Did the 5 canonical victims know each other?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I suppose I should restructure what I was intending to say earlier....regarding Kates choice of aliases in her last 24 hours. I think it was more than an odd coincidence restrospectively....I believe it indicates that she knew of Mary Jane Kelly off Dorset.

...

There are provable connections, like Pearly and Annie apparently, but I think this is a case where there is some evidence to suggest that perhaps a C5 knew another C5.

I am sorry Michael, but I am with Mikey on this one.
To use common names like Mary and Kelly appears to have not been very unusual at all, and I don't see anything else than coincidences here.
As far as I know, there are no 'evidence that suggests that a C5 knew another C5'. Such evidence would consist of statements from - for example - Barnett stating that Mary knew Eddowes or from John kelly stating that Eddowes knew Annie Chapman. We don't have any such indications and no mention of it, nor are such implications mentioned in the police files. I don't hesitate to say that it is all conjuncture and supposition.

Again, it wouldn't be an impossible thought that some of them bumped into one another at some point at a pub or on the street, but I fail to see how this would have any impact on the motive of killer. So for me it's not an important issue. The victims were most likely chosen because they were avaliable and vulnerable at that time of night and on those particular nights the killer stalked the streets. He most likely had some kind of preferences but besides that I don't see anything else than randomly chosen women.

All the best

[perrymason]

Hi Glenn, Mikey,

I am aware how prevalent the surname Kelly was...we can see it in just these 5 murder cases repeatedly.

What makes this choice of alias exceptional I believe is that Kate uesd it twice in 24 hours, the 2 aliases were variations of Mary Jane Kellys full given name,. and in one case using a Dorset St location, and the #6. It seems to me that she may have plucked it out of thin air once...but why twice...consecutively. And why would she need an alias for the pawn boots at all?

Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset, and Mary Kelly of Fashion St.

If one were to imagine this might indicate knowledge of Mary by Kate, one might also imagine that the number 6 was not entirely a random selection,..and that Fashion St might be used if someone knew Mary once had fashionable clothing, and the subject thought of her in that manner. From someone who is wearing all they own when going out, someone who had some fine dresses at one time might come to mind as "Fashionable".

Im saying to casually pluck imaginary names from thin air, it is very odd that she chose to do so twice in her last 24 hours, and the names she chose have so much in common with the next Canonical victims.

So many odd things are discarded as coincidental in these cases that one might think suggestive evidence of something odd isnt worth exploring. I would disagree with that.

In the same way that a section of a Left Kidney with Brights Disease sent as a "hoax" just happened to match Kates missing part.

My best regards Glenn, Mikey.

[John Casey]

If memory serves me correctly wasn't Kate seeing (on and off at least) some fellow called Kelly? From that point of view it wouldn't, on the face of it, seem that surprising if she happened to give that as a surname. As for calling herself Mary...well..it was a common enough name, but I agree, a bit of a coincidence all things considered. However I do tend to veer towards it being a coincidence.

[perrymason]

If memory serves me correctly wasn't Kate seeing (on and off at least) some fellow called Kelly? From that point of view it wouldn't, on the face of it, seem that surprising if she happened to give that as a surname. As for calling herself Mary...well..it was a common enough name, but I agree, a bit of a coincidence all things considered. However I do tend to veer towards it being a coincidence.

Hi John,

Catherine and John Kelly are not off and on really, they had been "together", or teamed, for some time at that point. I agree that her taking the surname Kelly isnt that odd based on their time together, but I would contest the idea that her using that and the given names of Mary and Jane, and a Dorset St address are as easily dismissed. Particularly when the next victim, is Mary Jane Kelly of 26 Millers Court off Dorset St.

Kate didnt need an alias to pawn the boots. She may have preferred to use one at the Police Station. Whatever her reasons for choosing those names, random or using variations of someone she knew of, it does appear on paper that the 4th and 5th Canonical were using the same name when they died. We dont know if Kate continued on to Mitre calling herself that, but we do know what she told Hutt.

A very odd coincidence, if just that.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

Particularly when the next victim, is Mary Jane Kelly

It's worth remembering that Kate gave an alias of "Mary Ann Kelly", which suggests that it was either a totally made up name (apart from her common-law surname), or that Kate had a different Mary Kelly in mind. Either way, this "Mary Ann" is unlikely to have been "our" Mary, given that a number of people knew her only as "Mary Jane", and that she was wont to call herself "Marie Jeannette" - as opposed to "Marianne".

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,It's worth remembering that Kate gave an alias of "Mary Ann Kelly", which suggests that it was either a totally made up name (apart from her common-law surname), or that Kate had a different Mary Kelly in mind. Either way, this "Mary Ann" is unlikely to have been "our" Mary, given that a number of people knew her only as "Mary Jane", and that she was wont to call herself "Marie Jeannette" - as opposed to "Marianne".

Hi Sam,

On that last point Im quite sure that was a carryover from her fortnight abroad in Paris as what,...a courtesan? But you neglected to mention she was Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset St on the Pawnticket, dated a little more than 24 hours earlier. Its not an isolated instance with Hutt. Kate used the surname twice, and Jane Kelly was the first iteration, Mary Kelly was the second. She is murdered just after calling herself Mary Kelly.

Contextually, it becomes either one of those ironic and odd co-incidences of life, or an indication that she may have known of a Mary or Jane Kelly that lived off Dorset. Since that Mary Kelly does do the same "work" as Kate, it means that they would have been on occassion, working at night simultaeneously. They may have had mutual friends too.

Its no smoking gun Sam, but before its dimissed as coincidence, the probability of perhaps Kate knowing Mary even casually based on this should be assessed first. Since they share the same neck of the woods, the same occupation at night, and the same surname on occasions, its worth wondering about. It might be even odds in terms of coincidence, her choosing those names in particular, or her having heard of or met Mary Kelly off Dorset St at some point.

Best regards Gareth, as always.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

But again, Michael - and please forgive me for raising this question, because at this point I am very frustrated - even if they dId know each other: what on earth would it show?
What is the significance of it?
Am I really expected to believe that this have any validity for why they were killed or why they were chosen as victims?
Because for that reason, it wouldn't be enough for them knowing each other but also for the killer - in turn - to know them all!

So can anyone please tell me why this is a valid concpet at all, and why I am wasting my time with this?
Can't you see that this is irrelevant, Michael, and - quite frankly - a ridiculous idea?

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

It might be even odds in terms of coincidence

There were approximately 1.7 million women named "Mary" living in England at the time - it was far and away the most popular name in the country. The next most popular was "Ann/Anne", with just over a million, closely followed by "Elizabeth". Trailing behind, but still reasonably common, was "Catherine/Katherine/Kate", with around 300,000. Bearing that in mind, I'd settle for "coincidence" anytime, Mike.

[Supe]

Glenn,

So can anyone please tell me why this is a valid concpet at all, and why I am wasting my time with this?

You don't really want me to answer that, do you? But, you are perfectly right, it makes no difference.

Michael,

I would suggest that you are once again applying 21st C "feelings" to 19th C social problems. In the period anyone could pretty much take any name they wished--and they often did. Moreover, those who had lived a life like Kate had learned from an early age to use an alias with any authority figures. This was true of pawn brokers as well. Not only were the odds not an favor of most items ever being redeemed (unless the musical chairs scam of redeeming an item to repawn elsewhere was being played) but in many instances items being pawned were stolen--they used a phoney name as a matter of course.

Add to the mix that the Irish diaspora from the famine meant that Britain and North America were awash in Irish surnames (Kelly being among the most popular), throw in Sam's datum about the unbiquity of Mary as a Christian name and finally consider she'd lived for ages with a man named Kelly. That Mary Kelly was her alias of choice is no surprise. Indeed, the "Mary Jane Kelly" of Miller's Court might have chosen that name herself for much the same reason

And, to iteratde Glenn's notion--what in heck difference does it make unless you want to take a stroll in the fever swamps of conspiracy?

Don..

[Simon Wood]

Hi Don,

What's so wrong about a "stroll in the fever swamps of conspiracy"? [Good phrase, by the way].

Everything else has failed miserably.

Regards,

Simon

[John Casey]

Just another thought to throw in the pot as it were. I wonder if Mary Kelly was to victorian streetwalkers what Joe Bloggs or John Doe would be to us? Just a usefull name to use when all else fails?

As for whether it's worth chasing this line of enquiry, well....depends....interesting rather than usefull perhaps, but nobody HAS to post on any of these boards all the best to you's

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Just another thought to throw in the pot as it were. I wonder if Mary Kelly was to victorian streetwalkers what Joe Bloggs or John Doe would be to us? Just a usefull name to use when all else fails?

Quite possible, John.

In any case, Don has a point - it is certainly worth contemplating that Mary Kelly may indeed have chosen her own name.
Since we can't be sure of her personal history, and all attempts to trace her genealogically have been fruitless, we may have to accept the fact that 'Mary Jane Kelly' may have been an alias she took according to those traditions and not her real name.

All the best

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Glenn!

I personally find it, in fact, probable, that "Mary Jane Kelly" was just a pseudonyme!

Since, like you said, none of us trying to find her real backround, hasn't succeeded without the eternal "yes, but..."!

All the best
Jukka

[perrymason]

It sure stirs up friction round here when someone suggests looking at things that are quite obviously very odd coincidences or something more.

As to the number of Marys, Anns and Janes during that period, Im sure thats relevant Sam, but relevance and inquiry satisfactorily addressed are not the same thing.

Im not talking about any Mary, Ann, Jane or Kelly, Im talking about the last two alledged Jack the Ripper victims, a much smaller crowd than the entire East End's occupants. Broad statistics dont answer this question.

Glenn, Don.....If there was a knowledge of one C5 by another, then perhaps within the remaining C5, there are other such acquaintences with other C5 victims. If there were such links discovered, the enduring notion of a mad serial killer randomly selecting victims as the opportunities arose might be tested. If any links existed between any Ripper victim and another, its of paramount importance to the overall investigation.

And since it appears to me that the last victim, the second Mary Kelly killed in a row, was killed by someone other than "Mystery Jack", looking at the concept of known acquaintences might open a dialogue that more accurately reflects what we are likely looking at with these crimes, more than a Canon of 5 has done anyway.

Sense cannot be made of one killer for the Canonical 5. They are as different as they are alike. Not the victims...rather what happened, and where. But if a killer was killing specific people, not just killing to satisfy some undiscovered urges I see speculated about freely here, then the context changes, and then single throat cuts by an "abdominal mutilator" might actually make some sense.

For the sake of honest open discussion, I really dont think harping on me to tow a Canon 5 line is productive for anyone. Its solved zero questions to-date.....maybe its time to cut the Canon cord, and look at some of these...many....coincidental issues over these cases for what they say without a Canon spin on them,.. or some intellectual snobbery frankly.

I really enjoy discussing the cases with you, but I dont feel I need to justify exploring a question that is on the surface, a very odd coincidental feature of Kates and Marys given relationship, as alledged Canon 4 and 5.

C'mon....5 women who all do the same work, who had all lived in Spitalfield at one point, some shared street addresses, and they all loved to drink. Yes...there are enough clients, and enough pubs, and enough whores to say they need'nt have met...but why take that approach when there are odd coincidences that might suggest differently.

For example, what about possible cultural associations?

My best regards all.

[Sasha]

It sure stirs up friction round here when someone suggests looking at things that are quite obviously very odd coincidences or something more.

As to the number of Marys, Anns and Janes during that period, Im sure thats relevant Sam, but relevance and inquiry satisfactorily addressed are not the same thing.

Im not talking about any Mary, Ann, Jane or Kelly, Im talking about the last two alledged Jack the Ripper victims, a much smaller crowd than the entire East End's occupants. Broad statistics dont answer this question.

Glenn, Don.....If there was a knowledge of one C5 by another, then perhaps within the remaining C5, there are other such acquaintences with other C5 victims. If there were such links discovered, the enduring notion of a mad serial killer randomly selecting victims as the opportunities arose might be tested. If any links existed between any Ripper victim and another, its of paramount importance to the overall investigation.

And since it appears to me that the last victim, the second Mary Kelly killed in a row, was killed by someone other than "Mystery Jack", looking at the concept of known acquaintences might open a dialogue that more accurately reflects what we are likely looking at with these crimes, more than a Canon of 5 has done anyway.

Sense cannot be made of one killer for the Canonical 5. They are as different as they are alike. Not the victims...rather what happened, and where. But if a killer was killing specific people, not just killing to satisfy some undiscovered urges I see speculated about freely here, then the context changes, and then single throat cuts by an "abdominal mutilator" might actually make some sense.

For the sake of honest open discussion, I really dont think harping on me to tow a Canon 5 line is productive for anyone. Its solved zero questions to-date.....maybe its time to cut the Canon cord, and look at some of these...many....coincidental issues over these cases for what they say without a Canon spin on them,.. or some intellectual snobbery frankly.

I really enjoy discussing the cases with you, but I dont feel I need to justify exploring a question that is on the surface, a very odd coincidental feature of Kates and Marys given relationship, as alledged Canon 4 and 5.

C'mon....5 women who all do the same work, who had all lived in Spitalfield at one point, some shared street addresses, and they all loved to drink. Yes...there are enough clients, and enough pubs, and enough whores to say they need'nt have met...but why take that approach when there are odd coincidences that might suggest differently.

For example, what about possible cultural associations?

My best regards all.

I agree, Michael. All the victims resided within a couple of hundred yards of each other in the Thrawl, Flower and Dean, Dorset, and Church Street doss houses off Commercial Street. Based on the following addresses, you could assume that Polly Nichols, Liz Stride and Cathy Eddowes were familiar with each other. Similarly, it seems Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly would have crossed paths.

• Polly Nichols used to reside at 18 Thrawl Street; just before her death she was evicted and moved into the White House at 56 Flower and Dean Street, a doss house that slept both men and women.

• Annie Chapman's primary residence was Crossingham's Common Lodging House at 35 Dorset Street.

• Elizabeth Stride occasionally lived in a common lodging house at No. 32 Flower and Dean Street, and reportedly was there the night of her murder.

• Catherine Eddowes usually stayed in Cooney's Lodging House at No. 55 Flower and Dean Street, and had slept there two nights before her murder.

• Kelly lived and died in McCarthy's Rents at 13 Miller's Court, off Dorset Street (it was actually the back room of 26 Dorset Street, situated across the road from Crossingham's Common Lodging House). She had previously resided in George Street, between “Flowery Dean” and Thrall Street. Kelly was seen picking up a man on Commercial Street between Thrall and Flower and Dean Streets the night of her murder.

These residences were suspiciously close to each other, covering less than 1.5% of the total hunting area.

Two blocks north of Flower and Dean Street was the Ten Bells Pub (now known as the Jack the Ripper Public House) on Church Street and Commercial Street, across from Spitalfields Market; all the Ripper victims were known to have drank here. Another commonality - as Michael points out.

Maybe there were plenty of clients to share among all these women but you would assume that could be competition among them for the "better" clients.

As to "cultural" associations, I'm not sure what Michael means by this exactly. What crossed my mind however was the possibility of a doctor working in the area "pro bono". The women would have most certainly had STDs and/or backyard abortions that may have meant they knew each other? Maybe Jack was a backyard abortionist and one of his clients was threatening to report him to the police but he didn't know which so he killed them all? Just spiff-balling here! Be gentle - I'm a newbie!