Kate's "Nothing"

[Hunter]

...Or being pissed on and told its raining.

[Michael W Richards]

Well the most obvious answer to this thread question is that Kate was so drunk that she wasnt able to come up with a fake name quick enough when being booked.....she provided the fake name after sleeping it off for a few hours.

Why a fake name anyway? Why a fake name for the pawn ticket? Why different fake names and addresses?

There is so much evidence with respect to Kate that is odd....John Kelly provides questionable accounts of where Kate spent Friday night, and we know that the pawn ticket wasnt dated for Saturday..it was Friday,...the story about the pawning and parting Saturday morning is a lie, and we have no idea what she was up to all day Saturday....only that we are told that she didnt have enough money to get plastered by 8pm. All the while any official document that she provides information for in those last 24 hours claims she was someone who she was not.

Anyone claiming some actual clarity in this case is mistaken....this is one of the most opaque cases in the lot.

But the "nothing" is just another in a succession of aliases.

Cheers

[Cogidubnus]

Why fake names...

Michael oh Michael...

Christ how to sensibly answer this? Giving a false name (especially to anybody in authority) was second nature to a certain class of resident - they all did it - read Child of the Jago... (a thinly disguised account of life in the Old Nichol)...

In my own family my great great grandfather was a Whitechapel-based McCarthy...on certain census entries he's down as Carty...on his wedding certificate he's down as Carthy...in one particular census he's not down at all...a total bloody fly by night, as my maternal uncle recently described him...he allegedly died in 1894...I'm not so sure personally, but that's what the workhouse records say...

Get real...in the sixties I occasionally visited Wapping with my mother to visit her aunt...she was in her eighties at the time and still giving the police, whenever stopped for drunkeness, (almost weekly I'd guess), false names and addresses just for the hell of it...the old timers genuinely hated the police just on principle...at the time the coppers wouldn't cross over the bridge unless in fours on foot (twos in pandas)...

All the best

Dave

[GUT]

G'day Dave

Christ how to sensibly answer this? Giving a false name (especially to anybody in authority) was second nature to a certain class of resident - they all did it - read Child of the Jago... (a thinly disguised account of life in the Old Nichol)...

I agree totally about the use of false names.

In my own family my great great grandfather was a Whitechapel-based McCarthy...on certain census entries he's down as Carty...on his wedding certificate he's down as Carthy...in one particular census he's not down at all...a total bloody fly by night, as my maternal uncle recently described him...he allegedly died in 1894...I'm not so sure personally, but that's what the workhouse records say...

I think that this is a different issue and largely governed by literacy and the need for the person being told a name to then write "what they heard". I have seen some truly amazing interpretations of fairly basic names in Census records and electoral rolls. The other thing is that often we are looking at a "typescript" that has required a third [or fourth or more] person to interpret someone's hand writing.

Indeed the giving of false names still happens to this day.

The difference is that today we have so many forms of ID and technology that it is rare to get away with it.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi G.U.T

I think that this is a different issue and largely governed by literacy and the need for the person being told a name to then write "what they heard". I have seen some truly amazing interpretations of fairly basic names in Census records and electoral rolls. The other thing is that often we are looking at a "typescript" that has required a third [or fourth or more] person to interpret someone's hand writing.

I'm pretty certain this one was literate enough to sign his name properly...the signature on his wedding certificate purports to being his own anyway, as incidentally does his wife's - and family accounts I've heard point to him being as straight as a corkscrew...it was something of a family trait...his father used to do the same!

Anyway, back tio the thread...

All the best

Dave

[GUT]

Thanks Dave, I find these name changes interesting.

[Michael W Richards]

To Dave,

Its not just the use of an alias or two that makes this particular case odd to me Dave, in fact I often question the census data efficacy because many people and most people within the East End at this time had no way of formally verifying who they were named at birth. Often people near to the person in question would be called upon to "verify" that data. No Birth Certificates, Social Security cards, drivers licenses, ...for many it was Baptismal Certificates or Letters of Authenticity, something of that effect But most had nothing.

In Kates case however, she doesnt use her given name in either of the aliases. She uses Kelly in both, and we are told they lived like "man and wife", but when you look at her choices of names in that last 24 hours, you get Jane Kelly-Mary Ann Kelly, of 6 Dorset Street, and 6 Fashion Street.

Considering that the next victim in a unique "series" of murders that Kate is supposedly part of is named Mary Jane Kelly, of 26 Dorset Street, I find the coincidence quite intriguing. When coupled with the notion that none of these women knew each other of course.

Cheers

[caz]

Hi Michael,

Does this mean you think the same man killed Eddowes and MJK, mistaking Eddowes for MJK? Or that the murders were unconnected, but Eddowes happened to know MJK and used elements of her name and address for herself?

Surely it was merely a case of Eddowes naturally using her boyfriend's surname, which happened to be an extremely common one - Kelly.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

Does this mean you think the same man killed Eddowes and MJK, mistaking Eddowes for MJK? Or that the murders were unconnected, but Eddowes happened to know MJK and used elements of her name and address for herself?

Surely it was merely a case of Eddowes naturally using her boyfriend's surname, which happened to be an extremely common one - Kelly.

Love,

Caz
X

No need for fake given names if she was assuming Johns surname though Caz. And there is no record that she had ever referred to herself as Kate Kelly...as she did with Conway.

As to the first question....I think its possible that Mary Kelly was targetted long before she was killed, the killer or killers may have waited until Barnett suddenly was out of the picture. It also may be possible that Kate knew Mary....and that some of what she claimed to be planning to tell the police to get a reward may have involved Mary Jane.

What I do think is likely is that her drinking sponsors that Saturday afternoon were plying Kate for information....maybe they discovered something damaging enough to shut her up permanently. Who knows what she might have called herself with those people.

There may have been people in the East End very afraid of what was being revealed at the Parnell Commission, for one, or it may be something she had knowledge of due to her associations with Irish factions locally since being with Conway, I believe he was a member of the Irish Guard or Army.

I dont have the answers...otherwise why debate at all ...but I do know that the murderer of Kate did not reveal the same skill and knowledge by the killer that the earlier mutilation victims did. Doesnt mean they were not the same man for certain, just means there are fundamental differences.

Thats why I look for other answers.


Cheers

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Mike

Its not just the use of an alias or two that makes this particular case odd to me Dave, in fact I often question the census data efficacy because many people and most people within the East End at this time had no way of formally verifying who they were named at birth. Often people near to the person in question would be called upon to "verify" that data. No Birth Certificates, Social Security cards, drivers licenses, ...for many it was Baptismal Certificates or Letters of Authenticity, something of that effect But most had nothing.

Look it's plain and simple...they knew their own name for christs sake...and they lied...they knew their addresses and they lied...it was second nature to lie to the cops...If truth be told I have reservations about nearly all the witness statements because a certain class of witness, (my own ancestors proudly among them), nearly always lied.

In Kates case however, she doesnt use her given name in either of the aliases. She uses Kelly in both, and we are told they lived like "man and wife", but when you look at her choices of names in that last 24 hours, you get Jane Kelly-Mary Ann Kelly, of 6 Dorset Street, and 6 Fashion Street.

She fairly consistently uses the surname of the guy she's been living with, (Kelly), accompanied by false addresses in streets she's lived in...she lied...with some consistency...

Considering that the next victim in a unique "series" of murders that Kate is supposedly part of is named Mary Jane Kelly, of 26 Dorset Street, I find the coincidence quite intriguing. When coupled with the notion that none of these women knew each other of course.

She's living with Kelly and she's previously lodged in Dorset Street...it's really that unusual an alias?

Like I said before, my great aunt, living in the area, right into the 1960s habitually instinctively lied to the police about her name and address...she genuinely hated the police, (even more than she hated the council and the Luftwaffe), and revelled in the fact that they only dared visit the place in multiples...it was natural for eastenders of a certain generation to lie to the coppers...

All the best

Dave

[caz]

No need for fake given names...

What has 'need' got to with it, Mike? If Eddowes was the only woman in the East End at the time known to have used an alias on occasion, you might - just might - have hit upon something. As it is, it can tell us absolutely nothing.

It also may be possible that Kate knew Mary....and that some of what she claimed to be planning to tell the police to get a reward may have involved Mary Jane.

But there is no good evidence for this alleged claim, reported with hindsight, nor for Eddowes to have imagined a reward was on offer when she returned from the hopping.

What I do think is likely is that her drinking sponsors that Saturday afternoon were plying Kate for information....maybe they discovered something damaging enough to shut her up permanently. Who knows what she might have called herself with those people.

And what I think is that your imagination keeps running away with you. Whoever killed Eddowes may not have displayed as much skill and knowledge as was shown with Chapman (although we had an experienced surgeon here last year who would beg to differ, strongly). But that doesn't mean he couldn't have possessed the same skill and knowledge, but was perhaps less sober on this occasion with the pubs not so long closed, or had less time, or was just more impatient. Having said all that, he did manage to whip out a kidney cleanly, using a technique he could have picked up from the dissecting room. Kidneys were hardly ever removed from live patients back then, if at all, so he wouldn't have known to go in from the back to retrieve this particular organ.

So - a question I've asked before - why fanny about retrieving a kidney from the front (showing both skill and knowledge according to our surgeon friend) if this murder was in any way connected with rewards, information or the Irish situation? Shutting up someone permanently only required the fatal throat wound, and possibly a quick abdominal slash or two if he needed to make it look like the previous murders.

The differences between the murders of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly are certainly no more 'fundamental' than the differences between the murders of Ted Bundy, the Yorkshire Ripper, Fred West, Robert Napper, the Gay Slayer, the Ipswich Strangler.... how many more examples do you need before you stop looking for 'other' answers in the most fanciful places?

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Caz,

Not to specifically deal with every challenge in that post, Ill briefly touch upon what I feel addresses your line of questioning;

We do not know where Kate was Friday night, and we do know that the boots were not pawned Saturday morning. Therefore its possible she didnt even see John that last day, and that John lied at the Inquest.

We do not know the exact status of her relationship with John at the time of her death, making the idea of her use of his surname worth considering.

We do not know how Kate paid for alcohol Saturday afternoon, enough to become very drunk before 8pm.

We have a witness who claims that Kate told her that she was going to collect the reward offered for the killer.

Kates alias choices her last 24 hours, as noted, do contain the anagram of the full name and partial address of the very next victim in the series of murders that Kate is supposed to be a part of. No-one could dispute the coincidence, many dismiss it as simply that.

The man that killed Kate did not, as you noted, show the same skill and knowledge that the previous victims wounds revealed, and Kates mutilations included, for the first time, totally superfluous wounds to the face. Specifically the nose...which can be commonly referred to when one becomes involved in something which is none of their business.

A scenario could be envisioned based on the above that Kate had sought out the people she was intending to turn in to perhaps negotiate a larger reward for her silence, they got her drunk to find out how much she knew, and made arrangements with her to meet someone outside Mitre Square at midnight. Perhaps these parties knew of her incarceration, and the "catch and release" policy of the City Police, and waited for her. Perhaps the information came from the police.

Under those circumstances it would be conceivable to suggest that Kate had provided a similar variation of her name to these parties, and when she was killed they thought they were killing a Mary or Jane Kelly.

The link between the women and Kate and the parties concerned would be an Irish background and circle of acquaintances.

What you fail to consider when I offer these ideas is that they are like a thread that connects known and accepted evidence. I dont try to make a ripper into a single throat slicer, I accept that the differences with Polly Annie and Liz are obvious, and likely significant. Im not trying to explain why there are physical evidence differences in the murders of Polly and Annie with Kates, I accept that there are.

You dont need a fiendish killer mutilator of strangers to explain everything away here, you need to look at individual cases and determine in what key respects they are similar.

When an unknown killer does despicable acts publicly and the acts are publicized to the hilt in detail, its not hard to imagine someone during that 2 1/2 months that found themselves forced to kill for reasons other than sheer madness mimicking the acts to disguise their own motives.

The thing is, Mimics are just a cheap imitation of the authentic original, and as such discernible in the details. The man that killed Polly and Annie was original, and someone with uncontrolled impulses that went beyond just taking life. He cut carefully on Annie....which successive victim can we say that about?

Ok...not brief...but there you are.

Cheers

[Penhalion]

Just a quick question/thought: If it was the people who Kate was attempting to blackmail into paying her for her silence who paid for the drinks which caused her inebriated state on Saturday night, why bother waiting for the police to catch and release her? Why not just take her off after getting her blind drunk and kill her quietly? One of the attention grabbing aspects of this murder is the closeness between her release and her death. Surely it would have been more effective for her to simply turn up dead after a night of drinking with persons unknown than to turn up dead shortly after being released from police custody. Why risk that before she was released that she would tell someone what she knew?

[Michael W Richards]

Just a quick question/thought: If it was the people who Kate was attempting to blackmail into paying her for her silence who paid for the drinks which caused her inebriated state on Saturday night, why bother waiting for the police to catch and release her? Why not just take her off after getting her blind drunk and kill her quietly? One of the attention grabbing aspects of this murder is the closeness between her release and her death. Surely it would have been more effective for her to simply turn up dead after a night of drinking with persons unknown than to turn up dead shortly after being released from police custody. Why risk that before she was released that she would tell someone what she knew?

Fair questions. I would cite the fact that she is so inebriated and apparently causing a disturbance after those drinks that it may not have been advisable to take care of her while she is attracting attention. Also that a policeman came to address her behavior, and took her away.

I dont see it as impossible that Kate was either letting the people who bought her drinks know what she intended to do and they passed that information on to whomever kills her, or that she intended to bargain with that information to see if she could get a better return than the reward money.

Kate left the police station and went in the opposite direction she should have based on all we know about her and John. My contention is that the relationship may not have been as it was portrayed, and Kate may have been thinking about her own future at that point, not theirs.

Cheers

[caz]

We do not know where Kate was Friday night, and we do know that the boots were not pawned Saturday morning. Therefore its possible she didnt even see John that last day, and that John lied at the Inquest.

Sorry, Michael, I don't see the relevance unless you are suggesting John Kelly was involved in her murder somehow.

We do not know the exact status of her relationship with John at the time of her death, making the idea of her use of his surname worth considering.

By using the surname Kelly, she was acknowledging the status of that relationship as far as she understood it. Otherwise she would have called herself anything but.

We have a witness who claims that Kate told her that she was going to collect the reward offered for the killer.

Yes, but what offer of a reward was this, and where would Eddowes have learned of it? What is your source - not for the claim, but for the actual offer?

Kates alias choices her last 24 hours, as noted, do contain the anagram of the full name and partial address of the very next victim in the series of murders that Kate is supposed to be a part of. No-one could dispute the coincidence, many dismiss it as simply that.

You do know what an 'anagram' is, Mike?

And once again the surname coincidence would be the fact that John Kelly's happened to be the same as the one MJK was known by. Such a common one for anyone with Irish connections that yes, of course it can be dismissed as simply coincidental. MJK may even have chosen it for herself because it made her as anonymous as an English Smith or a Welsh Jones. You may as well try and make something of the fact that two victims were called Mary, and a serial killer adopted the surname of another - Chapman.

The man that killed Kate did not, as you noted, show the same skill and knowledge that the previous victims wounds revealed...

Read what I wrote, Mike. I 'noted' that he may not have done, and I actually disputed this was the case, using his efficient kidney removal as evidence. I also gave reasons why the same killer would not necessarily perform to his best abilities each time, or when making individual cuts.

...and Kates mutilations included, for the first time, totally superfluous wounds to the face. Specifically the nose...which can be commonly referred to when one becomes involved in something which is none of their business.

Why focus on the nose? The nicked eyelids were also a first. More specifically, so was the pocketed kidney, yet you still shy away from offering a motive for removing and taking away this organ.

You dont need a fiendish killer mutilator of strangers to explain everything away here, you need to look at individual cases and determine in what key respects they are similar.

They are similar because of the differences, Mike. I am not the one who needs to explain anything away; it all makes sense to me without wheeling in more and more fiendish mutilators to 'explain' why no two murders are identical.

When an unknown killer does despicable acts publicly and the acts are publicized to the hilt in detail, its not hard to imagine someone during that 2 1/2 months that found themselves forced to kill for reasons other than sheer madness mimicking the acts to disguise their own motives.

Someone suddenly 'forced' to kill women who happened to live in very similar circumstances and to frequent the same few streets? Someone who managed to mimic serial murder, before he could have learned from similar examples? Someone so clued up in fact, that he didn't mimic the previous acts but added new touches and tried different things?

Love,

Caz
X