Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A little help with nothing, please

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A little help with nothing, please

    In full acknowledgement of the fact that I have not immersed myself in this case for the past three decades, I'm wondering whether anyone can convincingly knock any of the below 'facts' off their perch?

    I'm not a vast believer in coincidence when it comes to crime, is why. And I think there's a few circumstances surrounding Eddowes' murder that might point to her being followed from the jail. I'm happy to be wrong, and argued with (in a civil fashion!), in fact that's what I'm after. Have at it.

    - 8.45 pm An apparently surly Eddowes gives her name at the lockup as "nothing"

    - 1.30 am, James Blenkinsop's "respectably dressed man" asked about a couple passing through, which the watchman did in fact see.

    - 1.30, PC Watkins trudges around the square, sees nothing untoward.

    - 1.34 (oddly precise..) Lawende & co (jews) coming out of the nearby club, see a man with a woman resembling Eddowes.

    - 1. 44 Eddowes' body is discovered.

    - 2.55 Goulston St graffito discovered, plus apron piece. Reference to "jews" and also "nothing".

    Is it all coincidence?? Or could the killer, perhaps a "respectably dressed man", have somehow heard Eddowes calling herself "nothing" at the jailhouse, and followed her on her release? Was the graffito a bit of black humour, on the killer's part?

    Could the well dressed man be part of a killer team who lost sight of his killing partner and their prey for a moment? Or was he a civilian vigilante of some sort?

    Or do you think it's all by chance?

    Just a passing idea, Probably 'nothing'. But worth looking at, if only to clear it off my list.

  • #2
    I'm not sure that Kate was surly was opposed to just P!55ed and maybe thinking she was a comedian.
    G U T

    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

    Comment


    • #3
      All up I have read the suggestion before that there was a connection between her "nothing" and the "nothing" in the GSG.
      G U T

      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

      Comment


      • #4
        Yes, I agree, I don't think Kate was surly just cheerfully hiccuping and not wanting to give a name.

        It is intriguing though, all the same, isn't it, Kate's 'I have come back to earn the reward....I think I know him' (the Ripper.) The trouble is that there's no evidence that she really did.

        Did Blenkingsop possess a watch? Was he able to properly estimate the time? If he was twenty minutes out, the respectably dressed gent may well have been a detective. However, it's odd that Blenkingsop wasn't questioned further.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Rosella View Post
          Yes, I agree, I don't think Kate was surly just cheerfully hiccuping and not wanting to give a name.

          It is intriguing though, all the same, isn't it, Kate's 'I have come back to earn the reward....I think I know him' (the Ripper.) The trouble is that there's no evidence that she really did.

          Did Blenkingsop possess a watch? Was he able to properly estimate the time? If he was twenty minutes out, the respectably dressed gent may well have been a detective. However, it's odd that Blenkingsop wasn't questioned further.
          Or Blenkingsop at some stage questioned and it is yet another record that we don't now have available to us.
          G U T

          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Rosella View Post
            Yes, I agree, I don't think Kate was surly just cheerfully hiccuping and not wanting to give a name.

            It is intriguing though, all the same, isn't it, Kate's 'I have come back to earn the reward....I think I know him' (the Ripper.) The trouble is that there's no evidence that she really did.

            Did Blenkingsop possess a watch? Was he able to properly estimate the time? If he was twenty minutes out, the respectably dressed gent may well have been a detective. However, it's odd that Blenkingsop wasn't questioned further.
            I left the "I think I know him" part out, as it strikes me as probably apocryphal.

            Comment


            • #7
              - 1.34 (oddly precise..) Lawende & co (jews) coming out of the nearby club, see a man with a woman resembling Eddowes.



              I find the way times were estimated very interesting, though in this case I suspect that the Lawende party left at half past one, then made an estimate that they stood at the doorway for more than a minute but less than five. In the absence of personal timepieces, I think people would feel safer maker guesses near to round numbers and regular occurrences, e.g. 'we leave the club at half one'. Of course for Kate Eddowes specifically the timings are very tight and being able to discount or validate one witness or the other could arguably have an important impact on the known events.
              It would be interesting to know how much variability and 'measurement error' occurs in the eyewitness' perceptions of time.

              Comment


              • #8
                Surely, if we go down this road, we need to imagine the murderer on the hunt for Mary Kelly (per Stephen Knight) and, with Eddowes eventually giving her name to the police as "Mary Ann Kelly", the murderer, armed with this inside information, thinks he has his woman, only to later realise his mistake and ensure that the real Mary Kelly is his next victim.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I wouldn't go down that road...and don't call me Shirley

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hakeswill, thanks for your thought on the times. I'd wondered whether they'd glanced at a watch, or estimated by walking speed and distance, and the like.

                    David, I'm not married to this idea, and I felt slightly silly posting it, but all the same, these things bother at me. I don't like coincidences, at least not in murder cases. Not one bit. They hardly ever turn out to actually be coincidences.

                    And I'm not about to go the "Kelly" route, as Kate was living a man named Kelly and 'Mary' was the most common name there was at the time. I'm not that conspiracy-minded. Just a little bit.

                    But there, in black and white, we have the possibility that someone was following Eddowes and her 'date'. Which, if any at all, was the killer, or both, is by necessity sheer guesswork. But still, the question is there. There's no mention by any other person, watchman or policeman, that they'd seen a couple in the area, until Lawende and co., a few minutes before Eddowes' death. There's no mention of any detective having followed a couple into the area.

                    But there again, by what's said in the reports, one might suppose the streets were completely deserted. No mention of how many people might have actually been about, whether there was prostitutes working the area, people strolling about, or on some late-night business, which wasn't unusual. It seems off to me, that this is not mentioned as I'd expect there to be people here and there.

                    If the couple seen passing and the Lawende sighting were the only couples seen in that hour or so, and the streets were otherwise deserted, it'd make some difference to the idea that they possibly were the same couple, and somebody was following them.

                    Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, casebookers. It might just to be one of those things that will never cease to bother me, like so many "little things" in so many unsolveds I look at.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ausgirl View Post

                      - 1.30 am, James Blenkinsop's "respectably dressed man" asked about a couple passing through, which the watchman did in fact see.
                      Several authors have commented that this man who asked about the couple was most probably the killer. The other entrances to Mitre Square were watched by police officers. However - there is no description of this individual and Blenkinsop was not called as a witness at the inquest.

                      There is a pattern, in the investigation, of avoiding the testimony of eye witnesses. Again and again, their words are kept off the record. This does look like a cover up.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I mentioned in another thread the Rose and Crown coffee shop. It was located on Houndsditch and IIRC near a little cross street that headed directly into St James square. I believe the cross street was Little Duke-street if not mistaken.

                        In 1889, after the Cleveland Street scandal erupted, the Rose and Crown was being used by Abberline to sequester witnesses in the CSS case. One such witness for example was a young man named Algernon Allies. He stayed for a time at the Rose and Crown under police protection.

                        Just wondering if this coffee shop was used prior to 1889 by the police as a surveillance spot. Possibly for the Clan-na-gael activity in the area and other relative surveillance needs. From this coffee shop, it would have been a short jaunt into St James passage. It's also along the most sensible route Kate might have taken to the square if she indeed turned down Houndsditch.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TTaylor View Post
                          Again and again, their words are kept off the record.
                          What is "the record" that words are kept off?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            [QUOTE=TTaylor;384007]Several authors have commented that this man who asked about the couple was most probably the killer. The other entrances to Mitre Square were watched by police officers. However - there is no description of this individual and Blenkinsop was not called as a witness at the inquest.

                            There is a pattern, in the investigation, of avoiding the testimony of eye witnesses. Again and again, their words are kept off the record. This does look like a cover up.
                            Hi TTaylor,

                            Which sources do you refer to and which witnesses?

                            Regards, Pierre

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                              What is "the record" that words are kept off?
                              I mean the official legal record - the inquests. Some obvious witnesses were not called, and one eyewitness with a description of the suspect was told not to give evidence on that matter.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X