Did Jack only kill 3?

[caz]

Someone in each case, Mike.

It's Errata who is looking for 'the other women' murdered by the man who killed Nichols and Chapman. I was just giving her some potential examples to look at.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Errata,

On the other hand, we are positively awash with unsolved, apparently motiveless prostitute attacks and murders in the one small area of East London, between February 1888 and February 1891, any or all of which could represent someone's deranged idea of target practice.


Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Im always struck by your insistence on a singular individual in these cases, illustrated by your choice of the word "someone's" in the above quote.

Surely you cant be seriously insinuating that all the women in the Whitechapel Murder file were the victims of "someone"?

I know youve chosen to believe that a mad killer roamed the streets killing at his leisure, but you must see that many murders within that file are not similar acts, nor are the probable motivations the same in all cases.

There is a robbery/attack in those files, stabbings, some un-ripped women, and torsos.

Its one thing to promote belief in the Canonical Group, another entirely to suggest that we see a killer who stabs, dismembers, robs and simply kills in all those unsolved murders.

I think the thread premise is an assessment of similar murders within the Canonical Group, adding 8 more victims to one mans list isnt really helping solve anything.

Best regards,

Michael

[caz]

The real question is, where are the other women he murdered? The ones evidently not in England? There is an extraordinary jump in skill between Nichols and Chapman. Where did he acquire that skill? He went from almost undirected abdominal slashing to successfully taking a difficult organ to locate in one piece. Clearly he was practicing. But where? And on what? Or who?

Hi Errata,

Are you suggesting that Nichols's killer took off somewhere, possibly abroad, for a week's intensive training course on female organ extraction, between 31st August and 8th September, so he could do it in style in the backyard of 29 Hanbury immediately upon his return?

It doesn't seem all that likely, does it?

On the other hand, we are positively awash with unsolved, apparently motiveless prostitute attacks and murders in the one small area of East London, between February 1888 and February 1891, any or all of which could represent someone's deranged idea of target practice.

Haven't we got enough to be going on with?

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

subjunctivity

Hello Don. Thanks. Subjunctive indeed.

I just don't see a reward floating about. Nor do I see a Katesian (like my coinage?) moment of satori, given her fruitless efforts in the hop fields.

But I would love to know what was going on for the 48 hours between their arrival back in London and Kate's demise.

Cheers.
LC

[Supe]

Lynn,

If that story were true,

Glad to see you used the subjunctive. As it is, there are good many reasons why it is quite probably not true and little besides wishful thinking in its favor.

Don.

[lynn cates]

fixing Kate

Hello Don. If that story were true, it might fix Kate's location. Something I would LOVE to be able to do.

Was it supposed to be on Thursday night? That is when John indicated that he and Kate stayed there.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Who buys the drinks?

Hello Mike. Thanks. Yes, I, too, would love to identify her host.

Cheers.
LC

[Supe]

The tale Kate Eddowes supposedly told the Shoe Lane Superintendent is as full of holes as a Swiss Cheese wheel, but there is one subtlety about the story that is often overlooked. While we can wonder just how much sleuthing Kate was able to do in the hops field or even how much she had heard of the murders if she and John had left early for Kent, but even more puzzling is what reward chatter she had heard to cause her to leave.


Indeed, before the double event, most of the talk about rewards concerned forcing the Home Office to change policy and once again offer rewards. A modest amount of reward money had been pledged, but it was not until after the double event that the rewards jumped to £1,400 (aided greatly by a £500 reward from the City) within a week. This amount would be worth between £122,000 and £1.5 million today and it truly did have everyone talking about earning the reward money . . . well all except Liz and Kate who were already a week dead.


That the story did not appear until well after the double event and contained the quite probably anachronistic chatter about rewards is yet another reason to doubt it.


Don.

[Monty]

Michael,

You have provided no source to me other than to state it was in the A-Z.

However if you are referring to your post to Lynn, where you did quote a full source, then I do not own that edition. Either way if that is the source then it is erronous, and you should have crossed referenced it.

Yeah, legend in my mind. Guess where you come in inside my head.

I never stated your opinions are not your own, I'm stating the method and evidences are flawed. You are selective.

Now do you understand?

Monty

[Michael W Richards]

You had a way Michael? You know where you are going?

I am far better informed than you and I don't make errors.

Lambeth Lynn, it was Lambeth.

Monty

I will assume that by the above you are not suggesting that I quoted an inaccurate source Monty?

I gave you book, page, and I gave you edition,... and I gave you a clue as to when I was referring to in the initial post which you corrected incorrectly.

Instead of saying you misunderstood where and when I was referring to, or stating that the quote I used isnt accurate, you stated..."I dont make errors"..... ..wow. You are a legend in your own mind.

And in the future please dont associate my opinions or name with anyone else, my opinions are my own, and I have no study partners online here.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike. Thanks. But I had thought there was a newspaper article that had her chatting up a super at a casual house as well?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

There was Lynn, however, in context with my initial post on the matter, I referred to the name she gave the police when picked up Saturday night around 8:30pm. While she was drunk.

Im interested in not only her choice of name then but also her choice of name when pawning the boots, according to the slip dated the Friday prior, and her choice of name when sobering up in the cell.

It appears to me that she didnt want to be known as Kate Eddowes for at least that 24 hour period.

I was suggesting that a reason may have been her alleged conversation with her former landlady, and her alleged claim she was going to get the reward money for identifying the Ripper. One theory of the police investigating her death was that she had a prearranged meeting on that night, one she may have been late for due to her incarceration. Since she was drunk without money at 8:30pm, before Unfortunates were on the streets earning, someone seems to have been interested in her company enough to spot her drinks..or her alleged story.

I suspect If we knew who she was with that afternoon and what they discussed we might be closer to knowing who may have killed her that night.

Best regards Lynn,

Mike R

[lynn cates]

news

Hello Neil. Thanks. I take the news reports cum grano salis. That story is apocryphal to say the least.

But I think that John placed Kate and himself at Shoe Lane on Thursday and Kate at Mile End on Friday.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

It would not have taken long to perform the mutilations on either Chapman or Eddowes. Phillips was probably wrong about the length of time taken on Annie Chapman. He was relating how long it would take for him to do it, not a murderer with a motive that was incomprehensible to Phillips.
Same goes with Eddowes, even with the more gratuitous mutilations thrown in. Brown's timing was probably a little long. Sequeira guessed 3 minutes, and he was probably the closest to the real time taken. Someone adept with a knife can move very quickly.
They had never faced anything like this before and were literally dumbfounded by what they witnessed.

Agree.

[Monty]

Hello Neil. Thanks. I had thought her stay was purported to be:

1. Thursday night--Shoe Lane.

2. Friday night--Mile End.

I take it more research is called for.

Cheers.
LC

It depends on which news report you read Lynn. And that's what it is, a supposed quote in a newspaper unverified by anyone else.

Lambeth doesn't come it to it, though it seems Bishopsgate does.

Amazing.

Monty

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Neil. Thanks. I had thought her stay was purported to be:

1. Thursday night--Shoe Lane.

2. Friday night--Mile End.

I take it more research is called for.

Cheers.
LC