Was Stride Really a JtR Victim?

[Mr Lucky]

What you failed to do is to account for the statements made regarding both murders in the Chapman Inquest, since they were ongoing and being treated as part of a "series" of unsolved murders.

No, I've haven't failed to take account of the Chapman inquest, what I've failed to do is make stuff up like;-

there is ample evidence and expert testimony that the man that killed Polly and Annie had the knife skills and knowledge of a medical student

It's solely the organ stealer theory of Baxter that had lead him to believe that Nichols killer was after the same as Chapman, Baxter had received this information by letter and should have had the writer summoned and give testimony if he thought it was relevant to the Nichols inquest. Which he didn't bother to do.

As you can clearly tell by the summation of the Coroner in the Nichols Inquest," [I]The instruments used in the two earlier cases are dissimilar. In the first it was a blunt instrument, such as a walking-stick...(Emma); in the second, some of the wounds were thought to have been made by a dagger....(Martha); but in the two recent cases the instruments suggested by the medical witnesses are not so different. Dr. Llewellyn says the injuries on Nicholls could have been produced by a strong bladed instrument, moderately sharp. Dr. Phillips is of opinion that those on Chapman were by a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, at least six to eight inches in length, probably longer. The similarity of the injuries in the two cases is considerable. There are bruises about the face in both cases; the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries, again, have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge."

Ok, lets look at what was said at the time, not two weeks latter after Baxter had convinced himself the killer was an organ thief who by definition would have to have anatomical knowledge;-

'The murderer must have had some rough anatomical knowledge, for he seemed to have attacked all the vital parts.' - Dr Llewellyn, from inquest

We always get the phrase "anatomical knowledge" bandied about, but never the "some rough" at the start of it, and how does the killer gets the qualification "anatomical knowledge" - Well it's because he had sense enough to attack vital parts, the throat and abdomen, whilst trying to kill someone.

Oh yeah...and Llewellyn thought that the mutilations were done before the throat cuts....so save the attitude.

Cheers

No, after the abdominal wounds were discovered it's something he thought may be possible, in connection with the lack of blood at the scene.

'At nine o'clock the body of deceased was removed from the mortuary to an improvised operating room on the premises, and Dr. Ralph Llewellyn made a post-mortem examination. The object of the examination was to determine if possible, the order in which the various cuts were made. It is evident from the cuts in the throat that the head was bent back by the murderer before the knife was used. Whether the other mutilation took place before or after death remains to be settled, as also the position in which the woman lay when the deed done. There are several questions of this kind which may throw light on the case, notably the small quantity of blood at the place where she was found and the fact that there must have been much of it somewhere else.'

It may be that Llewellyn was unable to make a judgement on this, Nichols death cert mentions both throat and abdominal wounds as the cause of syncope, but he didn't have any clues like the intestines and uterus removed, just a load of violent stabs and rips both in the throat and in the abdomen. Again it's only Baxter's summing up that gives us the abdomen first statement, it's not in any record of what Llewellyn said at the inquest on Sept 1.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Eggs

Eggs taste wonderfull, no need to waste them on throwings. Unless they are rotten of course.

[Michael W Richards]

Or as an alternative

Eddowes and Kelly tramped back to London with another couple who were headed for Cheltenham. It's obvious that the couple in question were familiar with London as the woman gave Kate Eddowes a pawn ticket for a shirt which she had pawned in London.

Now, if tramps were on the road and aiming to pass through London to another destination, they were given tickets to stay temporarily in London at casual wards. This ticket entitled them to stay at the casual ward without having to perform the required morning work which was customary. I suppose the reason for the tickets was to make sure they were quickly on their way out of London at an early hour. The later they stayed, and after half a days worth of hard work, the more likely they were to remain in London.

Could the women tramping with Eddowes and Kelly have been in the possesion of such a ticket? She was on her way to Cheltenham. Could she have given Eddowes such a ticket? Eddowes was known at the Mile End Ward, if she produced such a ticket and the deputy knew full well she was a native Londoner there might well have been a little dispute, as was indicated.

The above is a long shot I know, but I tend to look for ordinary mundane reasons for anomalies in press reports. Flights of fancy, (I'm thinking Eddowes in the clutches of those dastardly Fennians) I'll leave to the more deluded poster we have here in Casebook.

Just another thought. I doubt Eddowes was a great fan of the casual ward, perhaps she intended to go there when she parted company with Kelly on Friday the 28th.

It's not unreasonable to suppose she had second thoughts, and decided to sleep on the streets. Of course she would need to fib to Kelly that she stayed at the ward during the night of the 28th. With a killer on the loose would she want to worry Kelly unnecessarily, with the fact that she walked and slept on the streets? Hence the fib.

Considering the available evidence, it really does amuse me the tall tales that are bandied around here in this forum

Regards

Observer

Would you happen to have a source that verifies your claim that a special ticket allowed a casual ward visitor to avoid any work before discharge....seems contrary to any records Ive read about these institutions.

And your thinly veiled insults do not cover up your own predilection for off the cuff theorizing without any of the requisite evidence of course. "I doubt Eddowes was a great fan of the casual wards", "could the women have done this"...might this have happened,..maybe this was the case,... I suggest before you look disparagingly upon the "theorists" you might want to temper your own infractions.

Its amusing how many egg-throwers are covered by yolk.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

No, there is no evidence or testimony of any kind that the murderer of Polly (Nichols) "had the knife skills and knowledge of a medical student"

The words of Dr Llewellyn -

'The abdominal wounds are extraordinary for their length and the severity with which they have been inflicted.'

'I have seen many horrible cases but never such a brutal affair as this'

What you failed to do is to account for the statements made regarding both murders in the Chapman Inquest, since they were ongoing and being treated as part of a "series" of unsolved murders.

As you can clearly tell by the summation of the Coroner in the Nichols Inquest," The instruments used in the two earlier cases are dissimilar. In the first it was a blunt instrument, such as a walking-stick...(Emma); in the second, some of the wounds were thought to have been made by a dagger....(Martha); but in the two recent cases the instruments suggested by the medical witnesses are not so different. Dr. Llewellyn says the injuries on Nicholls could have been produced by a strong bladed instrument, moderately sharp. Dr. Phillips is of opinion that those on Chapman were by a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, at least six to eight inches in length, probably longer. The similarity of the injuries in the two cases is considerable. There are bruises about the face in both cases; the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries, again, have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge."

Oh yeah...and Llewellyn thought that the mutilations were done before the throat cuts....so save the attitude.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Now, if tramps were on the road and aiming to pass through London to another destination, they were given tickets to stay temporarily in London at casual wards.

Never heard of this, who would issue the ticket?

This ticket entitled them to stay at the casual ward without having to perform the required morning work which was customary.

Would that not defeat the purpose of the Casual Ward, that you essentially earn your keep?
On the same train of thought then, could tickets not be issued for the Whitechapel Refuge on the same basis?

I do understand you are attempting to maintain as much of the storyline as possible, and you may be right.

Could the women tramping with Eddowes and Kelly have been in the possesion of such a ticket? She was on her way to Cheltenham. Could she have given Eddowes such a ticket? Eddowes was known at the Mile End Ward, if she produced such a ticket and the deputy knew full well she was a native Londoner there might well have been a little dispute, as was indicated.

I'm inclined to think the police would have made inquiries at the Mile End Casual Ward as part of their investigation.

The above is a long shot I know, but I tend to look for ordinary mundane reasons for anomalies in press reports.

I'll drink to that!

Just another thought. I doubt Eddowes was a great fan of the casual ward, perhaps she intended to go there when she parted company with Kelly on Friday the 28th.

It's not unreasonable to suppose she had second thoughts, and decided to sleep on the streets.

In reading up on Casual Wards, they were not a refuge of choice.

Of course she would need to fib to Kelly that she stayed at the ward during the night of the 28th. With a killer on the loose would she want to worry Kelly unnecessarily, with the fact that she walked and slept on the streets? Hence the fib.

Considering the available evidence, it really does amuse me the tall tales that are bandied around here in this forum

Fibbing to a loved one, your significant other, is part of survival in the East End. Hence the fibs about going to Bermondsey to obtain money. Obviously, when she returns to John with coin in her hand she feels like pacifying him with the story of it being a loan rather than from turning a trick.
This is purely understandable, as is the possibility she never went to the Casual Ward, for whatever reason.

I think some of the inexactitudes ascribed to John Kelly more likely originated with Kate, and for mostly mundane reason's.

[Observer]

No rest for the wicked, Lynn.

Funny this should come up today, only yesterday this problem crossed my mind.

I read an article about the Whitechapel Refuge, and how preferable it was to the Casual Ward. It appears there was one in the City, as opposed to Mile End.

Wouldn't that have been nearer?

We know Kate lied about going to Bermondsey, maybe she lied about this too? The Whitechapel Refuge apparently lets you out early enough so you can find work. Whereas the Casual Ward didn't let you out until 11:00 am.
John said he met Kate early that morning, which must mean before 11:00am, so she must have spent the night elsewhere.

The article is here:
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881115.html

Or as an alternative

Eddowes and Kelly tramped back to London with another couple who were headed for Cheltenham. It's obvious that the couple in question were familiar with London as the woman gave Kate Eddowes a pawn ticket for a shirt which she had pawned in London.

Now, if tramps were on the road and aiming to pass through London to another destination, they were given tickets to stay temporarily in London at casual wards. This ticket entitled them to stay at the casual ward without having to perform the required morning work which was customary. I suppose the reason for the tickets was to make sure they were quickly on their way out of London at an early hour. The later they stayed, and after half a days worth of hard work, the more likely they were to remain in London.

Could the women tramping with Eddowes and Kelly have been in the possesion of such a ticket? She was on her way to Cheltenham. Could she have given Eddowes such a ticket? Eddowes was known at the Mile End Ward, if she produced such a ticket and the deputy knew full well she was a native Londoner there might well have been a little dispute, as was indicated.

The above is a long shot I know, but I tend to look for ordinary mundane reasons for anomalies in press reports. Flights of fancy, (I'm thinking Eddowes in the clutches of those dastardly Fennians) I'll leave to the more deluded poster we have here in Casebook.

Just another thought. I doubt Eddowes was a great fan of the casual ward, perhaps she intended to go there when she parted company with Kelly on Friday the 28th.

It's not unreasonable to suppose she had second thoughts, and decided to sleep on the streets. Of course she would need to fib to Kelly that she stayed at the ward during the night of the 28th. With a killer on the loose would she want to worry Kelly unnecessarily, with the fact that she walked and slept on the streets? Hence the fib.

Considering the available evidence, it really does amuse me the tall tales that are bandied around here in this forum

Regards

Observer

[lynn cates]

slip of the tongue

Hello Jon. Thanks.

John claimed an 8.00 meeting--by chance. But he also claimed he worked that morning at the market. And, oh yes, went to pawn some boots. And, umm, what else? Ah! Ran out of money and Kate took off for Bermondsey.

And he had just gotten back Thursday. But, of course, all the rest of London came back the first week of September.

And in his "Echo" interview, he alluded to many days without food and doss.

Probably a slip of the tongue. Yeah, that's it.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

No rest for the wicked, Lynn.

Funny this should come up today, only yesterday this problem crossed my mind.

I read an article about the Whitechapel Refuge, and how preferable it was to the Casual Ward. It appears there was one in the City, as opposed to Mile End.

Wouldn't that have been nearer?

We know Kate lied about going to Bermondsey, maybe she lied about this too? The Whitechapel Refuge apparently lets you out early enough so you can find work. Whereas the Casual Ward didn't let you out until 11:00 am.
John said he met Kate early that morning, which must mean before 11:00am, so she must have spent the night elsewhere.

The article is here:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/pall_mall_gazette/18881115.html

[lynn cates]

no casual

Hello Colin.

"Above all else, it is highly unlikely that Eddowes even went to the Mile End Casual Ward - or any other casual ward, for that matter - as was claimed by John Kelly; for she would not have been able to rendezvous with him the following morning without having first performed a requisite task of a laborious and time-consuming nature, such as picking a quantity of oakum."

Finally, someone agrees with me. Now I can lay me doon and dee in peace.

Cheers.
LC

[Colin Roberts]

No "physical evidence" of an interruption - whatever form such evidence might take - equates to there having been NO interruption: Period!

And yet …

I think a man who knew what he was doing killed the first 2, a man killed someone in a momentary fit of anger for the third, a man silenced a threat for the 4th, and a lover or friend offed a pretty young prostitute, for the last.

---

In the case of Catherine Eddowes we have a statement from an acquaintance of hers that indicated Kate believed she knew who was behind the recent murders, ...

No, Michael. We have an unsubstantiated claim that was made by a single tabloid, two weeks after an alleged exchange between Eddowes and the superintendent of the Mile End Casual Ward. The tabloid - The East London Observer, I believe - made no mention of the superintendent's identity; and of course no such person was called to testify at the Eddowes inquest.

Above all else, it is highly unlikely that Eddowes even went to the Mile End Casual Ward - or any other casual ward, for that matter - as was claimed by John Kelly; for she would not have been able to rendezvous with him the following morning without having first performed a requisite task of a laborious and time-consuming nature, such as picking a quantity of oakum.

The notion that Eddowes ever claimed to know the identity of the 'Whitechapel Fiend' is surely mythical.

[Wickerman]

The police were receiving accusations every day about someone suspected of being the killer, why should this killer be worried about Kate's opinion?

It's not like she had proof, she'd have told them at Bishopsgate if she did.

The idea is to kill the informer before she goes to the police station, not after

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo and thanks Michael

Doesn't make sense. Eddowes wasn't killed by the same person who killed Polly and Annie, but she was murdered to silence a threat cause she claimed to know who it was? Based off the data there is no grounds to make that assumption. Now if she was murdered for another reason and it was made to look like the work of "JTR" then that makes some sense. Or course why not just slit throat? What kind of individual would really go to the trouble of attempting the work? First thing to my mind is someone under orders. Then unrelated, Barnett or the like kills "MJK" and says I might get caught! I know I'll stay here and cut up the body into pieces then I'll be safe! No, it's more likely if a crime of passion he would've bolted. Not hung around to deconstruct her. My thoughts presently.

[Mr Lucky]

there is ample evidence and expert testimony that the man that killed Polly and Annie had the knife skills and knowledge of a medical student.

No, there is no evidence or testimony of any kind that the murderer of Polly (Nichols) "had the knife skills and knowledge of a medical student"

The words of Dr Llewellyn -

'The abdominal wounds are extraordinary for their length and the severity with which they have been inflicted.'

'I have seen many horrible cases but never such a brutal affair as this'

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=Digalittledeeperwatson;264060]

Hi Bob
I think a man who knew what he was doing killed the first 2,

I'll go with that.

a man killed someone in a momentary fit of anger for the third

Sure, that's not unreasonable,

a man silenced a threat for the 4th


Uh okay, who and why? What threat?


, and a lover or friend offed a pretty young prostitute, for the 5th.


In the most extreme case out of all the murders. For safety or did "MJK"s killer who knew her annihilate her to that extent out of rage and passion?

More curious about Eddowes than "MJK". If you would be so kind?

Hi dig,

In the case of Catherine Eddowes we have a statement from an acquaintance of hers that indicated Kate believed she knew who was behind the recent murders, and that she intended to claim the reward. She even says to John when leaving him..."dont worry, I shant fall into his hands". She gets drunk that afternoon without any money that we know of and she leaves the police station and heads away from the man it is said she stayed with every night. Excluding a few since they had been back I guess.

In that story, if its true and Kate said it and meant it, is an understandable reason for someone to kill her. It doesnt explain the mutilations in general, but it might explain what seems to be a message in the nose wound....he sticking it where it didnt belong perhaps.

With Mary Jane, the evidence is the crime scene, her state of dress and where the attack commenced, and possibly the cry of "oh-murder", if it signaled someone waking her up in the middle of the night.

Cheers

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

If you'd be so kind?

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;264052]Hi Bob
I think a man who knew what he was doing killed the first 2,

I'll go with that.

a man killed someone in a momentary fit of anger for the third

Sure, that's not unreasonable,

a man silenced a threat for the 4th


Uh okay, who and why? What threat?


, and a lover or friend offed a pretty young prostitute, for the 5th.


In the most extreme case out of all the murders. For safety or did "MJK"s killer who knew her annihilate her to that extent out of rage and passion?

More curious about Eddowes than "MJK". If you would be so kind?