|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Jacks the Rippers?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Jacks the Rippers?
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 25 January 1999 - 07:47 am |        | Hi all,
As many of you know, I have been playing for some time with the idea that Jack could have been more than 1 man. Don't groan, Yaz, my apprentice theory in new attire. A number of people have raised this subject, or mentioned it more or less in the last days.
There is a lot of points to cover on this supposition, which does have a few things speaking quite strongly for it.
Now, everyone, what do you think? Could Jack have had a crony or an 'apprentice'. Could that be an explaination for Tabram, Stride, maybe later Francis, Coles?
Bob |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Monday, 25 January 1999 - 08:25 am | | Hi Bob,
I suppose if you accept the eyewitness account in relation to Stride and Kelly (ie witnesses saw a short stout man with rosy cheeks, sandy moustache and a billycock hat, as well as the taller man with the deerstalker or felt hat who accords with other accounts) then two is a definite possibility. I suppose it is more of a possibility if Tumblety is your chief suspect as he did employ young men to walk the streets with him.
But how would they have worked together? Would they carry out each murder together, or take it in turns - one on lookout and the other doing the deed? I suppose with the double event the taller man may have chased Schwartz and continued on to find Eddowes, leaving the shorted one to finsh off Stride - that could explain the short space of time between the murders. Although the reverse of this may better explain Lawende's account. |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 25 January 1999 - 08:41 am | | Hey, Bob and Dela!
I'm with you, Bob.
And, Dela, in my (poor) opinion, you have struck the million dollar question...the potential key to figuring out this whole series.
How did JtR -- one, two, or more men (sorry, I can't accept the participation of a woman without more evidence, even very circumstantial) -- walk the streets of Whitechapel on each night of the murders, barely leaving a trace? If we can figure out that method -- good luck! -- we'd be a long way toward identifying the murderer(s).
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 26 January 1999 - 07:33 am | | Hi Yaz, Hi Dela,
The question about two men walking about. Everyone was looking for Jack the Ripper, not Jacks the Rippers. I could think that two men seen walking together would appear less suspicious as one alone. I could even think that a prostitute would feel easier with a second person being there to start.
During the Ripper scares, there were a lot of lone men chased, arrested, or at least taken to police stations, because they had invoked suspicion in some way. There is no record that two men together were chased, or even questioned, unless they happened to be in the vicinity of a crime at the time and were obvious people to question, mainly on if they had seen anything.
I always think on the different type of cut on Strides throat, compare the end of the cut on Stride's photo to that of Eddowes. Eddowes shows a typical Jack rip, down to the bone. Stride shows a cut from a less sharp knife, (confirmed by Dr. Phillips) at a different, lower, part of the throat. Now, if it was friend Jack doing the job, and got disturbed by Schwartz, that could account for his not ripping, but why the blunter knife? And why the different position of the cut?
IF my supposition is true, then the man who attacked Stride was Jack's mate (apprentice). Being not so skilled as Jack, he didn't get Stride silenced in time, which is why Schwarz claims that she 'cried out three times, but not very loud.' So the man with the pipe was Jack. That would account for the one watching the other at least attack a woman, the while casually lighting his pipe. If that is true, Schwartz saw Jack and described him too. Schwartz claimed he was chased by pipeman. That may not be true, but he at least said he was followed on the way to the railway arch. Note that Schwartz felt that he was followed. He testified that pipeman 'didn't follow so far' as the railway arch. That also tends to suggest that pipeman just wanted Schwartz to disappear i.e. pipeman was in league with the attacker. That Stride's attacker also called to pipeman shows that he at least knew that pipeman was there and would not try to stop or arrest him.
I've got loads more but that's a start.
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 26 January 1999 - 07:50 am | | Hey, All!
I've been hearing this a bit on the Casebook and I don't understand what's the source. What makes you think the attacker of Stride called "Lipski" to the man with the pipe? Schwartz might have mistaken the name as aimed at the other man, but he was new to the country and Whitechapel, not knowing Abberline's information that "Lipski" was an anti-semitic slur.
The part about the knives may only indicate the murderer always(?) carried more than one -- stuff breaks, knives get dull. And the different placement of the wound isn't sufficiently different to indicate a second murderer, since men aren't precision machines and Stride's throat may have been cut in a hurry.
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 26 January 1999 - 08:49 am | | Hi Yaz,
That why I sly b..... only said that the attacker called to the pipeman, not that he called 'Lipski'
Like you I can believe that Schwartz may have been mistaken, or misunderstood, what was called. He testified that the one called to the other, though, and he didn't need any English to know that.
About the differences. Of course things changed from site to site, but why so different to the other four cans? All others were cut with a very sharp knife, Stride not. The others were sawed to the bone, Stride not. (Now a bit more sticky) Stride cried out. None of the others were heard, although there were mostly persons in the near who must have heard a cry. (Kelly's alleged 'Murder!' cry could be an exception.) Stride's attack was stumbled upon by a witness, no others were reported to have been seen.
The next job, a few hours later, was done with the typical Jack signature, why change again after a few hours from Stride? I do feel, however, that Eddowes's killing had something to do with Stride's. A coincidence is really a bit much, although, of course, never to rule out.
Regards,
Bob |
Author: Godecod
Thursday, 03 June 1999 - 03:58 am | | Hello everyone,
Sorry this post is a little late, but I've only just got round to reading this message board (so many messages, so little time).
I am relatively new, so please bear with me!
I hope this isn't too much to stretch the imagination, but if you include Emma Elizabeth Smith with the canonical five, then there is a real possibility of up to four Jacks (and four handwriting styles, more than one knife, etc.)
Because there was never an established eye witness to any of the murders, there is always the possibility of more than one murderer present.
Having more than two Jacks could also go some ways to explain how there were two murders on a single night in a relatively short time (maybe two lookouts and two rippers).
It seems unlikely, as the MO for Smith is so different, but I thought I'd air it.
Well, that's my amateur 2c worth! |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 03 June 1999 - 08:02 pm | | Welcome to the madhouse godecod!
Every thought needs airing mate, so long as Jack (or Jacks) remains 'at large'.
If anyone's thoughts are ridiculed, let he who does the ridiculing solve the mystery all by himself. He will find it a tough lonely job on his island, with no soulmates to celebrate with when the time comes :-)
So goodonya and keep us posted.
Love,
Caz |
Author: dclydew
Wednesday, 04 August 1999 - 07:28 am | | Not much of a precedence for apprintice serial killers. Husband and wife team, yes, but that's about it.
No, I think that Jackie worked alone.
Besides, how do you go about getting an apprintice for murder, not likely to take an ad out in the times, eh?
Of course, the dual Jack could be explained by a Father/Son duo... Issac and Aaron. Issac takes out the first two... his son screws up Liz, so Issac stirkes later that night. Then perhaps they work together on poor Mary.
Thoughts? |
Author: Diana Comer
Wednesday, 04 August 1999 - 11:43 am | | | Suppose there was some kind of diabolical club, fraternity, society or what have you and their initiation included killing somebody and bringing an organ back to prove it. It would explain why the murderer(s?) of Eddowes, Chapman and Kelly could find and remove a uterus, while Nichols killer just stabbed around in a random way and Tabram's killer showed even less knowledge. Suppose Eddowes killer gets septicemia and dies. After watching the process of his slow and agonizing death only one more prospective member has the courage to do it again. After that the club loses enthusiasm and comes up with a safer initiation. |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 05 August 1999 - 01:40 am | | Hey Diana,
Before anyone reaches for their smelling salts this here post is gonna be tongue-in-cheek. (I know you won't mind, Diana, but others might :-))
Perhaps each victim was killed by a different individual on our suspects' list. That would make lots of us right!
Fairy Fay by Queen Victoria.
Emma Smith by three royal gang members.
Martha Tabram by Tumbelty.
Polly Nichols by Chapman.
Annie Chapman by Druitt.
Liz Stride by Kidney.
Catharine Eddowes by Kosminski.
Mary Kelly by Barnett.
Sorry, I couldn't resist it.
Of course one could also argue that all the victims were killed by their abusive partners and there was never a real Jack at all. Just a string of very unfortunate relationships that year.
Love,
Caz |
Author: D. Radka
Thursday, 05 August 1999 - 04:49 am | | Men: Abusive partners; GUILTY.
Women: Victims of abusive partners; INNOCENT.
David |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 05 August 1999 - 10:12 am | | You may have missed my point again David (deliberately?). I don't believe for one minute that the victims were done in by their own partners. I was being ironic :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: jill
Wednesday, 25 August 1999 - 02:28 pm | | Hi All,
After watching a bit of a movie on the tele, a thought hit me in relevance of a theory about 2 men working together. The movie: a romanticised story about the Kray brothers. They both were smart boys, with a very bossy mother and a father of no importance at all. As twins they could understand each other by a blink of an eye and dared each other in violent crimes.
I myself am not at this moment pro-2 JTR buddies. But if born more than half a century earlier, the Krays would be liable suspects indeed.
So to all with a pro-buddy theory start looking for very close brothers or twins.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 05 October 1999 - 10:04 am | | Hi All,
Can I add a bit more here about a possible two-man team for one or more of the murders?
Going back to the first East End prostitute who was murdered in 1888, Emma Smith: okay, not a victim of a serial killer, her throat not cut, but nonetheless a horrendous sexual assault resulting in death carried out by (in Emma's own words) 'some men'. This attack, followed by the murder of Martha Tabram (where there was talk of TWO guardsmen), started the panic in the area, seemingly before our man even came on the scene.
Unfortunately, poor Emma is the only victim who lived to tell of attackers in the plural. We do not know what the subsequent murder victims that year could have told us: one attacker or two, or more? If Emma had been unable to talk, would the police still have known or suspected that a gang was responsible? We know from Schwartz that there were two suspicious men around when Stride was attacked. Could her attacker have been the sidekick this time, the lookout the chief?
We tend to assume only one killer for Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly because this most nearly fits our idea of a psychosexual killer going it alone and remaining uncaptured. But couldn't one man have done the chatting-up bit, risking being seen by witnesses, waited until the second gave the all-clear, the latter then approaching with a lantern to hold steadily over the prey, illuminating the scene for numero uno, then the two of them making good their escape with no one the least bit suspicious of a couple of buddies in the moonlight.
Even with Kelly the police at first thought more than one man might be involved, hence their late decision to offer a reward, in the hope of luring the 'second-in-command' or weaker element into coming forward. We could of course say that this shows how little the police knew about lone serial killers in those days. But it is just possible that their instincts (or clues found in No.13?) were correct and pointed them to a two-man team.
More speculation I'm afraid, but I'm already getting worried about the possible number of individuals now believed to be involved with murder that year, surely one or two more can't hurt? :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Tuesday, 05 October 1999 - 11:35 am | | Hi, Caz:
You might be right that the police suspected a two-man team on the basis of clues found in Miller's Court. On the other hand, the various memoirs and jottings left by the police officials all point to a single killer not a two-man team, albeit each of them a different single-acting suspect depending on which police official's notes you are inclined to believe. (If it's Tuesday, it must be Anderson. . . Oh ah was that Anna Andersen, aka Princess Anastasia Romanov, or Sir Bob Anderson? Yer takes yer picks :-))
Chris George |
|
|
|
|
