Jack the Ripper(s)

[corey123]

Hello Curius,

If he was a serial killer, then he didn't have an accomplice. In fact, an accomplice would only add more questions to the pile, not explaining anything.

Corey

[curious4]

Jack the Ripper(s)

Hello Corey,

Old family retainer perhaps? The free pardon offered to anyone who didnīt actually kill the victims seems to indicate that the police thought there was someone else involved. You have to remember that 100 years ago things were very different - class differences were very much more pronounced than they are today.

[corey123]

Hello Curious,

It isn't really the fact that he was a serial killer, much more that he was a lust murderer. Let me read you a line from Psychopathia Sexualis;

Lust-murders dependent upon psychopathic conditions are never committed with accomplices. - Pg. 398

Yours truly,

Corey

[TomTomKent]

I always thought the "pardon for somebody not actually doing the killing" thing was notbecause the police suspected an accomplice, but because they had to identify the second man in the "lipsky" inncident that Israel Schwartz (spelt right?) Witnessed. Was the second man chasing him or fleeing?

[corey123]

Hello Tom,

First of all good morning.

Second, I think it was done because the police were desperate.

[curious4]

JTR(s)

Hello Tom,

No, that hadnīt occurred to me. Always thought that the police thought there was an accomplice. There seems to be a lot to suggest that the Martha Tabram murder (if you count her as a JTR victim) was committed by two people - two weapons, both left- and right-handed). Seems to me that the pipe-smoking man wouldnīt have been implicated if he was only a witness - could have given evidence without needing a pardon.

Hello Corey,

Yes, but WAS it a lust murder?

[corey123]

Hello Curious,

An interesting question, if you believe there was a serial killer at work, then yes.

[YankeeSergeant]

Tabram et al.

Hello Curious,

An interesting question, if you believe there was a serial killer at work, then yes.

I'm not sure that I count Tabram as a victim of Jack the Ripper but I will say, I believe that there was one killer and one weapon. I know this goes against current theory but I belive that the difference in the 38 cuts and the one in the sternum may be accounted for by the weapon (possibly a well honed dagger) being worked back and forth to extract it from the sternum. the other 38 were likely fuelled by rage. But with a good, well honed and well crafted dagger, I believe that would account for the discrepency.

[Sister Hyde]

Hello Sister H. Yes, good idea about the glögg - usually only served at Christmas though. Yes, you are quite right, everything points to one killer, with or without help, although I do think an accomplice would have explained quite a lot. Could have held a lamp for example? It was very dark when at least one or two of the murders were committed.

Damn i had forgotten this thread, yeah i know glögg is only served at christmas, but usually after the "end of year" period, the systembolaget still has a lot of it in stock (that's what i used to do to bring some to my family every year when i was living in uddevalla).
Well i am also convinced the Ripper had an accomplice, or at least somebody covering his a** on some points. I think a lamp would have been a bit too obvious in the dark, it would have probably caught the eyes of somebody around (even somebody sitting in his room or so), i'm not sure his accomplice would have been with him while executing the murders, maybe more a "watch". which could also explain why some people were encountered very close to the murder sites very close to the times of the killings

[DVV]

I believe that there was one killer and one weapon.

Hi YS

Agreed, and as far as I'm concerned, it's the only viable theory.

All the best

[Wickerman]

Hello Tom,

No worries, in truth the term "lust-murder" originates from Psychopathia Sexualis, when Ebbing explained that murder out of lust was indicated by wounds to the genitalia, with the body opened and oragns wanting...

But if I recall Ebbing based his hypothesis on a list of victims which included the frenzied(?) stabbing of Martha Tabram.
The accuracy of any psychological profile depends on getting your list of victims correct. Such a list is still open to debate but most researchers have at the very least accepted the same hand at work with the murders of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes.
I'm not so sure 'lust' can be so easily attributed to the murders of those three victims.

Direct accomplice in the crime, no!, ....but, possibly indirect, if the killer working for someone?

[corey123]

Hello Wickerman,

I don't recall Ebbing including any list of the victims. In fact he barely mentions the murders in psychopathia sexualis. What is your source for this?

Also, the possiblity that these were perpetrated by any other man is ridiculous.

Lastly, these murders are lust murders, this is fact not opinion.

[Wickerman]

Hello Wickerman,

I don't recall Ebbing including any list of the victims. In fact he barely mentions the murders in psychopathia sexualis. What is your source for this?

Psychopathia Sexualis, 1906 edition.
(it was continually updated since it was published in 1886)
Evidence is listed, not by name of victim but by date of murders.

Case 17.
Dec 1, 1887.
July 7, Aug. 8, Sept. 30 (+ one in October), Nov. 9th 1888.
June 1, July 17th, Sept 10th 1889.
Quote:
"In some instances he cut off the genitals and carried them away; in others he only tore them to pieces and left them behind. He does not seem to have had sexual intercourse with his victims, but very likely the murderous act and subsequent mutilations of the corpse were equivalents for the sexual act."
Psychopathia Sexualis, Krafft-Ebing, pp.90/91.

So you see, Krafft-Ebing's analysis was based on the whole wide range of crimes from 1887 to 1889. His assumption being that they were all perpetrated by the same individual.
If you accept his conclusion you must accept his assumption.

Lastly, these murders are lust murders, this is fact not opinion.

No!, it is most certainly ONLY opinion, and opinion drawn from flawed assumptions.

[corey123]

Hello Wickerman,

Obviously you know nothing of "lust-murder" if you think this is opinion. I will leave it at that.

Either way I see no indications in which Ebbing says his victim list is procured by the presence of Tabram's murder.

[Wickerman]

Hello Wickerman,

Obviously you know nothing of "lust-murder" if you think this is opinion. I will leave it at that.

Either way I see no indications in which Ebbing says his victim list is procured by the presence of Tabram's murder.

So which murders did Krafft-Ebing base his conclusions on?

- Dec. 1887, Unknown victim, one of several possibles.

- July 7th 1888. Unknown, but possibly typo for Aug 7th which would then be Martha Tabram.

- Aug 8th - Unknown, equally possible typo for Sept. 8th which would then be Annie Chapman.

- Sept. 30th (+ 1 in Oct.) Double murder of Eddowes & Stride.

- Nov. 9th, Mary Kelly.

- June 1st 1889 Elizabeth Jackson, body parts found in Thames, today classed as a Torso murder.

- July 17th 1889, Alice McKenzie.

- Sept. 10th Pinchin St. Torso.

From a relatively rapid assault (McKenzie), to frenzied stabbings (Tabram), to intense mutilations (Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly), to severing of limbs (Jackson, Pinchin St.), Krafft-Ebing included them all in his determination that a single sexual perpetrator was at large.
If all these murders were not by the same hand then his conclusions are/were flawed. And today I can't imagine anyone agreeing with Krafft-Ebing's selection.

When all you have to determine Motive is a selection of victims, and you have no idea which victims are attributable to one or many different killers, then any conclusions you attempt to draw regarding the frame of mind of your 'presumed multiple murderer' is considerbly flawed, in fact borders on the ridiculous.

Interestingly he excluded, or forgot:
Mary Nichols, Aug. 31st 1888.