Archive through 27 January 2002

** 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 **

Archive through 27 January 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : "No way it was a Lone Serial Killer": Archive through 27 January 2002

Author: Thomas Bayer Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 02:13 am
If you start running in circles go back to the basics. The things you know don't guess. Pack up all firsthand evidence there is and pay a visit to your local police dept. If it boasts a serious crime unit, that is. Use your rugged charme talking to the best interogator they have, not the bad cop type but someone who is expert in evaluating testimony. Get him hooked on the case. That's easy. It got you, right? After a week or so, while sipping a beer on the porch he will tell you one thing. No way the Ripper murders could have been committed by a Lone Serial Killer (LSK). No way. You see, he will then explain, eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, and cops know that. Good cops also know how to take their witnesses, and they even teach it in academy these days. Though many people are lousy watchers, everybody is able to recognize danger or someone's potential to become dangerous if more or less open displayed. Hair colour is not important in that context, though most people don't get an observed persons hair colour right. Size, complexion, movements are important, and normally people get those things right. It's sort of a filter we have. What we really note for example is the posture of a heavily build man, and from this posture we try to evaluate a potential for danger. It's also interesting to note that many witnesses remember people from a different ethnic background than theirs. It's still true in our times, it definetely was true back in 1888. Peoples' observations, in (very) short, rely mostly on fear and prejudice, and this is reflected in what they remember. With this in the back of our minds let's have a look at the statements of those witnesses that most probably have seen something... of our murderers. Matthew Packer, William Marshall, Mary Ann Cox, Israel Schwartz, Joseph Lawende, J. Best / J. Gardner, James Brown and William Smith saw someone I will refer to as the "Stout Caucasian". The man they describe is most probably 5'7" and described as "fair" or "British". I'd say Northern European, for a German or a Dane can easily be taken for a Brit. That man - TYPE I - is between 25 and 30 years of age. I'm still trying to research whether this was the average height of a Victorian gentleman or Victorian pauper. Food in childhood determines your adult size. The second batch of witnesses - Hutchinson, Elizabeth Long, Emily Walter - saw a "Jewish-looking" or "foreign" man, denoting a somewhat swarthy complexion. That man - TYPE II - was about one inch smaller and between 28-35. I know that many of these witnesses are not deemed reliable by fellow researchers, however, having a look at Fido's very restricted list (in Jack the Ripper A to Z) - Long, Lawende, Schwartz - shows the golden mean. Long describes a Type II, the others a Type I. Israel Schwartz has rarely been doubted and never convincingly. And he spoke of two people. TWO. One roughing up Elizabeth Stride, the other threatening Schwartz away. The first is a Type I, the second, however, was described as very tall and about 35 years of age. This may even include a third suspect. Other witnesses, often neglected and overlooked (yes, mostly with reason) also spoke of two men. Henry Tomkins for example, said so during the Nichols-inquest. The questions by the jury suggest that this was widely discussed in public back then. Two people. At least. And not a Lone Serial Killer. No way. BUT - serial killers don't hunt in packs. And they rarely take apprentices to tag along. Right. BUT - that bloody massacre could only have been committed by a madman. Right. Most probably. So - where does this lead to?! If I only knew... but isn't it intriguing?
Author: Jack Traisson Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 04:20 am
But how do you account for two of the most respected Ripper researchers/writers ever --Donald Rumbelow, and Stewart P. Evans? I guess the opinions of these policemen don't count. Cheers, John
Author: Jon Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 09:18 am
Thomas Building on John's point above I might add that you can only support your 'devilish-duo' by using the Stride murder as an example. This, incidently, is the one murder which is so unlike 'Jack' in methodology that there are extreme doubts that 'Jack' was even involved. As you are likely aware, most, if not all, researchers accept the murders of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes (likely Kelly too) as being the unmistakable work of Jack the Ripper so any theories as to who 'Jack' was would find better support if based on any or all of those cases. Trying to identify anything about Jack from the murders of Tabram, Stride, Coles, McKenzie, Torso, etc. is doomed to being viewed as too restrictive in sample. All those murders were too unique in there own right for us to be sure if Jack was involved. Regards, Jon
Author: graziano Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 09:20 am
The opinion of these policemen are exactly that, opinions. Of policemen. "Jack" was a criminal. Quite different, isn't it, Jack ? Cheers, Graziano.
Author: graziano Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 09:36 am
Incidently, Jon, Chapman and Eddowes were cut in a very different way. I am sure that you will agree that in no way we may speak of some kind of development of learning in the modus operandi between the two. Only differences. In the cut of the throat, in the ripping of the body, in the disfigurment (totally absent in the former), in the organs taken away. Same hand ? Hardly so. Similarities ? Yes, sure, but only in the circumstances surrounding the two murders. And in the position of the bodies. So, independent murders ? Surely not. Incidentally again, some similarities between the cut in throat in the Stride case and in the Eddowes one. Are we to understand that you think there were at least 5 different and independent murders there around in 1887/1889 that were never caught by the police and who all liked to kill, cut and dismember women ? I surely misinterpreted your post. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Jon Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 10:20 am
It's not what I think Graz., read up on it yourself. How many researchers think 'Torso' was Jack the Ripper?, - none. How many think Coles and McKenzie were murdered by the same killer? So, there we have three killers already. Not too many would argue that Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes were not done by the same hand. So, even if you include Kelly with the above three you now arrive at four killers. And if Kelly was a 'matracide' of sorts (Barnett?) then we have 5 killers already. Four killers, and we have not even considered Tabram and Stride and unless you have not noticed my opinion is not even part of the above. So, regardless of what I think the deaths listed above are taken by researchers as 'un-connected'. So what does it matter what I think? My specific interest in this case is with the 'known' three murders (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes) all the rest are subject to much dispute. Carve them up as you choose, (no pun intended) Regards, Jon
Author: graziano Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 11:03 am
Got it.
Author: Vaughan Allen Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 11:04 am
Just to be really pedantic...'matricide' is killing of one's mother...you're looking at 'uxoricide', though Barnett wasn;'t married to MJK (RIP). If you stand back and look at the murders, there are as many similarities that could go Tabram--Nichols--Chapman--Eddowes--McKenzie--Coles (RIPO), and if JtR really strangel his victims first, Mylett comes back into the frame... But you're right, we know so little...we can't even be sure that the victim in Dorset St WAS Mary Kelly..or even if MAry Kelly existed at all (except as a name for a few short yeats..) Vaughan
Author: Jon Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 12:21 pm
Thanks Vaughan, it didn't feel right as I was typing it but I locked onto the nearest thing to 'matrimonial' that I could think of. What is the killing of one's common-law 'spouse' called? Thanks, Jon (just murder?)
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 01:19 pm
moider, Jon
Author: Thomas Bayer Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 01:24 pm
Thanks for the input so far. I agree it's best to stick to the Canonicals for the time being. Some answers to points made here. Jack: Quote: But how do you account for two of the most respected Ripper researchers/writers ever --Donald Rumbelow, and Stewart P. Evans? Rumbelow is not the freshest fruit in the basket, I have to say. I prefer Sugden to look up things, or Fido. Concerning Evans I cannot imagine I am the only one to doubt his conclusions. Furthermore I try to get a fresh angle on the whole case, so I try to stick to the facts given in those books, ignoring conclusions. In short, let's forget what others have made out of the facts. Let's look back at the evidence itself and build our own theory. Jon: Quote: ...I might add that you can only support your 'devilish-duo' by using the Stride murder as an example. Yes and no. Stride is the only case in which two men have been seen together "at work". Yet, IF we support the canonical victims than we CAN state that two Types of men (detailed above) have been seen over and over again near the crime scenes or in company of soon-to-be-victims. I do not discard lightly conclusions made by two professionals in the field of police work I have asked (okay, one actually, the other nodded in agreement and is my in-law). They work by the book, though it might differ in Germany from let's say the one used in Quantico. Carefully put - Experience of contemporary police investigators with experience in the field of witness evaluation suggests at least two possible murderers. And now for something possibly outrageous: If I accept this, I have to ask uncomfortable questions. A team commits a series of atrocities, and that is plainly ridiculous. Serial killers don't hunt in packs, and they don't just stop after #5. Taking into account the somewhat eerie game Catherine Eddowes played ("Mary Ann Kelly" aka "Jane Kelly" living in "Dorset Street") and the dreadful double incident, which is puzzling quite in itself, one MAY argue that those murderers were going for a clearly defined target, building up a smoke screen aforehand. Oh-oh. No, I don't suspect PAV. And I don't think the honourable Mr. Gull was in it.
Author: david rhea Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 02:19 pm
Since we're speculating, perhaps these murders were part of initiation rites to a 'Hell Fire' Club presided over by D'Onston.
Author: david rhea Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 02:24 pm
Speculating again-Perhaps the person leaning over Stride called out Lipsky so that the other man with the pipe would think that Schwartz had just assaulted the victim, and so he began to chase him.
Author: Andrew Gurr Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 06:48 pm
I am new to this,only just started to take an interest in the ripper case,but from what i have seen and read about it i come up with one idea of the ripper,i believe he was a police officer of the metropolitan police in the whitechapel area,afterall during the time of the murders the prostitutes would trust and feel safe with a policeman,he would know the back alleys of the area,have a knowledge of anatomy,and know how to remain undetected at the time and obviously have an inside knowledge of police activities thus knowing when and where to commit the crimes where least likely to be seen and caught. So i do think he was alone serial killer,with hatered for prostitutes,maybe the power of policing had gone to his head,. This is just my view of the ripper and maybe if some of the letters wernt fake and he was a policeman then saying he was rite under there noses could have been true. Perhaps one day the ripper will be identified,maybe there is still relatives of the ripper alive today somewhere.
Author: angela h Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 06:57 pm
But if the man with the pipe thought that Schwartz had been the assailant of Liz Stride, why did he not persist in running him down, especially since everyone was abuzz about the Ripper? And why didn't he come forward when Stride turned up with her throat cut? There are just too many weird things about the night that Liz Stride and Kate Eddowes were killed, IMHO... On the other hand, once we start talking about multiple killers working together, we start wandering into, let it be whispered, conspiracy land, because, as Mr. Bayer has already put it, serial killers don't usually hunt in packs. But the observation about two seperate "types" seen by witnesses is spot on; I've tried to put them together before, but wasn't sure if it was a fit or not. And since I've already said "conspiracy", let me just go ahead and put my crackpot hat on - wasn't Emma Smith attacked by three men?
Author: david rhea Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 07:39 pm
Undoubtedly Schwartz was a fast runner.The man with the pipe may have had one too many, and gave out of breath.Also I read somewhere that there were several unexplained disappearances in the area. Might have been an alien from a UFO. Cattle mutilations are still an open question.JTR the man or thing from Venus.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 07:50 pm
Dear Mr Bayer, You seem to have a "feel" for the case that presents a new perspective...or, an intuitive grasp of what may be described as 'elided facts'. I look forward to further contributions to these boards. Rosey :-)
Author: Jesse Flowers Friday, 25 January 2002 - 03:26 am
Thomas- Welcome to the Boards; I will be interested to see where your inquiry takes you. Unfortunately you have chosen to challenge one of Ripperology's most sacred tautologies-"serial killers always work alone." Of course the fact that this is patently untrue doesn't seem to bother many people. William Bonin (the Freeway Strangler) had an accomplice, as did Los Angeles serial killer Lawrence Bittaker. Henry Lee Lucas had his Ottis Toole; Bianchi and Buono (the Hillside Stranglers) worked together. I could cite a dozen more cases, but it wouldn't matter. The image of the lone madman with superhuman powers of invisibility has become too entrenched to ever destroy. Never mind that Martha Tabram showed signs of being attacked with two different knives; that numerous contemporary newspaper reports referred to the multiple-murderer theory, some citing police sources; that Sir Charles Warren certainly believed the killings to be the work of more than one man. Even the Home Secretary stated that the murderer "probably" had accomplices, but this statement is invariably dismissed as a "face-saving gesture", although this is nothing more than pure speculation. And Schwartz's testimony is more often than not dismissed out of hand, even though the police obviously believed him and he is the only witness who actually witnessed an attack on a victim. Besides Schwartz, there is one other witness who could fit into your scenario. Sarah Lewis saw a man standing watch at the entrance to Miller's Court at 2:30 AM on the night of the Kelly murder. Although everyone always assumes that this was George Hutchinson, it has not been proved by any stretch of the imagination. In fact Hutchinson stated that he "went up to the court", while Lewis's man was standing outside a building opposite the court. Hope this helps AAA88
Author: Thomas Bayer Friday, 25 January 2002 - 03:43 am
Jesse- It indeed helps a lot to strengthen a case which relies - as so many other theories - on very circumstancial evidence in parts. Okay, I am tired returning from a night of field practice with bloodhounds in the city. I will give a detailed account, but let's for now state: BRUNO AND BURGHO WOULD HAVE CAUGHT THEM! Now a desperate plea for help - who has any, and I mean ANY information about Kelly's visit to France in 1886?
Author: Harry Mann Friday, 25 January 2002 - 04:25 am
Jesse, All Schwartz saw was a man place a hand on strides shoulder,And Hutchinson never did say he remained up the court.
Author: Chris Jd Friday, 25 January 2002 - 06:41 am
Thomas, I am looking forward to reading more of your ideas as well. In particular: Conspiracy - ok. Not Eddie/Gull - good! Please be open about your alternatives. They really seem to be something new here. Please keep'em coming. Oh, and some other people posting new ideas here write in riddles, asking lots of rethorical questions but giving no answers. Please be different. Servus Christian
Author: Thomas Neagle Friday, 25 January 2002 - 07:02 am
The fair-skinned, stout, broad-shouldered, soft-spoken, educated-sounding man, who looked like a young clerk, was the young man who was a Clerk of Assize, South Wales circuit( though he did not do much work because of his mental problems), as well as enterprising journalist, J.K. Stephen. He also wrote many of the Jack the Ripper Letters and poems. The dark-complexioned man who looked foriegn or jewish-looking, was Prince Eddy. Long, PC Smith, Hutchinson, Thomas Bowyer, as well as Lawende( Major Henry Smith said Lawende told him that the man was wearing a dearstalker hat, like Long and PC Smith said ), were describing him. Look at the description given by PC Smith, a policeman, trained in observation: The man was about 28, 5ft 7in. tall, dark complexion, having a small dark moustache, a black diagonal coat, white collar and tie, and wearing a hard felt dearstalker hat. That is exactly the way Prince Eddy looked. Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper. J.K. Stephen was his lookout( he also wrote many of the Jack the Ripper Letters and poems ). Dr. William Gull, the physician of both of them, was, according to Dr. Thomas Stowell, seen in Whitechapel on two of the nights that a murder was committed, to apprehend, and put in a private mental home in the home counties, Prince Eddy( as well as J.K. Stephen, who was put in a separate private mental home ).
Author: Chris Jd Friday, 25 January 2002 - 07:15 am
Thomas Neagle: Sorry, my previous post refered to Thomas Bayer. Christian
Author: Philip C. Dowe Friday, 25 January 2002 - 01:03 pm
Please print on paper and hang over mirror and repeat five time a day: PRINCE EDDY WAS NOT IN LONDON WHEN THE CRIMES WERE COMMITTED!
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 25 January 2002 - 08:01 pm
Jesse , excellent stuff - the ' lone serial killer ' has become as much entrenched in myth as many of the other aspects of the Ripper case ( the leather apron , the top hat , the doctor's bag etc ). My guess is it starts with the idea of the Ripper as ' deranged monster/madman ' which is still promoted by the Kosminski theorists , despite overlooking the obvious objection that the women might just not have gone with a drooling madman muttering in Yiddish. In fact , I think there are 4 possibilities we should consider : (i) A lone madman serial killer. (ii) A lone sociopathic - but sane - serial killer killing for his own evil ends ( similar to Ted Bundy ). (iii) A serial killer and accomplice ( as suggested by the Stride murder , or by John Wilding's theory ). (iv) A gang of killers ( such as the Joe Sickert theory ). Take your pick !
Author: Bob Hussey Friday, 25 January 2002 - 08:06 pm
Simon, How about a combination of the four?
Author: Jesse Flowers Friday, 25 January 2002 - 10:13 pm
Simon- Glad you caught the drift of my message; you summarized it admirably. Not that there necessarily was an accomplice(s), but that it is a distinct possibility that should not be as summarily dismissed as it usually is. Harry- We must be talking about two different Israel Schwartzes; the one who gave police information in the Stride case certainly saw more than that. The following is excerpted from Hutchinson's statement to the police- "They both went into Dorset Street I followed them...I then went to the Court to see if I could see them but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour..." Hutchinson's remarks as reported in the press are even more direct; he says that he went "to look up the court." The logical conclusion, therefore, is that Hutchinson stood at the entryway of Miller's Court, trying to see what he could see of Mary and her client. Contrast this with Sarah Lewis's statement- "When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House." (all italics mine) In my opinion this casts serious doubt upon the conclusion that Hutchinson and the man Sarah Lewis saw were the same person. AAA88
Author: Harry Mann Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 04:01 am
Jesse, Hutchinson certainly says he went to the court,but this would have been not long after supposedly witnessing the meeting,say around five to ten minutes past two,whereas Lewis gives a time of two thirty or thereabouts when she saw a man at Crossinghams across the street from the court.As this is believed to be Hutchinson he must have moved from the court to Crossinghams. Lewis does not report seeing two different men. The only report describing the sighting by Scwhartz is a newspaper report,taken by one of its reporters.No police report exists.Only a hand was seen to be placed on a shoulder.Schwartz does not describe it as an assault.This interpretation has been made by other people. H.Mann.
Author: graziano Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 09:16 am
I'm sorry Harry, but there is a second report describing Schwartz sighting still existing today. It was written by D. Swanson the 19th of October. It is based certainly on recollections of the Inspector (was he such ? I do not remember well) and it was written some 3 weeks after the actual deposition. But still is the only one "official" and gives some interesting details. Of course there will always be the doubt as if the words used in this report describe Schwartz impressions or Swanson interpretation of Schwartz impressions. Having read both and having tried to interpret them, I must agree with what Jesse said. I nevertheless agree with you concerning the point on Lewis/Hutchinson. I doubt the man the former saw was other than the latter. I think we may safely suppose that the police asked Sarah Lewis to identify Hutchinson as the man in front Miller's Court and her positive identification could have contributed to the positive impression Abberline had of the testimony of Hutchinson. Bye. Graziano.
Author: graziano Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 09:38 am
What about this ? Some kind of sociopath who integrated some kind of members of a group and who managed to convince them about the utility of the killings for the right cause. He killed because he enjoyed doing it (killing was for him a goal). They followed because they were aware that that was the only way to get to their goal (killing was for them only a mean). So, a sociopath killer with a gang of accomplices. At the beginning he works alone. Milwood, Wilson, unnoticed others. Then he convinces them. Come on, you see, it is not so difficult. We are only going to kill the worst of them. Very bad characters. The one who are already dying anyway. They make a first shot (just to try) with Emma Smith. Then they really begin to be serious. They know that the first murders will not be noticed very much. Rituals. Tabram.Nichols.Chapman.The double event. They are happy. They are reaching their goal. Is it still necessary to go on ? He convinces them again. Yes, of course. Miller's Court. There they understand this guy is completely crazy. They stop. They begin being scared. The police is near to discover them. The most implicated fly away from London. Others try to save them from accusation. While the first are absent, the seconds kill a third "Kelly" (McKenzie) just to dispell suspicions. The sociopath goes to US. He kills again in the same way he did in London. When all is quiet he comes back. Still a sociopath. He kills again (Coles). And then....then I do not know. Thanks for letting my imagination run. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Thomas Bayer Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 11:59 am
Well, I am glad I was able to spark a lively discussion, which, I think, is one of the main goals of such a board. I do not agree, however, with several aspects of the gang theory. Mary Jane Kelley's death - in exactly the fashion it happened - was the ultimate goal of several people. Nichols, Chapman, Stride and perhaps Tabram were a smokescreen. Eddowes most probably happened to be under the wrong name in the wrong place at the wrong time and thus perhaps became the most tragic incident. The goal was the death of Mary Jane Kelly. And it was important that in death she did not remain "Mary Jane Kelly" but became "another Ripper victim". It was furthermore important that was not left in a recognizable shape in case pictures should be published.
Author: graziano Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 12:30 pm
Yes, Thomas, sure, I also saw the movie Blow up. With John Travolta. Nice movie. I love John Travolta (and not because he is italian, I find marvelous also Nicholas Cage). I liked a lot also the actress. Do you remember by any chance her name ? The victims were all red haired, weren't they ? Thanks. Graziano.
Author: graziano Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 12:38 pm
But tell me Thomas, if you want to leave someone not recognizable, would you take away the heart or the head ? Thanks. Graziano.
Author: Thomas Bayer Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 12:44 pm
I'd make sure she's not longer recognizable and let my tool do whatever it fancies provided it acts within a given time frame. The actress - Nancy Allen?
Author: Tom Wescott Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 11:28 pm
"No way it was a Lone serial killer" - Quite a powerful statement, and a rather silly one at that. Of course it is possible that there was a lone serial killer. Heck, it's even likely. Geez. Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Thomas Bayer Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 08:26 am
If one puts Mary Jane Kelly at the heart of the affair, one cannot fail to note that the Kelly-inquest was hopelessly inadequate, compared to the inquests of Baxter and Langham in various other cases. Normally this statement is countered by the notion that MacDonald's inquest was "formally correct" and executed "by the book". This explanation, though correct on the surface, is a typical scholarly notion leaving out the most important factor - human nature. But then, having spent almost five years in university myself, two of them as teacher, I know how detached, how separated you soon become from human curiosity there. Let's just see it in context. In the middle of the most outrageous series of a murders, the elected MP MacDonald is suddenly put in the midst of the affair as coroner in the inquest of the most hideous slaughter. The politician did not seize the opportunity to present himself as a caring and competent personality but forced an "inquest light" on his reluctant jury. The jury which considered itself not responsible for the case was bullyied into submission ("If they persist in their objection I shall know how to deal with them."). Moreover he openly admitted that though there had been "a fuss about the jurisdiction in the papers" he hadn't had any communication with Baxter. At this time the latter should be considered the most experienced coroner in the Ripper-cases. Baxter and Langham, curious "Body-snatcher-theories" notwithstandting, had been seemingly working hard to get to the bottom of the cases, to enlighten backgrounds. Not the least reason for this was their obvious disapproval of the police forces' shortcomings in all of the cases. MacDonald in comparision fell short, very short. Even Phillips, the surgeon who previously had been put on the grille by Baxter, felt comfortable here. MacDonalds never betrayed the slightest inclination to learn something. Any witness with observations contradicting the obviously pre-conceived time of death was just not invited to testify. It was not even tried to find one of Kelly's supposed relatives in London. The inquest was closed with the notion that further inquiry would only "cause expense and trouble". Though perhaps perfectly in sync with the Victorian virtue of "thrift" it is simply breathtaking in the political context the "Ripper" had already achieved. Especially when taking one thing into consideration: the same researchers that don't stumble over this explosive remark have no problem to believe that vital evidence was only destroyed to prevent public unrest. Mr. MacDonald in short entered the inquest with a pre-conceived scenario and used rather crude methods to force it on his jury. I agree; he was playing it by the book. But what book it was and who wrote it has yet to be determined. [Definetely to be continued]
Author: Thomas Bayer Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 08:33 am
Quote: Of course it is possible that there was a lone serial killer. Heck, it's even likely. Geez. Well, this is progress. From "impossible it was a team" we are now approaching it was "likely an LSK". What I fail to see is why LSK-propagandists take their axioms for granted ("Sure he was alone.") and may spread this "knowledge" without even a shred of evidence (not implying there is no evidence for an LSK). Their opponents are required to prove even the possibility of a team. Is that some divine insight I am missing?
Author: Thomas Bayer Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 10:22 am
Correcting my statement from above. Whereas it is possibly to strengthen a "team theory" with witness evidence, there is actually not a single piece of evidence to prove the Ripper was a loner. At least none of the evidence that came down on us - witnesses, articles, inquests - substantiates the LSK-theory. In fact, promoting the Lone Serial Killer contradicts and violates what scarce evidence there is. Or did Sugden ommit things to promote a conspiracy theory underhand (what's the sign for irony BTW)?
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 05:40 pm
Dear Thomas, MacDonald clan motto: "Per Mare, per Terre". Rosey :-)
Author: Chris Hintzen Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 07:05 pm
Hello All, Eventhough I don't agree with Thomas' theory about 'Jack' being more than one person, even if we are stickin to only Eddowes, Chapman, and Nichols, I thought I might add a little something to help out his Theory. There has been at least ONE known pack serial killer in the past.(Probably more that I'm not aware of.) That was Henry Lee Lucas, and his friend Otis O'Dell.(Both made famous by the film Henry: Potrait of a Serial Killer..GREAT FLICK by the way!) Henry, claimed to have murdered more than 300 people, with the help of Otis, as well as with the help of others whose names he never revealed. Albeit Henry probably was exagerating about the number, he was known to work with Otis in the deaths of more than 2 dozen people. Also, a little food for thought. Is it possible that the Torso murders weren't in fact actual murders? Bear with me here. Ed Gein (The Serial Killer that inspired 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre') Had been digging up dead bodies for years after his mother's death. He carved many of these up for different purposes to fulfill his morbid fantasies. Afterwards he replaced the bodies back in the coffins and buried them again. Now whoever the 'Torso' killer was, took much time and skill to remove the heads, legs, and arms(Of course he didn't take the arms in all the cases.) This was a way to keep the bodies from being identified. So perhaps the 'Torso Killer' dug up recently buried bodies, for his own delights, and being as he felt he didn't have enough time to rebury them, before the graves were found the next morning, he filled in the graves with empty coffins and dumped the bodies in pieces all across London, just in case one was autopsied by the same Doctor who had done a previous autopsy on said body? A little far fetched I know. But the torso that was most recently found after death was the Pinchin Street Torso. And that body had been dead for at least two days, maybe even more. And in many cases of the day, if a person died of a contagious disease(Or at least a deadly disease thought to be contagious) they were typically quickly buried(If the family could afford it that is.) to keep the disease from spreading and becoming an epidemic.(Let's not forget that it was only a couple dozen years since London had survived a plague) So maybe the 'Torso' murders weren't murders, but someone's sick fantasies of necrophilia, or maybe even just a serious of sick pranks paid on the police of London.(We've got a few thousand instances of the Great Humor of the time, with the MANY 'Ripper' letters that were sent throughout ALL of England.) Just a little food for thought for everyone. Cheers, Chris H.