"I think I know him"

[Joshua Rogan]

New jacket? Don't think I've ever heard of that before. Please fill me in.

curious

Hey Curious,

According to Sugden's Complete History, he mentions the purchase on the way back from their hopping expedition;

"At Maidstone our couple certainly had enough money for Kelly to buy a pair of boots from Mr Arthur Pash in the High Street and for Kate to invest in a jacket from a shop nearby, but by the time they got back to London, on Thursday, 27th September, they were flat broke."

I'm not sure the items were brand new, but more likely simply new to Kelly and Eddowes.
And I'm not sure the mystery of how or where Kelly obtained yet another pair of boots, after subsequently pawning these, was ever solved.

[Joshua Rogan]

Suppose I was a little peeved last post Josh, not good form. I do intend to fade away shortly because Ive determined that this myth is far to ingrained to topple. And because any ideas that are thrown against the wall for discussion are mocked or ridiculed...despite the fact that the posters doing so know very well I am well versed in these cases, as are other Canonical dissenters, and we are not incapable of logical and reasonable ideas.

Kate may well have tried to blackmail someone with more at stake than being tried for some street prostitute murders in the ghetto, and she may well have been mutilated so that the investigation would be pointed away from any real motive and onto an unknown, suspected mad, serial killer. Whom the police knew nothing about. Those are real possibilities, as are others. The only real impossibility is that a killer thought to have medical grade knife and anatomy skills in the beginning of September loses both with a month.

No worries Mike. I can be a trifle abrasive on occasion so apologies for rubbing you up the wrong way. For the record, I don't have any problem with your theory as such, in fact I think it would make a cracking plot for a novel. Where my issue lies is with the claim that the nebulous chain of possibilities involved is somehow more likely than that the killer of two women could kill some more. But hey, this would be a very boring site if everyone saw things the same way, so in the spirit of the season I shall call a truce, and maybe suggest a game of footie in no-mans-land. Play up!

[c.d.]

Hello Sam,

The key word being "opinion" not established fact. And when we don't know how that opinion was arrived at or what factors were considered or not considered should tell us that we should respect that opinion but not take it as the word of God. And as you point out, it was simply one opinion among others.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

That's not the way the wounds were characterized Sam, there was great emphasis on this point with Annie. They sought out medical skilled potential suspects after her murder. They don't do that with Kate, or any other Canonical.

We're talking about the opinions of different doctors and (more to the point, in Annie's case) coroners. It's impossible to make a direct comparison of their opinions, so we must calibrate them by the injuries inflicted. Annie's abdomen was sliced open in three hunks of flesh like the crust of a pie, whilst Eddowes' was cut almost-neatly down the middle. Annie's bladder was cut through in a 33:66% ratio, evidently accidentally, whereas Eddowes' bladder was left entirely intact. Both women sustained damage to their colons, and in Eddowes' case the killer dissected a whole length of colon and extracted it from the body. Eddowes' kidney was removed.

Eddowes self-evidently underwent a "neater", more "thorough" dissection than Annie Chapman, in poorer light and arguably under greater time-pressure. If there was any skill involved at all, the killer did a better job at Mitre Square than he did at Hanbury Street. On balance, precisely the same "anatomical knowledge" was exhibited in both cases, regardless of what Phillips, Baxter or the Lancet's inky-fingered journalist had to say about the earlier murder.

[Michael W Richards]

The good news is that this didn't happen, because he never had those skills to begin with. What was done to Eddowes was every bit as "skillful" as what happened to Chapman, and it's just unfortunate that different doctors were involved at the respective inquests, and different coroners for that matter. We'd have seen a greater consistency of opinion if that had not been the case.

That's not the way the wounds were characterized Sam, there was great emphasis on this point with Annie. They sought out medical skilled potential suspects after her murder. They don't do that with Kate, or any other Canonical.

[DJA]

I have, and - based on an Occam's Razor approach - Goulston Street is in the wrong direction for a killer who lived or had a bolt-hole in Mitre Street.

Well,not if you think about it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bolt-hole

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

[Sam Flynn]

Especially the timing of the GSG and apron. You actually need to think the scenario through

I have, and - based on an Occam's Razor approach - Goulston Street is in the wrong direction for a killer who lived or had a bolt-hole in Mitre Street.

[DJA]

Indeed, I doubt that she was "visiting" anywhere. Or anyone in particular, for that matter.
But not the disposal of the apron in Goulston Street.

Especially the timing of the GSG and apron.

You actually need to think the scenario through

Same goes for the movements and addresses of the CV5 in September and August.

[Sam Flynn]

The only real impossibility is that a killer thought to have medical grade knife and anatomy skills in the beginning of September loses both with a month.

The good news is that this didn't happen, because he never had those skills to begin with. What was done to Eddowes was every bit as "skillful" as what happened to Chapman, and it's just unfortunate that different doctors were involved at the respective inquests, and different coroners for that matter. We'd have seen a greater consistency of opinion if that had not been the case.

[etenguy]

Suppose I was a little peeved last post Josh, not good form. I do intend to fade away shortly because Ive determined that this myth is far to ingrained to topple. And because any ideas that are thrown against the wall for discussion are mocked or ridiculed...despite the fact that the posters doing so know very well I am well versed in these cases, as are other Canonical dissenters, and we are not incapable of logical and reasonable ideas.

Kate may well have tried to blackmail someone with more at stake than being tried for some street prostitute murders in the ghetto, and she may well have been mutilated so that the investigation would be pointed away from any real motive and onto an unknown, suspected mad, serial killer. Whom the police knew nothing about. Those are real possibilities, as are others. The only real impossibility is that a killer thought to have medical grade knife and anatomy skills in the beginning of September loses both with a month.

Nothing at all preposterous about your speculation - a very real possibility. It goes against where my thinking is at the moment - as the canonical 5 (and perhaps others) seem to fit a pattern of escalating extreme mutiliation and if Catherine was not part of that progression the jump is a little drastic.

Ripperologists do not fade away - they cut and run. I hope you do neither.

[Sam Flynn]

Doubt she was visiting Mitre Square.

Indeed, I doubt that she was "visiting" anywhere. Or anyone in particular, for that matter.

If Jack's bolt hole was in Mitre Street,number 6 for example,a lot of the timing makes sense.

But not the disposal of the apron in Goulston Street.

[Pcdunn]

Bingo. Wasn’t she the one who said she was on some famous ship disaster?

That wasn't Kate, it was Liz Stride, I think.

[Harry D]

The notion isn't so preposterous to those of us that read daily papers and see murder victims and crime scenes intentionally muddled with by the culprit to confuse any investigations. .

Go on, then.

Show me a series of murders (with a specific pathology like the Ripper case) where one of them was proven to be a deliberate red herring.

If someone else wanted Kate dead, they would've done it the old-fashioned way. There was absolutely no need to resort to those extreme measures, except in your wild imagination. Perhaps we would see some perfunctory abdominal mutilations if someone really wanted to take precautions, but instead they resorted to the worst excesses of the Whitechapel murders thus far. They also took more internal organs than necessary if they were trying to copy the Ripper. Why finger around in Kate's innards for a kidney of all things, when this wasn't part of the Ripper's previous signature?

The most rational, parsimonious and commonsense explanation for Kate's murder is that she fell afoul of the same monster who was terrorizing the neighbourhood. A killer who was becoming more daring and more violent with each successive victim.

[Jon Guy]

. I do intend to fade away shortly because Ive determined that this myth is far to ingrained to topple.

Don`t fade away, Michael !!!
If you keep nibbling away the tree will fall

[curious]

what kind of killer do you think Eddowes not only believed she knew, but believed had more ready cash than a banker?

William Henry Bury.

This aspect of the murders has intrigued me for years because of the possible family relationship between Eddowes and Bury --One had an Evans mother, the other an Evans grandmother, both were from Wolverhampton and the families seemed to have lived within a block or so of each other as I recall. Of course, Eddowes was so much older that she was gone from home before WHB moved into the area, but her aunt continued to live there.

Plus WHB had married money. He loved to throw it around and I highly suspect that when he was in his cups, he bragged Ellen's worth was much more than it was.

The possibility of a cousin knowing that WHB was a bad'en doesn't seem too far fetched to me . . .

curious