Was Stride Really a JtR Victim?

[Cogidubnus]

No...you were both in appallingly bad company, , but I believe there may be enough of the rest of us with you (including some who are prepared to believe either way) to elevate your status a little!

All the best

Dave

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Oh yeah!

No...you were both in appallingly bad company, , but I believe there may be enough of the rest of us with you (including some who are prepared to believe either way) to elevate your status a little!

All the best

Dave

Just for that be prepared to be Van Gouged Sickerted and Maybricked by me till the end of your days! Wait a minute. Why would I do that to myself? Maybe just some Fenian conspiracy. To teach you a lesson.

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Diga...your kind thoughts are reciprocated! (But please leave the one-eared artist out of it!)...

Every good wish

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, as you are no doubt aware, the definition of a serial killer is someone who kills on three or more separate occasions, so even if Stride was taken out of the equation, Jack would still be regarded as a serial killer. And we would still have a series of killings, but 4 instead of 5.

The argument put forward by DLDW is a valid one, that Eddowes' injuries may just have easily been caused by him venting his frustration at not being able to kill since Chapman, as opposed to being disturbed at Dutfields yard.

Best wishes, Bob.

Hi Bob,

wondering aloud if this is Bob Hinton who I used to speak with here from time to time....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. Brown states regarding Kate Eddowes that he believed some knowledge of "abdominal organs, and how to locate them" was present.

However, Phillips saw the hand of an amateur, and he examined Chapman...arguably the woman with the most sophisticated cutting done to her corpse. Plus we have no evidence that answers the question why she was there in the first place, if she isnt accosted by a strange man then she likely isnt accosted by the same man that picked up women previously unknown to him that were soliciting. All we know is that she seemed friendly with the man Lawende says he saw with her....a sighting that I am suspicious about anyway...the time of that sighting and the time of her discovery means this was a very rapid murder/mutilation.

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.

People see knife cuts and body parts in some victims and perhaps justifiably think that suggests a continuing reign of terror by the man who was responsible for the nickname given to him in late September, before the Double Event. But those first 2 killings were committed because the killer wanted something specific. The motivation for those murders has been identified.

Can you say for certain that any murder after Annie Chapman was for the same motive? Lets say Phillips and Baxter are correct...he wanted a uterus from Annie, and also likely from Polly. Murder victim #3 has no mutilations whatsoever, murder victim #4 has a partial uterus and a kidney taken,....and murder#5 loses a heart.

IF they were correct, then it would seem we do not have similar crimes from the standpoint of motivation.

The murders are not the issue,..anyone can, and people often do, kill other people. Why these women were killed has not been answered by a theory of a serial madman.

Cheers Bob

[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?

[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

[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'

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.