Elizabeth's murder and the double event

[Madam Detective]

Thanks so much! I'll have a look for it.

[MrBarnett]

I'm wondering if it's ever occurred to anyone that Elizabeth Stride's murder may have been a distraction in order to cover for the killing of Catherine Eddowes. If the Ripper was working with one or two accomplices, which can't be ruled out just because the police weren't pursuing that line at the time of the double event, perhaps the plan was to have one of the accomplices commit a murder in one part of Whitechapel, while the Ripper got on with his more 'signature style' killing somewhere else. This would make sense for a number of reasons;
- everyone was now on high alert and looking for a lone killer, thereby making it more difficult to kill. A new strategy had to be invented to keep the police running in rings. (We see him change strategy again with MJK).
- the more I look at the killings, the more I see this as bearing the hallmarks of more than one person. First of all, there seems to be two different skill sets at work; someone who understood anatomy and/or butchery who would have been trained to a high level and therefore quite probably employed or of the middle class, and someone else who knew the back streets and haunts of the poor and homeless like the back of their hand. I don't think these two things are necessarily compatible in the late Victorian era. Basically, this seems like the job of one mastermind and a 'fixer' who set things up for him, who found the women.
-a two or even three handed operation would have meant it was easier to hide evidence, work quickly and get away. This may have been more difficult with one person rather than a team working in tandem.
-Elizabeth Stride's murder seems to bear the hallmarks of someone who had learned the basics of how the Ripper killed, but the act was performed sloppily (like an accomplice). The 'accomplice' may have been the man Schwartz saw.
-Elizabeth Stride's murder just doesn't feel as if it fits - it was done too carelessly and too much in the open. But Catherine Eddowes' death seems more like his work. Perhaps the accomplice had slightly botched the first 'distraction' murder?

Of course, there's one small (actually huge) problem with this idea. Liz was killed in the Met H division and Kate was killed in the City. Two distinct police forces were involved.

[packers stem]

I think if I recall correctly Sam that the City was using a Policy that dictated release of the Drunk and Disorderly as soon as they sobered up, rather than using the Met policy of holding them all night automatically.

You're both assuming she was drunk .
Ever been so drunk you need picking up off the floor and help to walk ?
If so you'll also know that once your head goes down you don't wake up four hours later singing and asking to be free from the dry bed you've found by chance .
They would have been shouting her to wake up in the morning ...
She wasn't drunk
Another point missed by many is that John Kelly told Wilkinson an hour before she was arrested that she already had been ! Clairvoyant ?

[Michael W Richards]

You're both assuming she was drunk .
Ever been so drunk you need picking up off the floor and help to walk ?
If so you'll also know that once your head goes down you don't wake up four hours later singing and asking to be free from the dry bed you've found by chance .
They would have been shouting her to wake up in the morning ...
She wasn't drunk
Another point missed by many is that John Kelly told Wilkinson an hour before she was arrested that she already had been ! Clairvoyant ?

First.....the condition she was in caused her to be arrested. The arresting officer and the one that booked her confirmed her condition.
Second....Wilkinson said " half past 7 OR 8, if it was 8:30, she had been under arrest for a half hour. This does not mean that Kelly didn't lie about what he knew when....its clear he did lie.

[packers stem]

First.....the condition she was in caused her to be arrested. The arresting officer and the one that booked her confirmed her condition.
Second....Wilkinson said " half past 7 OR 8, if it was 8:30, she had been under arrest for a half hour. This does not mean that Kelly didn't lie about what he knew when....its clear he did lie.

This is a woman who was lying on the pavement .
When picked up , she fell down again sideways .

Constable Lewis testimony

Foreman: What guided you in determining whether the woman was drunk or not?
Witness: Her appearance.
The Foreman: I ask you because I know of a case in which a person was arrested for being drunk who had not tasted anything intoxicating for eight or nine hours.
[Coroner] You are quite sure this woman was drunk? - She smelt very strongly of drink.

So basically her appearance and she smelt of drink .
There's a world of difference between smelling of drink and being incapable of standing up .

Secondly

Check out the far more accurate , full account of inquest testimony from the telegraph for the timeline
Wilkinson said ..... I first heard from Kelly on Saturday night that Kate was locked up, and he said he wanted a single bed. That was about 7.30 in the evening.

constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased


James Byfield, of the City Police: I remember the deceased being brought to the Bishopsgate Station at a quarter to nine o'clock on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29.

Picked up off the floor at 8.30
Arrived at Bishopsgate at 8 45
Wilkinson was told of this forthcoming episode over an hour earlier by Kelly !
By quarter to twelve (after 3 hours sleep ) the previously completely incapacitated Eddowes was singing

[Wickerman]

Is Wilkinson's inability to remember the exact time (7:30 or 8:30), the only basis for accusing Kelly of lying?
Surely, the fault lies with Wilkinson not Kelly.

[packers stem]

Is Wilkinson's inability to remember the exact time (7:30 or 8:30), the only basis for accusing Kelly of lying?
Surely, the fault lies with Wilkinson not Kelly.

"That was about 7.30 in the evening "
Is accurate enough in my opinion.
Any inability to remember the exact time is your assumption possibly based upon some summarised versions of the inquest testimony ?
I'm always happier with the telegraph .
Typically shows the testimony in full detail inclusive of many questions asked at the time unlike other publications

I'm not sure I've seen anywhere 8.30 as the outcome so I don't know where that came from but yes ,I've seen between 7.30 and 8 written in some accounts.
Unfortunately , many are copied .... and copied incorrectly .
The telegraph was first hand

[Wickerman]

Ok, fair enough, I wasn't sure if there was more to the accusation, thats all.

So, presumably you can explain how Kelly was able to predict Kate getting locked up about an hour before it happened. Just saying that he lied doesn't explain how he could know in advance. Can you explain?

[Robert St Devil]

You're both assuming she was drunk .
Ever been so drunk you need picking up off the floor and help to walk ?
If so you'll also know that once your head goes down you don't wake up four hours later singing and asking to be free from the dry bed you've found by chance .
They would have been shouting her to wake up in the morning ...
She wasn't drunk
Another point missed by many is that John Kelly told Wilkinson an hour before she was arrested that she already had been ! Clairvoyant ?

I've considered the same point [re: her recovery time] when I wonder if Catherine had been mickied. My biggest deterrent (so far) has been malt liquor. I read tale (somewhere) that malt liquor was prefered because a person recovered faster or didn't stay drunk as long or something along those lines.

Then again, the witty Catherine's objective may just have been a place to sleep awhile ie. a slight ruse on the police to obtain a cot. Considering she's just slept, maybe her first thought isn't concerned with finding another bed when she leaves the police station.

[packers stem]

Ok, fair enough, I wasn't sure if there was more to the accusation, thats all.

So, presumably you can explain how Kelly was able to predict Kate getting locked up about an hour before it happened. Just saying that he lied doesn't explain how he could know in advance. Can you explain?

You're absolutely right Jon
And no , It can't easily be explained other than I'm quite happy to rule out clairvoyance lol
All I'm doing is pointing out the facts as we know them .We then have to find the theory that best fits said facts .

[Michael W Richards]

Quite an imagination.

So basically her appearance and she smelt of drink .
There's a world of difference between smelling of drink and being incapable of standing up .

There is...a world of difference. The woman smelled like booze and fell down...and thats definately not connected to inebriation? Strange that you would not make any connection. They certainly did. So would I.

And you claiming to be an expert on how long it takes anyone to sleep off booze.


Check out the far more accurate , full account of inquest testimony from the telegraph for the timeline

Far more accurate than what?

Wilkinson said ..... I first heard from Kelly on Saturday night that Kate was locked up, and he said he wanted a single bed. That was about 7.30 in the evening.


He didnt say that at all, I already pasted what he said earlier. He said..." between half past seven or eight". See the witness file here. Which means he didnt know whether it was 7:30 or 8:30...yet you insist on using his earliest time to foster your beliefs. He wasnt even sure if it was closer to 8 or 9.

Not sure what you believe happened, but its clear you use a flawed interpretation to get there.

[Wickerman]

You're absolutely right Jon
And no , It can't easily be explained other than I'm quite happy to rule out clairvoyance lol
All I'm doing is pointing out the facts as we know them .We then have to find the theory that best fits said facts .

Agreed, which leaves me wondering why accusing Kelly of lying makes any sense. Surely such an accusation can only be made by someone who does believe in clairvoyance?
As opposed to accepting Wilkinson made a mistake in the time that he spoke to Kelly?
Isn't Wilkinson making a mistake the more rational explanation?

[DJA]

You're both assuming she was drunk .
Ever been so drunk you need picking up off the floor and help to walk ?
If so you'll also know that once your head goes down you don't wake up four hours later singing and asking to be free from the dry bed you've found by chance .
They would have been shouting her to wake up in the morning ...
She wasn't drunk
Another point missed by many is that John Kelly told Wilkinson an hour before she was arrested that she already had been ! Clairvoyant ?

If she had Rheumatic fever in December 1867,there is every chance Eddowes had a few drinks in an attempt to stave off heart failure in 1888.

That combination, exacerbated by the trip back to London from hopping in Kent, would have her passed out and smelling of alcohol and an early recovery that night.

[packers stem]

Quite an imagination.

This isn't about imagination Michael
It's about facts as we know them
You claim that the witness file here is correct .
Do you know where they got the information ?
I suggest you read the inquest testimony here which is taken from the telegraph in which Wilkinson states "about 7 30" ...
The telegraph was always more thorough in its reporting of the inquests , hence why it's used here for reference .
That's why i said "more accurate" and certainly more accurate than whatever you were reading to make you believe , incorrectly , that Eddowes was arrested at 8
Even if you stretch your imagination to your furthest point possible then Eddowes was still not in Bishopsgate and was just being helped to her feet .... As Kelly was ,at this point , three quarters of a mile away ,how would you suggest he knew ?




Not sure what you believe happened, but its clear you use a flawed interpretation to get there.

Nothing flawed to see here
Just that I don't bury my head in the sand and pretend all is ok when it's clearly not

[packers stem]

Agreed, which leaves me wondering why accusing Kelly of lying makes any sense. Surely such an accusation can only be made by someone who does believe in clairvoyance?
As opposed to accepting Wilkinson made a mistake in the time that he spoke to Kelly?
Isn't Wilkinson making a mistake the more rational explanation?

I never suggested Kelly lied Jon
I also don't believe Wilkinson made a mistake .
It was his job to sort the rooms out and mark in the ledgers ..... of all the people we query about timings and were they out by a few minutes etc ... we have someone in his place of work , with a clock I'm sure , and we're trying to put him hours out to make things convenient?