do we have a clue here that they felt the killer had left London after Oct 1st?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Fiver,

The Sevenoaks Chronicle and Kent Advertiser, 21st September 1888, raises mysterious questions about Annie Chapman's envelope, and also begs the question of whether Catherine Eddowes and John Kelly actually figured in these inquiries just a week before their return to London, and how she afterwards fell victim to the very person the police were inquiring about.

Regards,

Simon

Do you think Simon that it was the date that might have been the connection, or the Royal Irish connection with Conway? Or that he was also known as Quinn? Im curious.

[Michael W Richards]

We can add a further issue also. If the murderer was going to meet Eddowes in Mitre Square, why did he attack Elizabeth Stride? If he had not been interrupted, he might have been late for his assignation. Even if not late, he might have realised that Stride's murder would bring the police out making his main event (assuming he really planned to kill Eddowes) more risky. Would he take the risk of upsetting his plan for someone who knew his identity?

There is very little reason to imagine that Strides killer was anywhere near Mitre Square cd, so not really an obstacle here. As Ive pointed out we know that there were criminals committing a crime within a very short distance of Mitre Square at the very time Kate is killed. So you already have your bad guys readily available. Im sure Liz's killer just slipped away quickly and as quietly as possible.

Kate makes it known, at least to the casual ward superintendent, that she thinks she knows a killer and she is intent on making some money for that information. Later Kate is approached by someone who says her silence might be worth a great deal more than the paltry reward monies offered privately. She agrees to meet with this person Saturday afternoon. At which time she is essentially drugged to see what can be learned from her. A decision is made, and that meeting ends with an agreed meeting around midnight near Mitre Square. These men know they will be in that area at that time anyway, to rob the Post Office.

Lawende doesn't see Kate, she is being sliced up in the square, something done by callous criminals in order to make this appear a random attack just like Pollys and Annies. They may not know of Liz Strides murder at this time, which may have given them the option of not having to cut her open, so they just try and emulate Annies murder. Because every detail of it was public knowledge.

The Jack the Ripper mythology allowed criminals a get out of jail free option, just make their crime look savage, et voila, a Canonical Victim of the mad lust killer.

[etenguy]

There seems to be another issue here that needs to be addressed. Once Eddowes was paid by the Ripper was she going to allow him to continue killing and just keep her mouth shut as long as the money kept coming? Did she have no empathy for any victim? c.d.

We can add a further issue also. If the murderer was going to meet Eddowes in Mitre Square, why did he attack Elizabeth Stride? If he had not been interrupted, he might have been late for his assignation. Even if not late, he might have realised that Stride's murder would bring the police out making his main event (assuming he really planned to kill Eddowes) more risky. Would he take the risk of upsetting his plan for someone who knew his identity?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Because we know John lied or was in error about other things he said. We also know that John didn't look for Kate. The city at that time held people on D & D for only the length of time that they needed to sober up, it was unlikely she would have been kept overnight. John admitted he knew she was in jail. So, Sunday goes by, Monday goes by...and Tuesday am while reading the paper he sees the news about the murdered woman and thinks its his Kate. The story is that they were together almost every night, and lived quietly. Yet John hadn't slept with Kate since Thursday night and didn't feel compelled to find out where she was until that news article.

The timing of the boots pawning. He was too drunk to remember when exactly they had pawned them...at night, or at day break?

Theres more to this story obviously, there must be motivators for these deviations if they are as such, and there must be some explanation for the many things that don't add up. The bottom line is that Kate did not seek out John when she was released, and he did not seek out Kate until Tuesday.

There's definitely things dont add up as nicely as we would like. John Kelly is regarded as living 'as husband and wife' with Kate, but as you rightly point out, he doesn't take much notice that she's missing. His statement seems to imply that they were both fairly intoxicated and probably pawned his boots for that reason. They might not have been the sober and loyal couple they are made out to be. Then again, they live in doss houses and have a hand to mouth existence.
The piece in the Sevenoaks + Kent paper is a bit vague for my liking, with regards to police specifically talking to east end hop pickers, but you would imagine that in a small town visiting London Police must have generated some chit chat?
It's certainly interesting to speculate about, but I'll err on the side of caution for now.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fiver,

The Sevenoaks Chronicle and Kent Advertiser, 21st September 1888, raises mysterious questions about Annie Chapman's envelope, and also begs the question of whether Catherine Eddowes and John Kelly actually figured in these inquiries just a week before their return to London

Thanks for the info, Simon, but it was a provincial paper speculating, it seems. No doubt they were trying to exploit the "local interest" angle in light of Eddowes having briefly been in Kent.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fiver,

The Sevenoaks Chronicle and Kent Advertiser, 21st September 1888, raises mysterious questions about Annie Chapman's envelope, and also begs the question of whether Catherine Eddowes and John Kelly actually figured in these inquiries just a week before their return to London, and how she afterwards fell victim to the very person the police were inquiring about.

Regards,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

A fair point, yet you doubt John Kelly, or at least question his statements, such as to what was meant by 'partner', yet the superintendent "knew Kate". John Kelly knew Kate, and saw her in the 24 hours before her death, yet his statements are suspect, the superintendents are undoubtable?
Really, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but why does one report from someone who "knew Kate" outweigh the others from someone who knew her for years?

Because we know John lied or was in error about other things he said. We also know that John didn't look for Kate. The city at that time held people on D & D for only the length of time that they needed to sober up, it was unlikely she would have been kept overnight. John admitted he knew she was in jail. So, Sunday goes by, Monday goes by...and Tuesday am while reading the paper he sees the news about the murdered woman and thinks its his Kate. The story is that they were together almost every night, and lived quietly. Yet John hadn't slept with Kate since Thursday night and didn't feel compelled to find out where she was until that news article.

The timing of the boots pawning. He was too drunk to remember when exactly they had pawned them...at night, or at day break?

Theres more to this story obviously, there must be motivators for these deviations if they are as such, and there must be some explanation for the many things that don't add up. The bottom line is that Kate did not seek out John when she was released, and he did not seek out Kate until Tuesday.

[Fiver]

Do you all think this was the reason the police interviewed Eddowes and Kelly whilst they were in Maidstone?

This is the first I have heard of the police interviewing Eddowes and Kelly in Maidstone. Could you please link to your souce and whether it gives a reason.

[Enigma]

Most likely the blackmailer is not going to be doing any telling (of anything) if you get my drift.

c.d.

I do indeed get your drift.

My comment was intended to be lighthearted. Only the very brave or very foolish would attempt to blackmail a serial killer and hope to get away alive.

[Simon Wood]

Do you all think this was the reason the police interviewed Eddowes and Kelly whilst they were in Maidstone?