Tweet
One think that has always baffled me is, how on earth could one person risk being caught?, there had to be more than one. There must have been a look out at least, Mary nichols, nobody heard or saw anything that night!, Annie chapman, blood was found trailing through the corridor of no 29 to the back yard!. What i still cannot believe is how the hell did one person get from berner street to mitre square, find C E, kill her so visciuosly without someone coming up from behind and catching him in the act?. Still nobody saw or heard anything unusual, mitre square was patrolled every 15 minutes!, i just don't buy it that one person could have done it, it's impossible.
-
-
Hi Mikey,
Personally, I think the chance of there being an accomplice is nil. For a start, what's in it for the look out?
To me, these crimes carry all the hallmarks of a lone preditory killer whose motives are lust and anger.
I have never heard of the blood trail from the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street through the corridor and I don't really see how this signifies that there were two killers. -
Hi Mike 74.
Welcome to Casebook
,nice to have you amongst us.
I am probably,as usual,in the minority,but I agree with you,that there is a strong possibility that there are two people at work here.
I also think that there were other witnesses too,probably many who knew things also,as gossipy chatter would have been a popular pastime!!!! There would have been the usual rule of keeping their mouths shut.. but with a serial killer on the loose,and the danger of whispers reaching Jack's ears...you could understand that.
I think that in such a heavily populated area,it would be almost impossible for no other witnesses,than the ones we have seen so far,to have seen or heard something.
As to your two people...
I have just stated on another thread that as far as I am concerned,this guy would have had to have been tall and thick set...someone like Stevenson..to have had handled and manouvered the unconcious weight of the larger ladies that Polly and Annie were.We are talking,I would say,in the 16/20 stone weight...the others are no problem to me,but those two throw the doubt into my mind.Druitt is the only other who might be a possible where this issue is concerned as he was sporty,so had strong arms.
I think it would make sense that he had a lookout,as he has a lot to do without having to think about who is about while he is working.I don't know if this would apply to Druitt,as he was a loner...but with murder in mind,anythings possible.
Will be interesting to see if we share other views!!
ANNA.
Blimey,a bad omen folks!!..the thumbs-up man's dissappeared from my smiley box
....anyone seen a black cat?????
Last edited by anna; 08-27-2008, 11:41 AM.Comment
-
If someone had "Jack's" back, surely the pardon and rewards would have been claimed?Regards Mike
Comment
-
Hi Mike,
Ah yes, I have thought of that one,my dear Watson....
Perhaps he didn't want to meet his maker,like the C5........
Although,I suppose in time he would have "grassed him up"...
Damn!.....foiled again!!!!!!!
Back to the drawing board!!!!!Comment
-
1974, Seattle, USA- Serial killer Ted Bundy, undisguised and dressed in bright white tennis clothes, kidnaps a young woman from a crowded beach in broad daylight with hundreds of potential witnesses present, takes her to an unknown location, then returns to kidnap a second woman and takes her to the same location where he kills them both. Only a few witnesses describe him. How could he be so bold, especially when he was a law student with political aspirations who had so very much to lose? Surely he was risking immediate capture. Yet he got away with it.
I think Jack was an adrenaline junky in addition to his other disfunctions that led him to kill. He got off on pushing things to their limits. Was it ninja-like stealth or pure serendipity that kept him from being caught? Probably a combination of the two. He was probably within a minute of being caught more than once. It just happened to go his way. He was extremely lucky.
As an afterthought, does anyone have any thoughts on how he would have reacted if he had been caught? Would he have surrendered or would he have turned his knife on the cops and tried to fight his way free?Comment
-
I have to say I don't think there was more than one man. Serial Killers tend to be solitary, I know there are acceptions Hillside Stranglers, the Wests etc, but in most cases they are lone workers.
I know that there have been suggestions that the 2 men would have accounted for the vastly different descriptions but I think these are more down to issues such as bad lighting and possible inebriation. No one has describe 2 men other than Schwartz and his story is muddled at times.
Also have to agree that I think if there had been 2 one would have cracked. Maybe it is worth looking in to your theory by finding out, if this is possible, any killings of men which may have indictaed Jack doing away with his accomplice.In order to know virtue, we must first aquaint ourselves with vice!
Comment
-
Hi all,
I tend to think that Jack was solitary but a serial killing pair "breaking up" is sometimes a reason some serial killings stop.This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.
Stan ReidComment
-
Don't serial killing pairs usually have a more dominant partner?
Fred dominated Rose,
Ian dominated Myra,
IF "Jack" was a double act, who would you have as the killer?
The dominator, or the dominated?Regards MikeComment
-
I would have him as the dominator. The one who actually does the mechanics of the killings in most cases.
My reasoning was that it is possible that no one came forwards because the dominant partner killed the other.
But like I said I am of the opinon that there was no double act!In order to know virtue, we must first aquaint ourselves with vice!Comment
-
Hi KatOriginally posted by KatBradshaw View Post
I'm not following you about..just cault this thread and thought I'd make a comment as two killers is a theory I looked into.
While I agree with you probably a lone killer, the two person senario is possible at the Tabram murder, two soldiers, two knives. The Nichols murder, a gasp followed by whispering vioces. Stride, BS and pipeman, and Kelly, reports of a look out and reward offered in parliament.
So if you include Tabram, it would be correct to say that over half the murders have reports that suggest the possibility of more than one killer.
PirateComment
-
Hi Mike74
Good point.I have often thought that Jack could have had an accomplice and I have a theory that George Morris the nightwatchman of K and T's in Mitre Square could have been involved in this way.I think that one might have had something over the other and should Jack have been caught then the other would become an accessory.I believe that should K and T's have been searched immediately after the discovery of the Mitre Square murder then Jack could well have been discovered there,along with the apron piece and other incriminating items in his possession.
All the best
RobComment
-
I am not an expert, but if you look at serial killer partnerships such a the Wests and Hindley/Brady they killed their victims and hid them but seemed to want to be close to the victims (ie they were in the same house/garden or the killers returned to the places of burial to gratify some strange need to own the victims. Jack wanted the victims exposed and visible and this seems to me to be a hallmark of such killers.Comment
-
Thats a shame I thought I had an admirer!!!Originally posted by Pirate Jack View Post
Your points are really interesting! I don't accept Tabram as a Ripper victim. I have to say though I don't think that the reward was aimed at an accomplice only but at anyone involved with the ripper such as a wife. As I said though they are interesting points!In order to know virtue, we must first aquaint ourselves with vice!Comment
-
Hi
With respect my freinds, if you look at the available evidence there's nothing to suggest that there was more than one person responsible for the crimes.
all the best
ObserverComment
Comment