Did Jack only kill 3?

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[lynn cates]

Who buys the drinks?

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

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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]

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]

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

I'm glad that was simply a misread on my part Caz,... I shuddered at the thought of the exchanges if you had adopted that position.

To my eye Alice is a very good fit with those 2, although I believe that Lynn Cates has made a good case for Jacob Isenschmid for the first 2 and he was unavailable to kill Alice...so, who knows.

You mentioned earlier about a lack of apparent motive for the killings, and I would say that it is our inability to perceive the true motivations that is at issue, due to incomplete evidence, interpretive analysis, whathave you. There are legitimate obstacles when solving these puzzles.

If you set aside the argument itself for the introduction of the specific organ theft theory, and leave open other possible motives that might spawn acts like we see, I think there are ways to get a sense of what might be logical based on the meager evidence we have.

Best regards,
Michael

[caz]

Hi Mike,

I think our inability to 'perceive the true motivations' behind any of the Whitechapel murders is very likely to continue unless evidence emerges against one or more of the individuals who actually committed them. The most obvious obstacle to solving the motivation issue is having no bugger to ask!

An unknown person's motive for doing anything a bit out of the ordinary is likely to be the very last thing that can be established with any degree of certainty. As I said elsewhere, the only way one can really test a theory about motive in any of these unsolved cases is to round up your potential suspects - anyone who can be connected by solid evidence to a victim and/or a crime scene would be good - and see if that motive could apply to one of them.

In short, you have to find the buggers wot done it first and then, if you're lucky, their motives may become clear.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

I think our inability to 'perceive the true motivations' behind any of the Whitechapel murders is very likely to continue unless evidence emerges against one or more of the individuals who actually committed them. The most obvious obstacle to solving the motivation issue is having no bugger to ask!

An unknown person's motive for doing anything a bit out of the ordinary is likely to be the very last thing that can be established with any degree of certainty. As I said elsewhere, the only way one can really test a theory about motive in any of these unsolved cases is to round up your potential suspects - anyone who can be connected by solid evidence to a victim and/or a crime scene would be good - and see if that motive could apply to one of them.

In short, you have to find the buggers wot done it first and then, if you're lucky, their motives may become clear.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Perhaps I can better explain my thinking with this example, if hypothetically the evidence in the first 2 Canonical murders suggested strongly that at least in part, the killers ultimate intentions were to obtain internal female organs, and that the wounds seemed consistent with a semi-skilled man with knife usage and anatomy, then we at least could narrow the suspect parameters somewhat. That man would by necessity be someone who uses a knife, most probably in his work cutting up animals, and someone who likely is identifiably mentally ill. He need not be overtly disturbed, or violent, but recognizably odd certainly.

Im grouping the first 2 murders because in my opinion they do suggest some of what I theorized above, and therefore, in my opinion of course, were likely by the same killer.

There is no evidence that the 3rd murder fits that general profile, so, we need not seek the same kind of individual for that crime. The 4th and 5th murder strongly suggest the same kind of killer as in C1 and C2, however, there is no evidence that suggests the killer desired to acquire specifically female organs, ...that may be a flag. When considering some additional evidence in those 2 murders we also see some wound patterns that are dissimilar to the ones we find in the first cases. Perhaps another flag.

Im suggesting that if the evidence is perceived accurately, the above motivational theorizing can help narrow the field a bit.

Best regards,

Michael