|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jason Scott Mullins
Detective Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 52
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 1:09 pm: |       |
Hey Monty -
Oh no, I dare not theorize about _who_ the two men were, only to look at the evidence and see _if_ there were in fact two men. I doubt I'll ever choose a suspect simply because there is too much information missing to draw any real, provable conclusion.
As far as the two men theory goes, perhaps it would answer some questions.. until I can think it through though, I can't be certain that it won't raise any paradoxes either. Perhaps it would explain a few things (like why _they_ got away, as opposed to how _he_ got away.. no one was looking for a they, only a he) But it might also cause more harm than good Dunno.. gotta noodle this one through.
But, rest assured, I'm not in this for money or to publish a book.. I've got more vested interest than that. Although they are personal, they are not monetarily based :P
Besides, there are other ramifications that I don't know if I want to deal with in 'publishing' a theory.. Like the fact that if it's right and there is any surviving family, they must deal with the 'news' that Great Grandpa "Bubba" was Jack the Ripper.. Getting hassled by everyone for a interview or asked if you have 'anything' from your great grandpa.. prank calls, threatening letters.. having your privacy compromised...
Being fairly antisocial myself, I don't know that I want that on my conscience :P Of course, if one does ever find out beyond a shadow of a doubt and doesn't tell anybody.. what has that one accomplished? Tough call I suppose.
Let me know how that research on a 2 man theory goes.. I'd very interested in seeing how it pans out.
crix0r |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 492
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 8:43 am: | |
Jason,
Ok, before we start I just want to stress these are my views. Im not passing off any of my theories as fact and believe me, I know what the flaws are….Ive gone through every one of them.
Im going from Tabram through to Kelly.
Right, evidence pointing to a 2 man Jack….yep I know, that damn reliable witness statement !
With Tabram we have the Soldiers as reported by Pearly Poll. One of them toddled off with Poll but PC Barrett actually conversed with a soldier at the Wentworth st junction with George yard….a lookout ?? Also we have Kileens statement that it may be possible Tabram was attacked with 2 different weapons.
With Stride we have Schwartz’s statement of a possible assault on Stride by a guy in Berner st (nope, not Dutfileds yard), with an assumed accomplice seeing off old Israel….and that’s all we have on the evidence front.
Stop…theory time…
…looking at how they would operate then it would depend on their relationship, on how each individual wanted to be involved.
The lookout scenario is how most people assume this double act would work. With Tabram the lookout would have to be in one place and one place only. That’s at the entrance to the buildings (not at either junction with Wentworth st or Whitechapel High st…for obvious reason that you cannot cover both.) But even being situated at the entrance means Martha’s attacker is open to anyone exiting their dwellings out into the alley.
The joint attacker scenario (as mentioned above) is supported by Kileens statement of two weapons being used. This is plausible but there is only one injury caused by this other weapon. That, to me, seems odd. But what do I know? Martha, as we know was stabbed. This works. They may have gotten in each others way though but not enough so they couldn’t work.
Nichols. The lookout, I feel, would have to be near the school. It covers Bucks row from Bakers row to Brady st and Winthrop St. The joint attacker/mutilator is a problem for me here. There are a lot less stab wounds on Polly than Martha. The main wound is a jagged cut up her abdomen. That would be hard to accomplish together. You would just be getting in each others way.
I have similar views regarding Chapman and two men attacking/mutilating her. The best position for a lookout is in the passageway, but what happens if someone does enter from the street? You have only one way to go.
Stride. If Jack was 2 men then I feel this is how they would have operated. If you can come up with anything which resembles this MO for each murder then you may have something. An accomplice who could be a passer bye…who may have been just as afraid as Schwartz (or seems to be). The problem is that, as Israel proves, having 2 men doubles you chance of being spotted if the lookout Fecks up.
Again, the mutilating aspect of the murders really doesn’t work for me with regards to 2 attackers. I cannot see how it could physically be done. The scene would remind me of a lion feeding frenzy. Just a mess over everyone.
Now Eddowes. The lookout has a huge headache over this one. He has 3 entrances to cover. Ive been in that square and though it has very little in common the square of 1888 the exits still remain. I used to close my eyes once I heard some footsteps approaching and try to tell which way they came from. I couldn’t. But you could tell someone was on their way. Problem is which way do you flee? I can imagine how they must have felt when Harvey clomped his way down Church passage. A lookout would be no use. As for attacker/mutilator. See same problems above…double it cos you’re in the dark !.
The flight from Mitre sq (as any of the murder sites) would have been interesting. It would be logical to have split up. Halses guys where checked and found to be Kosher and I cannot see them departing together.
Kelly. As with Kate, a lookout would be no use to man nor beast. In the passage or in Kellys room they would have had nowhere to run. Opposite the entrance to the court is the best spot but how would you warn your oppo ?? Now attacker/mutilator results on Marys body is exactly how Id expect most of the other victims to have looked.
Basically mate I have been no use to you whatsoever. A 2 man Jack would be hard work because you simply cannot predict what your mate is going to do. There is going to be a balls up somewhere. Either while on the job or whilst just diddling along in their everyday lives. A brag here or miss word there.
The crime scenes point to one man. Also coupled with the fact that not many witnesses pick out 2 men at the scenes (Schwartz being the only exception) leads me to believe that we are looking at one man.
I could go into a rant on Serial killers and their psychosis which is complex and I cannot be arsed…unless you want me to.
All in all one man.
Obviously I may be wrong. Ive only scanned through the evidence and came up with my ideas. There are many flaws and problems
Im just sorry that they aren’t up to much.
Monty
 |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 256
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 9:00 am: | |
I'm trying to remember (possibly someone could help here), there was a serial murder case in the US which turned out to be a rapist and a serial killer working together. They would capture a girl, the rapist would do his thing, then the other guy would get his jollies. Obviously the Ripper victims were not raped but if it were a team, if one got off on the killing and the other on the mutilation, this might make some sort of sense. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 496
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 11:30 am: | |
Alan,
Hillside stranglers ??
Monty
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 257
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 11:38 am: | |
No, these were two entirely separate people, the killer never involved himself in the rape, the rapist never involved himself in the killing, they just shared victims. I would say I'll look it up tonight, but I've got a christmas do on so by the time I get home I just ain't gonna remember! |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 11:51 am: | |
Hi All,
Alan, I was going to suggest the Hillside Strangler case, too.
Monty, excellent post, I think it pretty well summarizes the case against the Ripper having an accomplice. While it's still possible of course, there is very little in the case evidence to support the idea, and as you pointed out, there are problems with the layouts of the crime scenes.
All the best,
Jim
(Message edited by jimd on December 10, 2003) |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 281
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:26 pm: | |
Alan,
Are you sure it was that one raped the victim and then one killed them? I can't find this anywhere. I checked out the crime library but all I came up with that was close were Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris who raped and killed teenage girls except it said they both raped the girls and then killed them.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 259
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:33 pm: | |
If my head is up to it, I will try to remember to look it up sometime before tomorrow morning. That's it, I'm outta here for a night of drunken debauchery! |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 61
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 2:31 pm: | |
Alan,
Charles Ng and Leonard Lake, perhaps?
Don. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 497
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 7:50 am: | |
Jim,
Cheers. Rush job and off the top of my head.
I just looked at the mechanics of the murders. As you know, the actual relationship between the two would had to have been complex and very trusting. I havent even begun to try and figure that out !!!
But like you say, its possible but the evidence we had doesnt work for it.
I just see two men as being a liability.
PS I loves shou Alans...barrrrrp! Your my beshest mate yous is !! Im gonna live with you cos you fantatshic and you got nishe curtains !!!
Monty
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 262
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 8:11 am: | |
Monty - shhhhh - not so loud - ohhhmyyyhead!!!!!!  |
Jason Scott Mullins
Detective Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 57
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 9:54 am: | |
Monty -
Good response.. I've been busy the last two days so I haven't had a chance to really respond.. but I will soon.. promise
crix0r
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 264
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 8:01 pm: | |
Gotcha!
James Russell Odom and James Clayton Lawson Jr.
But a bit of a spoof because it wasn't really a serial murder case on account of they were so incompetent they were caught after the first killing, although they had been planning to do more. |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 505
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 10:53 am: | |
Aaaaah, James Russell ODOM (??!!) and Jimmy Floyd Lawson.
Yep, they rang a bell.
How the hell did they get together...dont tell me...the internet.
OH by the way, no...I wont.
PS Now look here Millins or whatever your name is.
Monty and only Monty has the ...ok mush?
My Solicitor is watching you !!!
Monty
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Detective Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 59
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:20 am: | |
Smiley Faces!?!..
SMILEY FACES?!?!?!
We don't need no stiiiiiiiinking SMILEY FACES!?!?!!
Say haaaaalo to my litel friend!!
Happy to see someone else has my sense of humor,
crix0r |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 506
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:34 am: | |
Hey,
Get back to the subject in hand.
I tell you after Disneys Mickey Mouse, my is the biggest incorporate logo on this planet !
Or is that my planet ??
Anyhoo Alan,
This murderer/mutilator scenario, explain how you see it working...Im curious !
Monty
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 268
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:56 am: | |
Now Monty, just because AP is off nancying around the South Seas doesn't mean you get to break in and steal the brandy!
Anyway, to answer the two questions, apparently they met in prison where they realised that they had a "mutual" interest so to speak.
As for the Ripper case, like you I'm just musing off the top of my head I hadn't really put much thought into it. But say you've got two guys, one loves the quick kill, the feel of knife going in, the look of horror in the eyes of the victim, that's how he gets his rocks off. His mate stands guard, keeping a look out for prying eyes.
Second guy doesn't really like the whole killing thing, his interest is in the body. This is a recognised phenomena, Jeffrey Dahmer for instance found the actual killing bit a distasteful necessity.
So once the victim is dead they swap over, first guy keeps a watch for approaching coppers while second guy gets his jollies rummaging around in the guts, throwing bits here and there and keeping anything that takes his fancy until first guy calls out "someone coming, scarper" and they head off in opposite directions to confuse the cops.
It's plausible, but I think I'm going to stick it down near the bottom of my list of "most likely scenario's"!
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 508
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:09 pm: | |
Alan,
Aye, plausible.
I understand that we are only bouncing an idea around here so Im not going to berate nor pick apart such a theory....infact I my just go along with it.
The reason I ask is because the only scenario which includes two guys that MAY have happend is Stride...doh !
In my job we have a call that once shouted everyone must evacuate the building.
Im just wondering if 'Lipski' is such a warning/call sign.
How they would actually approach their target?
The mutilator must be quite excited I feel....and therefore a shoddy eye man....that the reason why he missed Schwartz perhaps??
Like you, just ideas...with very litlle substance...if any !!
Monty
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 534
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 8:24 am: | |
Ok, so which suspects can we pair up for the most satisfying, if unlikely, combinations?
Cohen to batter and Barnett to fillet, perhaps?
Or Gull to throttle and Tumblety to take the wombs, so the former doesn’t have another stroke and the latter can borrow the coach so no one sees the lanky quack with his elaborate ‘tache?
My favourite would be Druitt to do it, mercy killing his poor mad mum each time, in company with Cutbush, believing his name was not so much a hereditary title, more a direct order from the man in his head….
Love,
Caz
|
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 158
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 5:27 pm: | |
Whatho Caz,
We are used to people pointing the finger at famous personalities who, of course, didn't actually do it so how about famous duos. I've always wondered what Gilbert & Sulivan got up to when they weren't at the Savoy Theatre.
Cheers, Mark (I've written, no I mean found Gilbert's diary) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 543
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 12:16 pm: | |
Hi Mark,
I couldn’t possibly comment. 
(But I hope you didn’t forget to allude to Gilbert’s profound distaste for females past their prime who try to attract the opposite sex – I'm not kidding.)
You’ve certainly hit a rich seam here.
Renee and Renato?
Torville and Dean?
Titch and Quackers?
Huntley and Palmer?
I could go on…. But I doubt they’ll get any more plausible than G&S. 
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on December 17, 2003) |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 319
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 12:23 pm: | |
Gilbert and Sullivan!! Well I never. That's why they killed prostitutes who were "past their prime" and, oh, err, Joe killed Mary. Well that's it then. Case closed. We can all go home and sleep soundly tonight.  |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 544
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 12:56 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
I’ve changed my mind – it was definitely Titch and Quackers.
Anything to save Joe’s neck…
Love,
Caz
PS I’ll probably change my mind again tomorrow but it still won’t be Joe.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1581
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 4:07 pm: | |
No it won't be Joe, Caz, because it will be Laurel and Hardy.
Ollie looks round the room where they've butchered Kelly (through a series of slapstick mishaps) and declares : "Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten me into."
Robert |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 322
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 4:58 am: | |
Robert,
Funny, I'd been thinking of them too. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
