Hello. Here is a complex problem to consider.
Let's use Martin Fido's assumptions about Kaminsky/Cohen/Leather Apron for the following.
1. The "working ladies" of Whitechapel knew of a chap who was threatening them.
2. The police sought this character under the rubric "Leather Apron."
3. They seem to have conflated this character with Pizer.
4. Kaminski (Cohen) was the real Leather Apron and Jack.
5. Kaminski had contracted syphilis and was likely a former patron of said Ladies.
6. Ironically, the Ladies were right all along and had it solved BEFORE the police had hardly started.
7. Kate Eddowes, shortly after her arrival back from Kent proclaimed, "I'm here to get my reward money. I think I know who he (Jack) is."
8. Kate is shortly thereafter killed and mutilated--the first canonical to suffer facial mutilations.
Question: was Kate blackmailing Nathan? Could this account for the added vehemence? If so, why was she not more careful on the night of the "double event"?
LC
Let's use Martin Fido's assumptions about Kaminsky/Cohen/Leather Apron for the following.
1. The "working ladies" of Whitechapel knew of a chap who was threatening them.
2. The police sought this character under the rubric "Leather Apron."
3. They seem to have conflated this character with Pizer.
4. Kaminski (Cohen) was the real Leather Apron and Jack.
5. Kaminski had contracted syphilis and was likely a former patron of said Ladies.
6. Ironically, the Ladies were right all along and had it solved BEFORE the police had hardly started.
7. Kate Eddowes, shortly after her arrival back from Kent proclaimed, "I'm here to get my reward money. I think I know who he (Jack) is."
8. Kate is shortly thereafter killed and mutilated--the first canonical to suffer facial mutilations.
Question: was Kate blackmailing Nathan? Could this account for the added vehemence? If so, why was she not more careful on the night of the "double event"?
LC
Comment