Kate's "Nothing"

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Caz,

Ok, I found the reference I was looking for with respect to the choice of names used by Kate her last 24 hours. In June of 1887, after having spent 6 years with John Kelly, she checked into the Infirmary for burns as Kate Conway. My point about her reluctance to use her own given name in that 24 hour period, and the fact she uses the additional surname and address info that is so uniquely coincidental, is addressed by the fact she used her own surname and NOT Kellys 15 months earlier....after being with him for 6 years.

There were rewards offered for information about the killer(s) by both private citizens and organizations in place before Sept 30th, the government was the holdout at that time. How much Kate thought she might get and from what sources isnt necessary to merely point out that she told the landlady the story about her plans.

The similarity to Mary Jane Kellys name and address at the time of her death isnt a creation Caz, its right there.....Mary Jane Kelly, _ 6 Dorset Street. As you can see its eerily similar to the next alleged Ripper Victims information.

As far as what we know about Kate and her last 24 hours....well, we know they did have enough money to sleep together Friday night by virtue of the pawned boots money and the 6d John claims he made at market, (double beds were 8d), we know that the boots were indeed pawned on Friday night, not Saturday morning, which makes the story Kelly told about them meeting up, pawning the boots and him telling her to be careful while at the door in bare feet a lie, we know that John said they had a bad time hopping..yet they bought him those boots in Maidenstone and her that black jacket on the way back to town. We hear that Kate was with John each night and that they were asleep before 10 pm most nights, yet we have no idea what Kate did Friday night and she is going in the opposite direction of John and that shared bed at 1am. We know that John Kelly lied about whether he knew where Kate was before Tuesday, yet he didnt come in to identify her until then.

The point of these reminders is that what we know of Kate we hear secondhand, what we know of Kelly suggests that we shouldnt trust much of what he says.

Kate may well have been doing this, attempting to claim the rewards, without John or his co-operation.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

Ann

Hello Mike. Shouldn't that be Mary ANN Kelly?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

In June of 1887, after having spent 6 years with John Kelly, she checked into the Infirmary for burns as Kate Conway.

Hi Mike,

But that's irrelevant and actually makes the point for me. It must have suited her at the time to call herself Conway, after her ex. (Did she not have the initials TC on her arm, which may have explained it?) So whenever she called herself Kelly, it was a nod to her relationship with John Kelly. Nothing more, nothing less.

And you still haven't suggested a motive for cleanly extracting and taking away one of Eddowes's kidneys, if she was murdered as a direct or indirect result of seeking a reward for information, by someone other than the ripper.

Love,

Caz
X

[moonbegger]

Hi Caz,
How much Kate thought she might get and from what sources isnt necessary to merely point out that she told the landlady the story about her plans.
Cheers

Hello Mike , was it not the superintendent at the Casual Ward where Kate stayed shortly before her demise that supposedly claimed to have been told by her "I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him." ?

Is this the same source you are referring ?

moonbegger

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

But that's irrelevant and actually makes the point for me. It must have suited her at the time to call herself Conway, after her ex. (Did she not have the initials TC on her arm, which may have explained it?) So whenever she called herself Kelly, it was a nod to her relationship with John Kelly. Nothing more, nothing less.

And you still haven't suggested a motive for cleanly extracting and taking away one of Eddowes's kidneys, if she was murdered as a direct or indirect result of seeking a reward for information, by someone other than the ripper.

Love,

Caz
X

Im unclear how using Thomas Conways surname and her own given name while she was with John Kelly for over 6 years makes your point.

Clearly, a little over 1 year before she is killed she used a surname of someone she hadnt been with for over 6 years, and didnt use Kellys...which youve suggested would be perfectly natural since they were supposedly a "couple" for years.

Your logic, as always, is a fascination.

Cheers

[caz]

Hi Mike,

I'm only saying her choice of surname on both occasions was not plucked from thin air, but was arguably taken from men in her life, past or present. If she had TC on her arm, for Thomas Conway, that only adds supports to my observation that she liked taking a partner's name. Checking into the infirmary for burns, however, it might have suited her to use the name of her ex, so if they examined her and saw the initial C it would be consistent with her given identity of Conway.

Now then what about that kidney??

Love,

Caz
X

[GUT]

G'day Caz

I'm only saying her choice of surname on both occasions was not plucked from thin air, but was arguably taken from men in her life, past or present.

Can't see how anyone could argue with that piece of logic.

[caz]

Hi GUT,

You don't know Michael "Perry Mason" Richards that well, I take it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

I'm only saying her choice of surname on both occasions was not plucked from thin air, but was arguably taken from men in her life, past or present. If she had TC on her arm, for Thomas Conway, that only adds supports to my observation that she liked taking a partner's name. Checking into the infirmary for burns, however, it might have suited her to use the name of her ex, so if they examined her and saw the initial C it would be consistent with her given identity of Conway.

Now then what about that kidney??

Love,

Caz
X

I mentioned at the start of this that I was puzzled why she wouldnt use her own given name, as she obviously did in 1887. You suggested that she would naturally use Johns surname since she was "with" him,... and yet she didnt in 1887, even though she had been with Kelly 6 years. Now you suggest it would be natural for her to use "Conway" because she had a tattoo with that surname initial on her arm. All this instead of simply agreeing that to use Mary Jane Kelly of _6 Dorset Street when the next victim by her supposed killer is Mary Jane Kelly of 26 Dorset Street is a very odd coincidence...if there are such things.

As to the kidney, no-one took one before hers, and 3 doctors suggested that he likely found it by accident and had the skills of a simple butcher, contradicting a single physician who thought that the man was "skilled", as the killer of Annie certainly was. The man who examined Annie, arguably the most skillfully cut up victim, did not see that same hand at work in Kates murder. Isnt that enough reason to look at other possible motives for this murder?

And you make this out as me just being obstinate.....its a matter of fact Caz. Kates cuts were not like Annie Chapmans, and what was taken did not reveal a great deal of knowledge or skill.

Because of the kind of revisionist approach you take when re-defining this 1 killer I can only assume youre willing to accept a man that is skilled, then not so much,.... has specific goals, then doesnt,... and a specific pattern...which might have changed.

Love to see some evidence for that argument.

When we have ample amounts of men willing to kill in that area at that time, why desperately argue for a single killer...particularly when the physical evidence differs. Beyond me.

Cheers

I dont.

[caz]

I mentioned at the start of this that I was puzzled why she wouldnt use her own given name, as she obviously did in 1887. You suggested that she would naturally use Johns surname since she was "with" him,... and yet she didnt in 1887, even though she had been with Kelly 6 years. Now you suggest it would be natural for her to use "Conway" because she had a tattoo with that surname initial on her arm. All this instead of simply agreeing that to use Mary Jane Kelly of _6 Dorset Street when the next victim by her supposed killer is Mary Jane Kelly of 26 Dorset Street is a very odd coincidence...if there are such things.

Hi Mike,

What is your source for Eddowes ever using the name Mary Jane? I thought it was the ubiquitous Mary Ann (same as Polly Nichols in fact), which was pretty much the 1888 London female equivalent of John Doe. So much so, that it has also been used as a slang term for prostitute, and rhyming slang for fanny (front bottom in the UK), as in Mary Ann = fan.

As to the kidney, no-one took one before hers...

You can stop right there. Anyone in 1888 should have recognised a kidney by its distinctive shape (and therefore by feel as well as sight). If the killer cleanly extracted one of Eddowes's kidneys after finding it 'by accident', when do you suppose this was - before or after he removed her uterus by design? If he did so before, he presumably realised his mistake and went back in for the uterus, in which case why take the trouble of secreting the unwanted kidney somewhere on his person and taking it away with him? Afterwards makes no sense if the uterus was all he wanted (eg to mimic the Hanbury St murder).

Bearing this in mind, when did those three doctors suggest the kidney was found 'by accident'? Was this in the wake of Chapman, and based on her killer's apparent focus on the uterus? Were they of the same opinion after MJK's murder? Did they suggest all her organs, apart from the uterus, were probably found 'by accident' and placed round the body (or disposed of elsewhere in the case of the heart)? I strongly suggest the answer is no, and those doctors would have modified their earlier opinions accordingly, assuming they had more than two brain cells between them.

On the other hand, a serial killer would not give two hoots about sticking to a rule that says "thou shalt not have a kidney (or nick eyelids, or have a go at noses) if thou hast only taken a uterus previously".

So if the only explanation you can give me, after about the fourth time of asking, is that the kidney removal under pressure of time was by accident, I suggest you go away and find a better one.

When we have ample amounts of men willing to kill in that area at that time, why desperately argue for a single killer...particularly when the physical evidence differs. Beyond me.

When you can produce 'ample amounts' of men who proved themselves willing to murder and mutilate adult women in that area at that time, I will happily reconsider all the options. Until then, it remains beyond me why you want them to exist, but I will continue to highlight any holes I see in the 'evidence' you provide for it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=caz;290663]Hi Mike,

What is your source for Eddowes ever using the name Mary Jane? I thought it was the ubiquitous Mary Ann (same as Polly Nichols in fact), which was pretty much the 1888 London female equivalent of John Doe. So much so, that it has also been used as a slang term for prostitute, and rhyming slang for fanny (front bottom in the UK), as in Mary Ann = fan.


My "source" is the same as yours, and I was referring to, as I have been at all times clearly, the cumulative alias information she gave in 2 seperate incidents within her last 24 hours.

You can stop right there. Anyone in 1888 should have recognised a kidney by its distinctive shape (and therefore by feel as well as sight). If the killer cleanly extracted one of Eddowes's kidneys after finding it 'by accident', when do you suppose this was - before or after he removed her uterus by design? If he did so before, he presumably realised his mistake and went back in for the uterus, in which case why take the trouble of secreting the unwanted kidney somewhere on his person and taking it away with him? Afterwards makes no sense if the uterus was all he wanted (eg to mimic the Hanbury St murder).

Anyone would recognize a human kidney while its still inside someone? Hmm...membrane. Only 1 physician thought it was cleanly removed, 3 were fairly sure that it was not targetted. The uterus wasnt removed "expertly" as Chapmans was, not even completely.

Bearing this in mind, when did those three doctors suggest the kidney was found 'by accident'? Was this in the wake of Chapman, and based on her killer's apparent focus on the uterus? Were they of the same opinion after MJK's murder? Did they suggest all her organs, apart from the uterus, were probably found 'by accident' and placed round the body (or disposed of elsewhere in the case of the heart)? I strongly suggest the answer is no, and those doctors would have modified their earlier opinions accordingly, assuming they had more than two brain cells between them.

I cant answer for them Caz, they made their statements regarding Kate and I suppose you'll just have to find a way to explain those opinions away. As for MJK, there is zero evidence left in the devastation that was Marys corpse that her killer had 1 iota of knowledge about anatomy.

So if the only explanation you can give me, after about the fourth time of asking, is that the kidney removal under pressure of time was by accident, I suggest you go away and find a better one.

Again....3 contemporary doctors disagree with your argument, the fact that I also do is just ancillary data.

When you can produce 'ample amounts' of men who proved themselves willing to murder and mutilate adult women in that area at that time, I will happily reconsider all the options. Until then, it remains beyond me why you want them to exist, but I will continue to highlight any holes I see in the 'evidence' you provide for it.


If your suggesting that the East end didnt have a large number of men willing to kill or cut with knives at the time of the "serial killer" you like to fancy as existing, then we dont need to discuss it...you need to read...the Old Bailey transcripts for one, and anything that mentions the many "suspects" we know of that did engage in violence.

You simply argue with the known data...so dont try to make me the author of some new revelations.

Cheers Caz,

Mike

[caz]

My "source" is the same as yours, and I was referring to, as I have been at all times clearly, the cumulative alias information she gave in 2 seperate incidents within her last 24 hours.

Hi Mike,

So you can't or won't tell me your source for Eddowes calling herself Mary 'Jane'? Fair enough. Even Lynn asked if you meant Mary ANN and you ignored him, so I've got no chance of a straight answer.

Anyone would recognize a human kidney while its still inside someone?

I didn't say while it's still inside. You quote me but you don't read. Nor do you answer my questions. Clearly, if he is meant to have taken it out in mistake for the uterus, he only recognised it when he had it in his hand and must have gone back in for the uterus. The time factor might then explain a somewhat bodged removal, but for the second time of asking: why take the extra time, trouble and risk to secrete the unwanted kidney on his person and take it away with him?

I cant answer for them Caz, they made their statements regarding Kate and I suppose you'll just have to find a way to explain those opinions away.

So you can't or won't say if their opinions stayed the same after MJK's murder? Fine, but don't you see it would make all the difference in the world if they went on to concede their own mistake, for having believed the killer's sole interest was in the wombs of his victims? It would have been a learning curve for them, as long as murders of a similar nature kept happening in this tiny area of the capital.

Again....3 contemporary doctors disagree with your argument, the fact that I also do is just ancillary data.

I can't believe you really are that thick, so you must think I am. You cannot use the present tense 'disagree' unless you can show that their contemporary opinion that the kidney was removed 'by accident' never budged in light of subsequent events or thinking. The irony is that if it was just a temporary assumption, based on the supposed motive behind Chapman's murder, you obviously disagree with their opinion that it was the same killer - one who was actively seeking uteri but found a kidney 'by accident' in Mitre Square. I can't see how the medical evidence itself can indicate that the kidney was found and extracted unintentionally (intention being bound up with motive), but we know that some believed for a short while in a womb harvester at large.

If your suggesting that the East end didnt have a large number of men willing to kill or cut with knives at the time of the "serial killer" you like to fancy as existing, then we dont need to discuss it...you need to read...the Old Bailey transcripts for one, and anything that mentions the many "suspects" we know of that did engage in violence.

Violence (with or without a knife) did/does not typically involve males preying on penniless, unaccompanied women in a very limited area and time frame, stabbing a victim 39 times, targeting their genitals, rummaging about in their innards, ripping out their bits and pieces, or otherwise mutilating their freshly murdered corpses - each within a hair's breadth of discovery. You are the one attempting to lump cases like this in with crimes of a completely different and far more commonplace nature, as taken from the Old Bailey transcripts.

The funniest thing is your insistence that it is beyond coincidence for a penniless Spitalfields woman with a boyfriend called Kelly to have used his surname, given a Dorset St address and changed her given name to make her even more anonymous, but you don't see that several nocturnal mutilation murderers, all becoming active in the same place for a very short time, might be a coincidence too far.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Caz: So you can't or won't tell me your source for Eddowes calling herself Mary 'Jane'? Fair enough. Even Lynn asked if you meant Mary ANN and you ignored him, so I've got no chance of a straight answer.

I already answered you...check back, the names I gave of Mary Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street are within the aliases of both the ticket and the arrest. I didnt say she said she was Mary Jane, so why keep asking me?

Caz: I didn't say while it's still inside. You quote me but you don't read. Nor do you answer my questions. Clearly, if he is meant to have taken it out in mistake for the uterus, he only recognised it when he had it in his hand and must have gone back in for the uterus. The time factor might then explain a somewhat bodged removal, but for the second time of asking: why take the extra time, trouble and risk to secrete the unwanted kidney on his person and take it away with him?

Since he takes 3/4 of a uterus with him, why would he mistake a kidney for one? And who said Kates killer targetted any organ for that matter? The men who saw Annies wounds did think that of her murderer however.

Caz: So you can't or won't say if their opinions stayed the same after MJK's murder? Fine, but don't you see it would make all the difference in the world if they went on to concede their own mistake, for having believed the killer's sole interest was in the wombs of his victims? It would have been a learning curve for them, as long as murders of a similar nature kept happening in this tiny area of the capital.

Im not very fond, as you should know by now, of changing ones opinion of whom killed who based upon subsequent murders that may in fact have nothing to do with the same killer. Unless I see a link of some sort I think thats detrimental to problem solving...you wouldnt just credit an artist for an unsigned work unless you can find his or her unique character in it. I dont believe any killer showed a desire to obtain a uterus other than Annies, it was taken complete and determined to be the ultimate objective of the whole exercise. Liz lost nothing, Kate lost a partial uterus and a kidney, and Mary lost her heart, resting her head on her intact uterus. Annies murder is almost identical to the murder of Polly, with the PM details suggesting some abdominal intent there as well.

Caz: I can't believe you really are that thick, so you must think I am. You cannot use the present tense 'disagree' unless you can show that their contemporary opinion that the kidney was removed 'by accident' never budged in light of subsequent events or thinking. The irony is that if it was just a temporary assumption, based on the supposed motive behind Chapman's murder, you obviously disagree with their opinion that it was the same killer - one who was actively seeking uteri but found a kidney 'by accident' in Mitre Square. I can't see how the medical evidence itself can indicate that the kidney was found and extracted unintentionally (intention being bound up with motive), but we know that some believed for a short while in a womb harvester at large.

The perceptions of what the killer sought from Annie never changed by the individuals who provided them. They didnt vacillate back and forth regarding talent and skills. They didnt suggest that a serial mutilator sometimes doesnt mutilate...as you do with Liz...they didnt modify their opinion to suggest that the killer in Hanbury may also have wanted a kidney, because Kates killer did....and they didnt suggest that Kate or Mary, the other mutilated victims were killed for their uterus....as we can plainly see, they werent.

Caz: Violence (with or without a knife) did/does not typically involve males preying on penniless, unaccompanied women in a very limited area and time frame, stabbing a victim 39 times, targeting their genitals, rummaging about in their innards, ripping out their bits and pieces, or otherwise mutilating their freshly murdered corpses - each within a hair's breadth of discovery. You are the one attempting to lump cases like this in with crimes of a completely different and far more commonplace nature, as taken from the Old Bailey transcripts.

Your arguments make me smile....like were not comparing apples with apples unless we can find other men who did all the things you list above. Men, and women, with knives, cutting and stabbing and killing other men and women was indeed common during those years, and cutting up a dead body indiscriminately like Marys was doesnt take a specialized monster like you describe...it just takes someone sick. Why the women were killed will get you you answers, and although you have decided why at least the Canonical Group and by the above I suppose Martha Tabram too was killed, to satisfy a madmans desires, that isnt clear in the evidence with 3 of the Canonical Five. Kate being the middle one.

Caz: The funniest thing is your insistence that it is beyond coincidence for a penniless Spitalfields woman with a boyfriend called Kelly to have used his surname, given a Dorset St address and changed her given name to make her even more anonymous, but you don't see that several nocturnal mutilation murderers, all becoming active in the same place for a very short time, might be a coincidence too far.

When I pointed out to you from the historical records that your argument is dashed by Kates use of "Conway" as a surname and her own given name as an alias at the infirmary a year before she dies, I assumed you would have to acquiesce with your idea that she would naturally use Kellys surname because she was with him. Well, she wasnt with Conway for over 6 years and she was with Kelly when she did what she did, so the argument seems defeated to me.

But Im not married to an outcome of these investigations already, so I can just follow the evidence..I dont have to create any fluctuating monster tendencies or pretend that only serial mutilators cut bodies up....I see evidence year to year that isnt the case anyway. How often does a simple modern murder end up with a body cut into parts to dispose of? That not being a goal of the murderer at the outset of course..they just reacted to their new found situation with self preservation in mind.

Stop pretending you already know why the five women were killed and you can hope to find some answers, or six is it?... because the only clear motive for any of those murders was exhibited in the backyard at Hanbury by Annies killer. We dont know why Polly was killed...you guess because she was a prostitute out alone and fell victim to a man who desired to kill. Sounds reasonable. Same goes or the second murder, although just as clearly, that killer sought specific PM activity.

You dont know why Liz Stride was killed but you can see it wasnt for mutilating afterward, you dont know why Kate was killed and there is no proof that Kate or Liz were soliciting or were in a habit of soliciting within 3-6 months of their murder at least...and you dont know why Mary was murdered, but youre guess is that the same man started visiting women in their homes so he could slice them to bits. Without any obvious goal other than that.

Motives Caz, you cant dismiss what you do know and create what you dont to custom design a killer as your answer to who killed who..the evidence and the motives will tell all eventually.

We know who was soliciting for certain...just Polly and Annie, therefore being Unfortunate doesnt denote candidacy for this killer, and we know who was killed by someone wanting a uterus, Annie. Therein is your truth as it lays today. The rest are up for grabs.

Cheers

[caz]

I already answered you...check back, the names I gave of Mary Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street are within the aliases of both the ticket and the arrest. I didnt say she said she was Mary Jane, so why keep asking me?

Sorry Mike, I didn't understand what you meant. You appeared to imply that she had used the alias Mary Jane Kelly. If the reality is that she called herself Mary Ann [Kelly] on one occasion and used the name Jane [Kelly] for a pawn ticket, there really is no significance in that, since we can disregard Kelly as her other half's surname, and the names Mary Ann and Jane could hardly have been more common. She had probably alternated between the two on numerous previous occasions. I'm only surprised you've made nothing of the concidence that Liz Long was a witness in the Chapman case and Long Liz was the next victim. Eddowes evidently never gave a thought to Mary Ann [Nichols] when using those names herself.

Since he takes 3/4 of a uterus with him, why would he mistake a kidney for one? And who said Kates killer targetted any organ for that matter? The men who saw Annies wounds did think that of her murderer however.

You were the one arguing that 3 doctors couldn't be wrong in thinking the killer found Eddowes's kidney 'by mistake'. I think it's nuts, and can only relate back to the early theory that the killer wanted wombs.

...you wouldnt just credit an artist for an unsigned work unless you can find his or her unique character in it.

I wouldn't go down that road if I were you.

I dont believe any killer showed a desire to obtain a uterus other than Annies, it was taken complete and determined to be the ultimate objective of the whole exercise.

How on earth could such a motive have been 'determined' without asking the killer himself - after giving him a truth drug presumably? You mean it was one theory, among many, at a time when nobody really knew what theythey were dealing with. The odd few subscribed to it and it lasted for all of five minutes - rightly so, considering how implausible it is, and was, even in 1888.

The perceptions of what the killer sought from Annie never changed by the individuals who provided them.

Well they knew what the killer took, so it wasn't unreasonable to speculate that he wanted to take it. But that's a million miles away from the original theory that the Whitechapel Murderer sought specimens of uteri from the murdered corpses of menopausal or post-menopausal prostitutes. When was the latest recorded instance you have seen of anopinion such as this, and who gave it?

They didnt suggest that a serial mutilator sometimes doesnt mutilate...as you do with Liz...

They didn't? So nobody back then thought Stride was murdered by the same man who did for the others? You surprise me.

....and they didnt suggest that Kate or Mary, the other mutilated victims were killed for their uterus....as we can plainly see, they werent.

And your point is? The fact that Kelly's uterus - and kidneys - were left at the scene only served to undermine previous theories about what the killer wanted from these women. And it would have taken a rotten mimic to leave these organs at the scene, knowing they had been taken away in previous murders.

When I pointed out to you from the historical records that your argument is dashed by Kates use of "Conway" as a surname and her own given name as an alias at the infirmary a year before she dies, I assumed you would have to acquiesce with your idea that she would naturally use Kellys surname because she was with him. Well, she wasnt with Conway for over 6 years and she was with Kelly when she did what she did, so the argument seems defeated to me.

I already gave you an explanation for her use of Conway on that particular occasion (TC remember?). In fact I explained it twice. Take it or leave it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Oh very clever, Mike. I see you managed to distract me from my main kidney question - which you STILL have not addressed.

If Eddowes's killer wanted to mimic Chapman's, but bodged it when he accidentally found a kidney and extracted it, then failed to take out her womb intact, why did he fanny about at the scene wrapping or pocketing the unwanted kidney and taking it away with him ?

If Eddowes's killer found her kidney by accident, yet took it away with him for no apparent reason, why can't Chapman's killer have found her uterus by accident, and taken that away for no apparent reason? How are you differentiating between the motives for wanting these organs?

The kidney take-away makes no sense in terms of a different killer, whose motive was supposedly bound up with rewards, blackmail, incriminating information, the Fenians and God knows what other fantastic ideas.

It makes perfect sense, however, in terms of a non-robotic repeat offender, with an irresistible urge to take his knife to the next available woman and go with it where the mood takes him. The sooner it is after the pubs have shut, the more his knife skills are likely to be affected one way or the other by the alcohol in his system, assuming he isn't a total abstainer.

Love,

Caz
X