just an idea - thoughts please :)

[Wickerman]

Ah so the culprit appears to be proven to you?
Seeing as how his culpability relies entirely on his partner being the subsequent victim, then perhaps you will do us the honour of proving the woman seen with her back to Lawende was indeed Catherine Eddowes?

You trusting soul you!
:-)
Regards, Jon S.

[The Grave Maurice]

Jon,

I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[mariab]

Hi RedBundy
Sorry, your premise that a second person would get nothing out of it is a bit naive. I think there are a number of cases where there were two murderers, although one of the two dominated the other

Absolutely, and thanks for the links.

Hi all,
Actually an accomplice is an attractive theory because it offers an explanation of how someone could repeatedly get away with outdoor murder. We have BS and Pipeman at the Stride affair, the night watchman in Mitre Square and a man in a Wideawake at Miller’s Court. One could envision a lookout in Buck’s row and someone hiding in the passage at Hanbury St.

Have thought of that myself, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

I could see LeGrand having a crony knock off prostitutes out of vengeance or a desire to control the streets but the disemboweling seems so personal and bizarre that it’s hard to give this serious consideration.

This is precisely what I used to think until I perused the threat letters he wrote to the old ladies. There's an insistence on graphic descriptions of how their insides would look after his bomb devices (which were real; found by the police when they entered his house) would have exploded. This guy entertained some fairly active and graphic violent thoughts. His threat letters also read as kinda personal. A “personal and bizarre“ MO fits most serial killers, despite of them not knowing their victims personally. It's practically the definition of a serial killer perp that they'd simply take liberties, in a sociopathic behaviour.

As appealing as the concept may be, I simply can't accept the idea that the Whitchapel murders were an example of folie a deux.

Folie à deux I wouldn't say either, Ken, but the Ripper could have had a minion as an accomplice. This obviously depends on suspectology. If we took Kozminsky instead of Le Grand, there goes the accomplice theory.

(P.S. Can anyone tell me how to do an accent aigu on this website?)

It can't be the site, as I've used an accent aigu above, as you can see. Sans problème. ;-) And by the way I hope you're fine, Ken.

[DVV]

As appealing as the concept may be, I simply can't accept the idea that the Whitchapel murders were an example of folie a deux. The only witness description that I believe without question is Joseph Lawende's. So, the one guy I'm looking for is 5' 8"-ish, 30-ish, and fair-ish. No others need apply.

(P.S. Can anyone tell me how to do an accent aigu on this website?)

Hello my dear

certainly Lawende is the best, but that Jack was a lone killer is also indicated by Mrs Long.

There is no doubt she saw the ripper, although only his back, but I don't think Pipeman was smoking silently between him and Chapman.

As for Cadosh, laxative problems prevented him to give a hand that week.

Cheers Maurice

[RedBundy13]

Hi RedBundy

Sorry, your premise that a second person would get nothing out of it is a bit naive. I think there are a number of cases where there were two murderers, although one of the two dominated the other, as in the case of the Moors murderers, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, and the killers in the 1993 murder of Liverpool toddler Jamie Bulger, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, themselves 11 and 12 at the time of the crime.

Best regards

Chris

Hi Chris,
I am not familiar with the cases you mentioned that involved 2 murderers. The cases that I do know that involved more than one killer, usually ended with with one person telling on the other, again usually ended that way, but not always.
Am I saying that in the Ripper case there absolutely could not have been two killers that worked together? No, but what I would say is that if actaully turned out and it was discovered that there was absolutely two killers that worked with one another on the Ripper crimes, I would be shocked, absolutely. If there was proof found beyond a reasonable doubt that there was in fact two killers, I think that it would be the single biggest find in the history of all the JtR research. Hands down, by far the most shocking.
I might be a bit naive to say this but, I would feel comfortable betting everything I owned that there was not two killers working together on the 5 canonical victims. That much I do know.

[Malcolm X]

now then, please tell me how GH waiting outside in Dorset st, can act as a distraction/ cover for JTR, whose inside mutilating, how can he warn JTR... he cant. GH can only act as an Alibi 2 days later.

Pipeman can act as cover yes, but we see nobody else with regards to Eddowes and A.Chapman..... JTR looks like he's on his own.

this lookout might be Pipeman, but he was pretty useless wasn't he, because it's BS that spotted him and he was fooling around with Stride at the time
would you if you were JTR trust an accomplice.... no way, he'd grass you up if he was caught, plus facing the rope instead of you, i would never pay GH to provide an alibi for me either, or anyone else, this is so risky, i would definitely not do anything like this if i was LE GRAND either.

instead.... i'd study all the local newspapers to see what any eyewitnesses might have seen, which of course..... is sod all!

conclusion :- JTR doesn't need anyone to help him.

[Malcolm X]

Hello my dear

certainly Lawende is the best, but that Jack was a lone killer is also indicated by Mrs Long.

There is no doubt she saw the ripper, although only his back, but I don't think Pipeman was smoking silently between him and Chapman.

As for Cadosh, laxative problems prevented him to give a hand that week.

Cheers Maurice

yes, but both of these suspects can be wrong by at least 50%.

[GregBaron]

Accomplice limitations...

This is precisely what I used to think until I perused the threat letters he wrote to the old ladies. There's an insistence on graphic descriptions of how their insides would look after his bomb devices (which were real; found by the police when they entered his house) would have exploded. This guy entertained some fairly active and graphic violent thoughts. His threat letters also read as kinda personal. A “personal and bizarre“ MO fits most serial killers, despite of them not knowing their victims personally. It's practically the definition of a serial killer perp that they'd simply take liberties, in a sociopathic behaviour.

Interesting Mariab. I look forward to anything you and others discover about LeGrand.

now then, please tell me how GH waiting outside in Dorset st, can act as a distraction/ cover for JTR, whose inside mutilating, how can he warn JTR... he cant. GH can only act as an Alibi 2 days later.

I've thought of this too Malcolm X. What could the accomplice really do if someone approached? He's certainly limited. Even if he could prevent entrance to Miller's Court for example, after the murder was discovered the uninvited one would have directly witnessed the accomplice. He certainly can't whack everybody that happens by...

There is no doubt she saw the ripper

This is true DVV if you accept the Long/Cadosch timeline. Some don't...


Greg

[DVV]

yes, but both of these suspects can be wrong by at least 50%.

Hi Mal, what is this supposed to mean ?
They saw one guy when there were two ?

Ahura Mazda Himself is telling you not to overuse haoma, Malcolm.

[DVV]

Hi Greg

Some don't...
Greg

I feel sorry for them.

[Malcolm X]

Hi Mal, what is this supposed to mean ?
They saw one guy when there were two ?

Ahura Mazda Himself is telling you not to overuse haoma, Malcolm.

hi

sorry, i meant they saw JTR in both cases but the description of him is probably inaccurate

[Malcolm X]

Interesting Mariab. I look forward to anything you and others discover about LeGrand.



I've thought of this too Malcolm X. What could the accomplice really do if someone approached? He's certainly limited. Even if he could prevent entrance to Miller's Court for example, after the murder was discovered the uninvited one would have directly witnessed the accomplice. He certainly can't whack everybody that happens by...



This is true DVV if you accept the Long/Cadosch timeline. Some don't...


Greg

yes there isn't much that an accomplice can do, and keeping an eye out for someone coming along is something that's easy for the killer to do anyway.

after all, nobody saw Stride getting killed did they, or even A.Chapman, because you never do do you, you only seem to ever notice something before or after an event has happened....even in things not related to murder!

yes, it's very odd isn't it...the final location chosen is quiet, but getting there and leaving is when you're seen, because these areas aren't quiet, and it could also be that when you get to a quiet location, is when you only really take care that nobody else is looking at you.

A.Chapman was killed in a risky location, so if you're going to make a new ripper movie.... you would need to show JTR walking into the back yard and then staring around at the windows for some time, before deciding to finally kill her....or not !

so we might have two stages.

1...... he casually looks to see if the location is ok to kill
2...... he gets there, chats her up.... gets his hands close to her throat and checks yet again that everything is ok, he then very quickly grabs her !

this would be disguised by him saying as he's looking around ``are you sure this area is quiet, i dont want anyone to see us having sex``.

i think it's very important for him to check right before he's about to kill her... this is because it takes time to chat her up etc, so if you saw nobody a minute ago, this doesn't mean that there's nobody there right now.

so i think he kills her within about 5 seconds of looking for the final time.

[Rubyretro]

That's not bad, Malcolm...it sounds pretty believable. ("chatting up" is probably not right.....concluding negotiations rather).

[ChrisGeorge]

As appealing as the concept may be, I simply can't accept the idea that the Whitchapel murders were an example of folie a deux. The only witness description that I believe without question is Joseph Lawende's. So, the one guy I'm looking for is 5' 8"-ish, 30-ish, and fair-ish. No others need apply.

(P.S. Can anyone tell me how to do an accent aigu on this website?)

Hi Ken

You are correct that Lawende's description is the one that seems to say it was one man working alone. And yet, consider this: the man seen with Eddowes was the smooth-talking operator of the duo, the guy who lured the victim to the location, but the other half of the pair was waiting in the shadows in Mitre Square and might have been the actual killer. Just a thought. In other words, I don't think Lawende's description precludes there having been two men involved.

Best regards

Chris

[Wickerman]

Hi Ken

You are correct that Lawende's description is the one that seems to say it was one man working alone. And yet, consider this: the man seen with Eddowes was the smooth-talking operator of the duo, the guy who lured the victim to the location, but the other half of the pair was waiting in the shadows in Mitre Square and might have been the actual killer. Just a thought. In other words, I don't think Lawende's description precludes there having been two men involved.

Best regards

Chris

If we seriously need to entertain an accomplice, I think the most likely scenario is to picture someone covering up for the killer after the fact. Like someone where he lived, or worked, or a close friend who had suspicions, or actual knowledge, but for any number of reason's chose to keep quiet.
We don't normally class such a person as an accomplice, legally speaking it is, but this forum typically means someone assisting in the actual murders, as you suggest, which I think is less likely.

Regards, Jon S.