Kate's choice of "Mary Ann Kelly"

[curious]

or conversely - she may have given the alias to blacken the name of someone else she didnt like, such as a lady well known for drinking, mary kelly. obviously i cannot prove this just food for thought.

besides, i was under the impression her family and friends knew she was in the police station for drinking that night?

It seems to me I've read also that her family knew where she was. How? don't you wonder?

But as long as it's not an official record, it could "never have happened"

I do like your thought of her giving a name of a woman she didn't like. No problem there blackening her name. I like that.

Curious

[curious]

I'll risk going off topic here just to tell you of something that always intrigued me. Frances Coles had been given money to buy a new bonnet not long before she died....ring a bell? Tentative link.

If (and that is a huge if) the focus of Jacks madness was Mary Kelly, then he could well have been looking for her. Kelly herself need never have even spoken to this man, I always think of something Peter Sutcliffe once said in his early interviews. He 'claimed' that his murderous rampage was triggered by a prostitute who had 'cheated' him, there is no doubt that this was all in his own mind, nonetheless, he went on to kill many times because of that imagined slight.

I have never been a fan of conspiracy theories, I have always believed that Jack was insane. If the killer was searching for Mary Kelly, or even if he was just using her image as a focus for his rage, then it was because he was mad, and not because she was at the center of any plots.

great, I'll check out Frances Coles.

So, if a madman is looking for a Mary Kelly -- how did he learn that Eddowes had used that name at the jail?

How does that tie in?

curious

[DVV]

great, I'll check out Frances Coles.

So, if a madman is looking for a Mary Kelly -- how did he learn that Eddowes had used that name at the jail?

How does that tie in?

curious

Hi Curious,

the killer wouldn't have been searching Mary physically. But she could be, as said, both the trigger and the conclusion of the crimes.
I think Coles and McKenzie, on balance, aren't Jack's victims.

And if they were, anyway, it's not the same Ripper... It's a debilitated one, somehow demotivated...

Just compare with Kemper. He killed another woman after his mother, but it wasn't the same thing as well...
He then called the police. He had already reached the term of his "emotional rope", as some have put it.

Amitiés,
David

[joelhall]

my honest opinion (one of the rare times ill give it): given her common law husbands surname, kelly, and the fact mary-ann was a common enough first name, i fall into the camp which says it was just the first false name that came into her head, and the coincidence is simply that. everything else is merely food for thought.

who knows how many times eddowes was arrested and gave some name or other so as not to mount up a long record? of course they wouldnt take a mug shot every time someone was arrested for some minor misdemeanor. and after all, one offence for drunk and disorderly is hardly likely to get you transported for life... add that one to 20 odd drunk and disorderly, assault, etc charges, and you could end up in front of the local magistrate very quickly for being a repeat offender.

even today people give lists of false names - just watch one of those police documentaries - whether someone they know or just thought up on the spot, despite the fact the police are bound to check and have a vast data bank. the petty criminal isnt known for his intellect or honesty remember.

if of course she had given the name mary jane kelly, residing in millers court, formerly of limerick, of course then id think there was more to it, as that would decrease the odds of it being a mere coincidence.

but she didnt.

[DVV]

I disagree with you on this 100% You claim that all these people would 'know', and yet they did not even know her real name or where she came from? It seems pretty clear at this late stage that Barnett only knew what Kelly told him, and there is little reason to doubt that what she told him was lies.

You're welcome to disagree,
but that wasn't the point at all.

The point is that if Mary had known one victim, let's say Eddowes, she would have talked of this with her friends.
And we would know, especially because Barnett did evoke her interest in the crimes.

Amitiés,
David

[curious]

You're welcome to disagree,
but that wasn't the point at all.

The point is that if Mary had known one victim, let's say Eddowes, she would have talked of this with her friends.
And we would know, especially because Barnett did evoke her interest in the crimes.

Amitiés,
David

True, but why would Kelly have to know Eddowes?

It was Eddowes who gave the name -- and for perfectly logical reasons it appears to me -- her current significant other and the sheer commonness of the name.

The question that goes round and round is my head is how the name similarities might have influenced the killer. Did it?

curious

[DVV]

The question that goes round and round is my head is how the name similarities might have influenced the killer. Did it?

curious

It shouldn't, Curious!

All these speculations about a possible link, based on the name given by Kate in custody, are well and good.
But far-fetched rather than essential.

And how comes that Eddowes would know Kelly, while Kelly wouldn't know her?
If so (which I don't believe for 1 seconde), I'm afraid the link becomes completely meaningless.

Amitiés,
David


Amitiés,
David

[Supe]

Sox,

Since there was a certain unfriendly edge to your reply to me I will be blunter than normal in answering. I find your argument not so much intuitive as naive. That is, some research into the social history of the era and area might well make your "discovery" less important. I would urge you to steep yourself in that social history, with attention to things like the free and frequent use of aliases, patterns of immigration and the popularity of Christian names. Stop looking at the facts of the Ripper murders solely through a 21st Century prism.

You also raise a point about the seemingly long hiatus between the "double event" and the Miller's Court murder. Any number of reasons for this have been raised, but for what it is worth, I favor the increasing presence of the Vigilance Committee patrols, as explained in "Why No October Surprise?" Ripperologist 96 (October 2008).

Don.

[Sam Flynn]

So, are you saying that because of the sheer lack of facts, no one will ever be able to see the complete picture?

Not quite, Curious... it's perfectly possible to grasp the whole of even an incomplete picture. It's instructive and valuable to flesh out that picture - provided it is done by means of a sober analysis of history, solid logical reasoning, and the unearthing of new facts by research. What isn't helpful is jumping to fanciful conclusions and twisting one's speculations (if not the facts) to justify them.

[perrymason]

Its clear that some of the student ripperologists, not based on anything chronological because it includes me .... seem to feel that the existing "accepted's" including the Canonical Group itself lack substantive support in any known evidence....perhaps as Sam says, this is simply a problem of quantity of information.

I think some of the people who have studied these crimes the longest have allowed to much contemporary and very opinionated information into the mix myself....clearly, they have no idea who the killer was specifically, where he was from, and it stands to reason that any known incarceration of a proven Ripper would have been known as fact by now if it indeed occurred.

The cases are only useful if they are examined as what they actually are, unsolved murders. And that categorically dismisses any known killer, wouldnt you agree?

And when unsolved murders seem to connect by any small piece of evidence perhaps not even related to the killer....like these aliases for example...its worth taking note.

My best regards all

[Sox]

The point is that if Mary had known one victim, let's say Eddowes, she would have talked of this with her friends.
And we would know, especially because Barnett did evoke her interest in the crimes.

"She had on several occasions asked me to read about the murders, she seemed afraid of someone"...Joe Barnett

....you were saying?

[DVV]

Hi Sox,

The sentence is worth quoting in full:
"She had on several occasions asked me to read about the murders she seemed afraid of someone, she did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly."

First, what Barnett meant is very obscure...
Now if the point is about a link between Mary and Kate, Barnett said nothing. The question wasn't even good to ask, it seems.

That's what I am saying, and I have good reasons to say so.

Amitiés,
David

[Sox]

Sox,

Since there was a certain unfriendly edge to your reply to me I will be blunter than normal in answering. I find your argument not so much intuitive as naive. That is, some research into the social history of the era and area might well make your "discovery" less important. I would urge you to steep yourself in that social history, with attention to things like the free and frequent use of aliases, patterns of immigration and the popularity of Christian names. Stop looking at the facts of the Ripper murders solely through a 21st Century prism.

You also raise a point about the seemingly long hiatus between the "double event" and the Miller's Court murder. Any number of reasons for this have been raised, but for what it is worth, I favor the increasing presence of the Vigilance Committee patrols, as explained in "Why No October Surprise?" Ripperologist 96 (October 2008).

Don.

I already know how many 'real' Mary Kellys were living in the area *points to the vast amount of research already done on this* & I am well acquainted with social history, but thanks for the pointer all the same. The unfriendly edge you detected was because it becomes at little tiresome to keep seeing experts, such as your esteemed self, rubbish something that does not fit with your cozy little Ripper world. You say that it is nothing more than coincidence and I say it could be.

And when unsolved murders seem to connect by any small piece of evidence perhaps not even related to the killer....like these aliases for example...its worth taking note.

We rarely agree on things Mike, but on this point we do. In a case with so few established facts, the fact that the killers last two victims both went by the name Mary Kelly is too easily overlooked. Obviously it could be coincidence, and just as easily it could be a direct pointer into the mind of a maniac.

[KatBradshaw]

"She had on several occasions asked me to read about the murders she seemed afraid of someone, she did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly."

I have to say that if I were a prostitute working in an area where prostitutes were being murdered I would be afraid of someone.

[Sox]

Hi Sox,

The sentence is worth quoting in full:
"She had on several occasions asked me to read about the murders she seemed afraid of someone, she did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly."

First, what Barnett meant is very obscure...
Now if the point is about a link between Mary and Kate, Barnett said nothing. The question wasn't even good to ask, it seems.

That's what I am saying, and I have good reasons to say so.

Amitiés,
David

I'm sorry, but there is nothing obscure about.... "She had on several occasions asked me to read about the murders she seemed afraid of someone, she did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly."....let me put that into plainer english for you.

Barnett:''Mary got me to read about the murders a few times, from the papers. I got the feeling that she was scared of someone''

Police Officer: '' Did she say who she was scared of?''

Barnett: ''Nah, she never said who, apart from when we used to row and fight, she told me I scared her when I was in a temper, but it never lasted long''

According to Barnett ( and I admit I'm always more than a little wary of anything he says) Kelly was asking him to read about the killings and, and please note this, she seemed afraid of someone. Not afraid of something but afraid of someone.

Now add to that Catherine Eddowes saying "I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him."

You have Eddowes claiming to know the killer and you have Kelly being afraid of someone in connection with the Whitechapel murders. Both women, at some point, use the same name. Those are, at best, shaky links between Eddowes & Kelly, but they are links.