|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 50
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 9:05 pm: | 
|
Just to play devil's advocate...
Emma Smith reported that she was attacked by two or three men. Many people like to think of that crime as the work of a gang, but if it were only two people it could be partnership... violent thugs, trying to shake down a prostitute for money, maybe cause a little mayhem in the meantime. Schwartz's report strikes me as consistent with a violent shakedown by two men.
Of course it's also consistent with any number of other scenarios too, some more or less credible.
Another point to consider is that partners in serial killing aren't as rare as some people think. A rough estimate of the cases from the Crime Library website shows maybe 10% of the serial killers had partners. According to the "aetiology of serial murder" thesis linked to from these boards recently, 36.7% of a sample of sexual sadistic criminals (from a study by Dietz, et al) had a partner assist in an offense. That seems high to me (the more sexual, violent and outrageous something is, the more likely I'd think it'd be a personal affair), but that the number isn't strictly for killings but also other crimes.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1686
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 9:12 pm: |
|
I agree, and the Hillside Stranglers are one example of partnerships in serial killing. However, this type of crimes - involving mutilations - tend to, as you imply yourself, be more of personal character and although I don't find it totally impossible, an accomplice doesen't ring that true to me in this particular context.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 188
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 9:28 pm: |
|
Ya'll know that I have to get up in the Stride
debate.
Glenn ol' boy...how are ya?
Ok, here we go....We've addressed this before a few times, but, I guess..we can do it again.
The two man theory..... If the Star hadn't of printed the crap story of the pipeman having a knife, then I guess we would not have anything to debate. The Star obviously fabricated this story. Example: Even though the police report that remains is a second hand report written by Swanson, wouldnt you think that the police would have remembered to put that "small" detail of the pipeman trying to come at Schwartz with a knife? Nowhere is this detail in the police report....nothing even close. The Star obviously made this up to sell papers. It just sounds a lot more interesting than a man just standing there lighting his pipe. No accomplice. Stride was killed by one dude and one dude only.
Regarding the "Lipsky" thing....hell he could have been yelling it at Schwartz and the pipeman. Best regards.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1689
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 10:05 pm: |
|
I agree, Paul. That is how I really see it as well. As you say, not much is made out of that in the police report.
Of course, since we can assume that the initial interview with Schwartz would be a more elaborated one (my belief is that Swanson's notes may be a more crammed and summarized version), we can't know what the exact original statement looked like, but I would nevertheless state, that the police would have paid more attention to this detail if they found it to be of value.
We can only speculate.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1702
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 7:05 pm: |
|
Dear Rosie,
Mr Andersson must admit that he's not that open to the possibility of an accomplice to the Ripper. It would be rather risky - of course there could be advantages with this approach (one acting as look-out and so on) but it would also be easier to spot two individuals then one, and also there's the risk that one of them starts to talk.
I don't believe in this nonsense about an accomplice. There are absolutely no evidence from witness testimonies or the crime scenes that supports this idea. Although we can find a few examples of those, these types of killers usually work alone, since the crimes are based on personal needs and compulsions.
Experimenting? You mean, like what's been done in the ridiculous Sickert connections and the paintings?
Mr Andersson don't mind experimenting, but not with something that can't be supported by the evidence. Call me crazy, but I just can't help it.
Of course, the only testimony we have that might imply an accomplice is Schwartz's, but then I don't really believe that Stride was a Ripper victim anyway.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 30, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 194
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 8:23 pm: |
|
Rosie,
Mr Jackson agrees with Mr. Andersson (whats up big dog?) None of the witnesses reported seeing
two guys (excluding pipeman..because...well.read my above post on the Star) with or near any of the victims.
Long- one guy
Schwartz- one guy (pipeman was walking away from crime scene)
Smith- one guy
Lawende- one guy
Hutch- one guy (the guy Sarah Lewis saw outside
Millers court was Hutch)
Certainly someone would have seen guy#2 hiding over in the bushes or wherever.
Even if the Star is true, regarding Pipeman,
it stated that he came out of the Public house
across from Dutfield Yard, whereas the guy who attacked Stride was walking down the street.
Just thought I would point out those facts to
obliterate the guy#2 theory. Best regards.
Paul |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 57
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 5:42 am: |
|
Hi Paul,
I don't think we can say much based upon the witness testimony. I'm not convinced any of those witnesses saw Jack at all, although it's possible. And I'm not certain that the person Lewis saw was Hutchinson either, as far as that goes. The witness reports are all fairly vague in that many of the women may not have been of the victims and the men might not be the Ripper.
You can't "obliterate" the two killer theory without making some conclusions that may not turn out to have been correct.
On the whole, I doubt there were two killers (well, two killers working together, I'm not even going to get into the whole how many murderers were there in the area thing), but I don't see that there's anything that rules the idea out either.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1708
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 6:59 am: |
|
Hi Paul, big dog!
Good post there. I agree.
Naturally, it is possible that none of the witnesses ever saw the Ripper at all - as Dan points out - but I still think two persons would have been noticed sooner or later by someone in connection with the murders. I find two guys working together as a highly unlikely scenario, also on basis on that these type of lust murders generally are of quite personal character and for the most parts performed by a sole killer.
I just don't buy it.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 195
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 3:21 pm: |
|
Hey Dan,
Everybody always says "lets stick to the facts"
so, Im sticking to the facts. Witness testimony is really all we have, I dont have anything better to go on. Do you?
Paul |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 58
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 8:04 pm: |
|
Paul,
Sticking to the facts would be saying that such and such a witness reported seeing a man with someone else at a certain time, etc. More facts would be that witness testimony is inherently unreliable, and includes a lot of lies, confusion, mistakes, and accurate reports of people that may not be related to the case.
Saying that there couldn't be more than one killer because someone would have reported more than one person in the vicinity is not a fact. Stating that you've obliterated a theory because it doesn't match your interpretation of very limited amounts of evidence is not a fact.
By all means, look at the case and draw your own conclusions, but don't blur the boundaries between fact and speculation.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 197
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 9:17 pm: |
|
Dan,
Im not going to argue with you about it. Im not saying that there is 0% chance that two people were "The Ripper". Im saying that the evidence that we have, and yes witness testimony is always questionable, points to only one killer...
so that raises the percentages to a little above
0%, but not much. The testimony of these witnesses is really all we have. So, Im sorry if my word "obliterate" does not suit you.
Paul |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 229
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 11:33 am: |
|
Mr. Mullins concurs with Mr. Andersson and Mr. Jackon's final conclusions, though the idea of a helper is very intriguing.
Mr. Mullins would also like to state that he also likes the following ideas: Chocolate ice cream covered in chocolate syrup, French fries, Good books, Good movies and good times.
Chocolate forever!!
Mr. Mullins
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1735
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 11:49 am: |
|
Chocolate indeed, Mr Mullins! Anytime!
(applause!!!!!)
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 199
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 7:51 pm: |
|
Whats up chocolate luvas?
I too enjoy chocolate. My girlfriend just made a batch of homemade brownies. If I could email
a few to ya'll...I would.
Paul |
Eddie Grayson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 7:01 pm: |
|
ive read both of Schwartz's statements, and every other statemnt surrounding the incident and have personally come to the opinion that;-
1) he saw the murderer (1st man)probably in the act of murdering Stride
2) there was no 2nd man. After fleeing the scene and in order not to appear a coward to his peers, family and general public he made up the second man who was armed.
Although speculative its logical because of the diferences between the 1st statement (police) and 2nd statement (star) where he then goes back on himself toning down on the 2nd mans involvment and being much more hazy about his appearance, among other things, just because he was foriegn dosent mean he was stupid, I probably would have run away myself. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page