|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Was there only one killer?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Was there only one killer?
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 28 January 1999 - 12:43 pm |        | Hey, All!
"Nope" I won't reiterate the Hillside Stranglers. I don't even insist on a two-man JtR. The two-man JtR is simply a model against which to compare evidence and facts. It may be all wrong. We should try to capture all reasonable (yeah, how do you define "reasonable", I know) models. We might take pieces from two or more or all of them. We should also keep in mind your objections and the weaknesses you point out in the model...or any model.
Caroline, I don't think all Anonymous contributions should be lumped together or thought of as coming from one or a few sources. Anonymity has its purposes, some people just abuse it to post nasty personal comments. It's the nasty personal crap that needs to stop, not necessarily Anonymous postings.
There oughtta be a law that youo can't drink or dope and operate a computer at the same time, but then I oughtta have Bill Gates' bank account. Life is so unfair.
Caution on giving out or asking for info that might narrow where a person lives, works, etc. I think our post-ers are harmless...it's the ones who may be watching that don't post...just watch...that concern me more.
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 28 January 1999 - 12:47 pm | | Hi Caroline,
My vague theory for Stride was that Jack i let Jack ii have a go at her, because then Jack ii was fully mixed up in the affair and would suffer the same penalty as Jack i if he blabbed. I, even as man, would not have crossed Jack i too readily either, knowing his habits.
Because Jack ii b..... it up with his attempt, Jack i strolled into the night and turned Eddowes into ketchup, just to say 'Here is the real Jack, Stride wasn't mine. I'm no bloody beginner'
Love,
Bob |
Author: Anonymous
Thursday, 28 January 1999 - 12:58 pm | | | I am watching YOU |
Author: Stu
Thursday, 28 January 1999 - 03:03 pm | | Hi all!
I'm stu, one of TS friends and iw as just letting you know that her new e-mail is v_s01@yahoo.com feel free to e-mail her, I know she'd appreciate it. If you're wondering why she hasn't written it herself then it's because her computer has crashed and she asked me to give you this info.
Cheers
TS thru' stu |
Author: Anonymous
Thursday, 28 January 1999 - 03:13 pm | | HEY GUYS!!
If you look up to where Warks Uni put up their first 'message'. And look at the one underneath, by TAILSPIN, look at the spelling of Llewellyn.
In WARKS UNI, they spell it Llywelln and in the one underneath. Co-incidence or the same person?
Please tell me if you agree. |
Author: Jeff D
Thursday, 28 January 1999 - 04:01 pm | | Hi Guys !
In my opinion, I just don't believe we can run with the 2-man JtR idea, and "nope(Titania)" has really covered my reasoning behind 2-men actually working in collusion on a series of murders in Whitechapel, Autumn 1888.
I am not for one moment ruling out the possibility that there was more than one murderer in the east end that year, I just don't think the work was a conspiracy in any way. Many serious crimes are solved simply because a second person involved just couldn't keep his mouth shut. Take the Manson murders as an example. The police were at dead end with their inquiries, then (I'm sorry, I forgot her name and I think it was a her, not that Tex guy) bragged of her crimes to a fellow criminal while they were locked in the same cell. She had been arrested on a minor charge, the other inmate then, just had to tell the authorities, of what she'd been told of such a serious crime, resulting in the Helter Skelter investigation.
I believe whenever two-people share a secret, one person just has to tell someone. The more important the secret, the greater the need to tell, and I believe this reasoning could go right to the top of government agencies, secret agencies, and so forth. Hence the need to take extraordinary measures, where vital secret information needs to be kept secret.
Back to Whitechapel 1888.... with the notoriety, and sensationalism involved in the Ripper case, if anyone at all knew anything that may have helped identify the perpetrator, he would have spoken to someone, sometime for some-reason. It is along these lines, that my thinking does not allow me to include Elizabeth Stride in the series.
Although there are many reasons to include Stride, and the MO (or whatever) has more similarities to the other victims, than many people do realise, basically we have 2-men involved and this is something that we cannot get away from. If Stride was a victim of Jack the Ripper, then Jack the Ripper was 2-men, as witnessed by Schwartz.
OK, pipe-man just may have been a bystander, and he didn't wish to be involved. This possibility can never be discounted, but again we have to consider the sensational aspect of the case, and the fact that if pipe-man wasn't involved in the murder itself, he would have gone to the police, or some authority, especially if he thought at all that he may have just witnessed Jack the Ripper at work. Surely the combined information gleened from Israel Schwartz, and Pipe-Man, would have resulted in a huge investigation, but pipe-man did not come forth, and I've got to believe there is a reason for this.
I believe that 2-men were involved in Strides killing, yet the single prospect of a trip to the hangmans' noose for both of them, was enough of an incentive to keep them both quiet. I know I am contradicting myself in this post and there can always be variations on the Stride theme. Before people do start taking this scenario apart, I have considered many aspects of this murder, and this is my amateuer (though I believe informed) opinion. I think there is a great difference between a 1-off spontaneous murder, as I believe Stride was, and a series such as the group of murders that are included in the Whitechapel horrors of 1888.
So much other evidence in the rest of the series, could actually indicate that there may have (at least) been some 3rd party involvement in some way, but at the end of the day, I believe the miscreant that we have come to know as Jack the Ripper, was one lone, crazed phsycopath, who very much kept his deep dark secret to himself.
Cheers All ! Sorry for such a lengthy post, I do appreciate some posts can be too lengthy, and can therefore lose their impact, but after being so quiet for so long, I just had so much to say.
Thanks for reading !... BTW, I LOVE the V-Whitechapel idea, and will happily offer any assistance, if I can be of any help at all.
Jeff D |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 28 January 1999 - 05:30 pm | | Hey, All!
I can't agree with you, Jeff...but so what. Follow your instincts and your reading of the evidence. You may be right. The 2-man JtR model is being discussed all over the place, most of my answers are under the Stride topic if you're interested.
As for Anonymous and the idiotic and cruel insinuation he or she makes, I hope Tail-Spin ignores it and the rest of us do as well.
But I'm going to open a topic for "anonymous." See you there...if you can find it with both hands!
Yaz |
Author: nope
Friday, 29 January 1999 - 03:09 am | | so...contradicting myself...what if there actually was 2 jtr's...perhaps the blabbing I was talking about was the letters...if you believe as I do, that the dear boss, saucy jacky and the from hell are genuine, then perhaps jtr2 wrote the 2 first ones to be able to tell someone about his doings...and jtr1 wrote the third...maybe because he was jealous, that jtr2 was causing more attention and had actually given them a name...a SINGLE persons name...I'm just saying this because I kind of think those 3 letters weren't written by the same person...the spelling in from hell is soooo bad and the 2 previous ones sound...well, if not articulate, atleast they use a good spelling/phrasing. But then again, this goes against my own belief as well...because if there indeed were 2, I would believe either that they both came from the east end, or that jtr1 was of a somewhat higher class...and found his accomplish in the e. end. And that inclines totally the opposite of what I just say...and also, if you look at the handwriting, the dear boss letter is smoothly written, the other 2 aren't at all, and the writing is actually quite similar...
Anyways, this was just to say why I might be open to the jtr1&2 theory.
cheers |
Author: Bob_c
Friday, 29 January 1999 - 03:11 am | | Hi all,
Jeff does think along the same lines as I do, to name just one person. As I said (actually wrote) earlier, if my apprentice theory has any bearing at all, then the attacker would be Jack's second and the pipeman.... was Jack.
I am considering having a go to find out all about pipeman that can be raked up, little enough that will be. Anyone else have thoughts on the matter?
About the attempts to disrupt the board by certain individuals, let me say again that I have many years of experience in chat rooms all round the world. Most of the tricks are already well known, and when I read e.g. that I should e-mail some unknown third person, because the original writer's computer/net/server/modem is down/broke/missing/crashed and they have asked a third party and they have said OK etc. etc. then I ask that person the following:
Would she/he follow my anonymous request that she/he send me their bank account no., cash card no. and PIN via someone else's E-address when I intend to send them $10.000 as a present when they do?
No? I am astonished.
If your link is broken down, you can't write on the board. If you use someone else's, you can still operate under your own name. For those who are still too young to realise it, everyone has a certain way of expressing themselves, in speech and in written word. You have to be pretty clever and experienced to be able to hide that. You can write using 10 different aliases and still betray yourself. I write all over the world in a number of chats etc. The name I use is mine and the e-address is mine too. We know there are certain people, mostly young, inexperienced, wet-behind-the-ears beginners, who think that being able to write (more or less) on a PC gives them the power to show the world how clever they are and how stupid everyone else is. Just a couple of examples are to be found on the board in the last few days. Well, sonny, the world has been around a lot longer than you, and was getting the numbers of individuals like you before the Pharaohs were born.
As Paul wrote yesterday, he didn't like to think of old Ladies getting banged on the head. Nor do I, but the same attitude to other people is indicated by such persons. I don't say that every snotty-nosed creep that smears his laughable attempts at disruption all over the net also goes around bombing schools or even peeing in telephone booths, but the evident contempt of others shows where it could end.
Of course not everyone who is inexperienced has bad intentions, and some grown-ups are just... not grown up. The world is still a fine place and I reckon that 99% of all people are basically good, sincere, honest citizens. The other 1% or so are apes.
Regards to all genuine contributors,
Bob |
Author: Tailspin
Friday, 29 January 1999 - 03:21 am | | To evryone
I must first start by saying that someone has been using my username as a way of prolonging this little excersise. I have also found out who our Warcs uni friends are and they see me everyday and I will be asking them what they are up? Sorry to everyone but it has been quite fun working out fact from fiction hasn't it?
I am glad that people have become involved and I hope you will keep writing.
Luv the real Tailspin.
PS Hiya Stu.
PSS Anyone intrested in some longer theories then E me at the address in Stu's letter. |
Author: Caroline
Friday, 29 January 1999 - 11:59 am | | Dear Bob,
Before you go off on your hols (got that screwdriver or paint-brush in your hand?):
The southwest of England is somewhere I have never lived. I have fond memories of a holiday in Newquay, however, which include sea-bathing in pouring rain after downing Cornish pasties and Guiness for lunch. Not recommended for the waistline or survival but I seem to have come through nicely on both counts to date!
My visit some years later, when expecting Little Caz, has been clouded by memories of Tintagel in pouring rain (again!), watching from inside our car as elderly pac-a-macs sploshed past to purchase their Sunday papers!
As for thoughts on the matter of pipeman, my own findings, which are beginning to reach bucketfuls, lead me to the conclusion that he was indeed Jack the Impaler, with his fall-guy trying his hand with Long Liz (as Yaz says, see under the Long Stride-Board---sorry!).
I also think I can soon reveal how Jack got his name, the theme behind all the killings, how many murders were down to him, how many down to JtR2, and how JtR1 made an unsuccessful attempt to implicate JtR2 in the five canonicals.
There are other revelations too numerous to mention at present, and I must check all my facts and wotnot first, before I get carried away to Bedlam. I wouldn’t want poor old Anonymous for a cell-mate!
Talking of which, Yaz is quite right to tell me off for lumping them all together. I never meant to, I just assumed we all knew which one(s) needed a good talking to.
I am almost as anonymous because I don’t give out my e-mail address here. Hubby would prefer me not to, and I can see why. Those who matter know where to find me so I hope the boards will remain public and private at the same time.
One final thought: I don’t think the ‘Anonymous- who- didn’t- get- his- mum’s- attention- enough- when- small’ has ever addressed me personally. If he would like to here, my shoulders are broad enough for him to cry on, and I can’t be conned by someone so messed up inside.
Love to all,
Caroline |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 29 January 1999 - 12:54 pm | | Hey, All!
What concerns me -- which is irrelevent to this topic, but the phenomenon has occured here -- is Tail-Spin's problem of someone using his/her nickname, and/or playing pranks on him/her a la "Warcs U."
It seems, since the "villains" are known to T-S, that Tail-Spin can handle "Warcs U." but the web site administrators may have to do something if doofuses start using other people's names. The doofuses may have never seen, or they forgot, my messages about how finding your "real" identity is a very easy task for the Casebook sys admin. Just another warning.
Yaz |
Author: stu
Friday, 29 January 1999 - 02:51 pm | | Hi guys! Just saying hello!
What happened to the Doh! kid? Anyway, I also see the WARCS UNI person everyday(nearly) and I'll be asking them to stop posting messages.
If you'd like to conatct me then use my e-mail at the top of this message.
Also when I wrote about Tailspin's E-mail, she asked me to put the message on so don't go thinking I'm winding you up.
Bye
Stu
PS: hi Tailspin!!
PPS: Here's her e-mail incase you forgot!
v_s01@yahoo.com |
Author: Anonymous
Monday, 01 February 1999 - 03:10 am | | Dear everyone,
hello. i am a fan of this topic. i like jack the ripper as a conversation piece how 'bout you?
PS Bob, Yaz and Tailspin are really cool names! |
Author: Stu
Monday, 01 February 1999 - 11:15 am | | Hi guys!
It's me Stu. I've set up a board for Me, TS, BOB and YAZ! It's not too hard to find. It's a general discussion page where you can talk about anything you like!!
Also, it's much less crowded! So there is quite a lot of space to nuture your wonderful skills!
BYE GUYS!!
from
Stu |
Author: Edana
Tuesday, 02 February 1999 - 09:50 am | | Hmmm...is this a NO GIRLZ ALLOWED club, like the Masons?
Edana
(A GIRL) |
Author: Tailspin
Wednesday, 03 February 1999 - 03:08 am | | Hi Edana,
I'm called Tailspin and don't worry I am a girl. I just like the name no matter what sex it sounds like. So relax it's not just the boys who can have a debate.
Tailspin. |
Author: nope
Wednesday, 03 February 1999 - 03:26 am | | | *hurms and points towards the subject, then towards her new theory that states jtr was a scotland yard policeman in combination with his crazed sister who used to work as a midwife, and obviously they were both hired by the prince* |
Author: Edana
Wednesday, 03 February 1999 - 08:37 am | | Sorry, Tailspin, my comments were meant to tweak some noses in a friendly way, not to accuse anyone of sexism. It was the exclusive nature of the 'debate' group that prompted my comments. I think Yaz has said it better than I could ever do on another subject board. Thanks Yaz, as always.
Edana |
Author: Joseph
Monday, 22 March 1999 - 10:19 pm | | Hello Caroline,
My name is Joseph, and I live in New Jersey, U.S.A..
I read with interest your posting of January 29,
1999 11:59am. In that post you mention many revelations that you're working on, such as;
How Jack got his name.
The theme behind "all the killings".
How many murders were down to him.
Other revelations too numerous to mention.
I must admit, you got my attention.
Have you already posted this information?
If so, please tell me where I can read it.
If not, will you be posting the results of your research any time soon.
I am fairly new to this board, but I have been
following the subject scince I was 10 years old.
I am now 48 and the mystery has not lost it's
appeal to me.
I thoroughly enjoy reading the give and take on the various topics of the Case book, and
I'd like to thank you, as well as your fellow enthusiasts, Yaz, Bob C.,and Mr. Paul Begg for continuing my JtR education.
Best Regards
Joseph |
Author: Caroline
Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 09:22 am | | Thanks Joseph.
If I am lucky enough to get something published one day, you will get all the answers you seek and more, because I will not do so unless the experts agree that the mystery is indeed solved.
Therefore, as most of the 'stale warts' here will tell you if you ask them nicely, you are in for a long wait (some would say 'til hell freezes over!)
Thanks all, for the comments about 'hilarious tripe' etc. I can take a hint you know!
Happy Easter.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 09:13 pm | | Hello Caroline,
Thank you for your kind response. Frankly, I thought I would never hear from you, I was worried
you had left the board for good and I would never get the chance to discuss JtR with you.
I can't tell you how many times some of your postings have made me smile.
I couldn't begin to tell you how often your
insight has provoked my thoughts.
We share ourselves a little bit when we post our
thoughts on this board.Thank you for shareing.
I hope to be reading you again real soon.
Best Regards
Joseph |
Author: Dave Sceats
Thursday, 02 March 2000 - 02:52 pm | | Hi
Could it not be possible that with the introduction of a new daily newspaper (The Star),also with people like Passmore Edwards trying to highlight conditions in the East End there was actually no Jack The Ripper?.
The murder of prostitutes in the area at this time was not un-common, with the brutal murder of one, The Star realising that it was a victorian London that lived on sensationism (Look at the Elephant man) could sell papers using a story of a super killer Police can't catch. People trying the highlight the problem of prostitution also added fuel to the fire, and anti-goverment movement also adding there part. All without realising making Jack The Ripper become real.
I'm not saying the murders did not happen, but could it not be the case that people who were questioned in relation to the murders, were released becaused they had a cover story for the other (So called linked) murders so could not be the serial killer the police were trying so hard to catch.
The possible reason why Jack was never caught, was that there was no Jack. Only individual murderers who had a lucky escape, and what finally killed Jack off, was the improvement of conditions in the area, brought on, by the highlighting of problems in the area by the Jack story.
All The Best
Dave |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 03 March 2000 - 04:34 am | | | You can't say theres no Jack , thats like saying there ain't no Santy Claus ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 03 March 2000 - 11:07 am | | | Seriously , the manner in which the throats of the victims were cut was very similar in all cases , leading to the police judging that the 5 canonical crimes were committed by the same man. This is why the murders of Emma Smith , Martha Tabram and Alice McKenzie are not considered to have been commited by Jack. |
Author: Dave Sceats
Friday, 03 March 2000 - 02:33 pm | | Hi
Correct me if i'm wrong, but is it not the case that the figure of 5 came at a much later date?.
Is it possible that the avarge person would cut a throat the same way as any other, what exactly made Jacks cut unique?
All The Best
Dave |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Saturday, 04 March 2000 - 08:19 pm | | Dave, opinions differed at the time of the murders as to what the actual body count was, as they still do today. As has recently stated in an answer to one of my posts, the canonical number of 5 was given by Sir Melville Macnaghten in his memoranda of 1894 (not, "a much later date"):
"Now the Whitechapel Murderer had 5 victims - & 5 victims only..."
Macnaghten's five were Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly; but there is some evidence that these five only, were already officially attributed to Jack the Ripper in November of 1888, when Sir Robert Anderson asked Dr. Bond's opinion on the Whitechapel murders.
Bond's general report stated:
"I beg to report that I have read the notes of the four Whitechapel Murders, Viz:-
1. Bucks Row
2. Hanbury Street
3. Berner Street
4. Mitre Square.
I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street."
Bond did go on later to include Alice McKenzie as a Ripper victim but this opinion was overruled by police officials based on the opinion of Dr. Phillips. Considering that Dr. Bond must have been given information and taken some instruction from Anderson as to the parameters of his study, it would seem likely that Anderson was of the opinion that, including Kelly, the Ripper victims numbered 5 (although in his memoirs, published in 1910, he described the Polly Nichols murder as the "second of the crimes", it seems likely to me that this was an error in memory cause by the intervening 22 years).
As to your question, "Is it possible that the average person would cut a throat the same way as any other, what exactly made Jacks cut unique?", again here is Dr. Bond's report:
"1. All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand. In the first four the throats appear to have been cut from left to right. In the last case owing to the extensive mutilation it is impossible to say...
2. All the circumstances surrounding the murders lead me to form the opinion that the women must have been lying down when murdered and in every case the throat was cut first." (i.e. before the mutilations.)
"4. In all the cases there appears to be no evidence of struggling and the attacks were probably so sudden and made in such a position that the women could neither resist nor cry out...
5. In the four first cases the murderer must have attacked from the right side of the victim...
7. The mutilations in each case excepting the Berner Street one were all the same character and showed clearly that in all the murders the object was mutilation." (This sets up an interesting question concerning the Alice McKenzie murder. Dr. Bond felt that it was a Ripper murder while Dr. Phillips disagreed saying that, "I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this, noting the mode of procedure & the character of the mutilations &judging of motive in connection with the latter", meaning that the motive of the McKenzie death was not mutilation.)
"9. The instrument must have been a strong knife at least six inches long, very sharp, pointed at the top and about an inch in width..." (This description does not fit the type of knife used to murder Elizabeth Stride who was not a Ripper victim in my opinion.)
Added to this list is the fact that the cuts to all the victims throats, except Stride, were deep enough to notch the bone.
One thing about your theory that there was no Jack the Ripper, Dave, if it was all made up by the press and no real connection existed between the victims, explained how the press was able to fool the police, the medical men and the political handlers at the Home Office. How could several unconnected murders (or a group of Masonic conspirators for that matter), copy the modus operandi of a modern sexual serial killer at a time when serial killers were unheard of?
Wolf. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 08:42 am | | | As an aside , let me paraphrase Stephen Knight to suggest further that the murders of Eddowes and Kelly were connected. There were an estimated 80,000 prostitutes in London at the time , including casuals. There were 1200 prostitutes under Police H Division in Whitechapel alone. What is the chance that the last two women murdered by the Ripper should bear the same name ' Mary Kelly ' ?. I think thats a bit of a coincidence , don't you ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 08:53 am | | | Wolf , I can't agree with you that the Ripper murders follow the modus operandi of a modern serial killer. You are presuming that the Ripper had no other motive for his actions , which he may have done. There may be a logical reason , as yet unknown , for the mutilations. I don't know that much about profiling ( I have read a bit about Ressler and David Canter ) but as far as I see it , profiling is an attempt to determine who a killer might be by trying to assess his psychological state , and by determining such ,finding details from other cases which match the one under inspection and drawing probabilities about the killer from them. Profiling is not an exact science and there are exceptions to the rule. I doubt profiling could come up with an accurate profile of Vlad the Impaler , Elizabeth Bathory or WW2 Nazi doctors and concentration camp guards for instance. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 07:24 pm | | I'm afraid Simon that you have just blown any shred of credibility that you had. You can't agree that the Ripper murders follow the modus operandi of a modern serial killer???!!! Why, because the murders were the work of Masons?, therefor all factual lines of thought must be downplayed or ignored?
Wolf. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 05:47 am | | | No , because opinions differ firstly , on what the MO of a modern serial killer is , and secondly , that Jack followed that MO. As to credibility , I blew that way back on Feb 11th I think ! |
Author: Dave Sceats
Saturday, 11 March 2000 - 03:54 am | | Hi
Can we be 100% sure the all the murders were done by the same hand, there was a number of murders accredited to Jack (Was not one figure 13?). If Jack only killed 5 (Or now maybe 4) why were the other murders linked to Jack?. Unless that type of killing was not as un-common as we think.
Was there any murders (Not as brutal) but simular to the jack murders earlier on.
Working on the theory that serial killers will try experimenting first (eg In Jacks case kill a prostitute without the butchery) then slowly increase the ferocity of the attacks as confidence grows. Perhaps we should try looking for arrested for earlier attacks on prostitutes, or at least suspected.
All The Best
Dave |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Sunday, 12 March 2000 - 03:31 am | | Annie Millwood, stabbed in the legs and lower portion of the body, 25 February, 1888. Survived, but died soon after of natural causes.
Ada Wilson, stabbed twice in the throat, 28 March, 1888. Survived.
Martha Tabram, stabbed 39 times, 6 August, 1888, Died.
Wolf. |
Author: Dave Sceats
Sunday, 12 March 2000 - 05:45 am | | Hi
Theres even case's up until 1889 |
|
|
|
|
