Faecal matter on apron piece

[lynn cates]

"I taunt you a second time-uh"

Hello Colin. Indeed. I thought that such a "taunting" chap must be clever. If I
missed it, I apologise.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Not addicted--I can stop whenever I want.

Hello Colin. Good observation. I'm sure you know my reply for the killer of Polly and Annie. Liz, I forgo.

I think Kate's killer wanted to kill Kate. I think he was imprisoned in 1892--give or take.

MJK? Don't know who "removed" her. Might he have done more? Possibly. But only as circumstances dictated.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I'm an archaeologist - actually a pottery specialist.

Hello DrHopper, I have a question for you on another thread...
If you don't mind..

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=229770#post229770

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lynn et al,

Those who believe in the entity known as Jack the Ripper are sometimes asked why 'he' stopped after the Kelly murder. If a stance is taken that there were two or more separate killers at work, the question becomes: why did they all stop? Did they all die? Were they all incarcerated in a lunatic asylum? Several killers all operating in a broadly similar fashion, in the same time period and the same small area of London. They all stopped. Why?

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell,

First off you must concede that there is already evidence on the table that suggests that very thing. If Jack did not do the Torso's, and one man did, thats at least 2 working at the same time. Then you have the Whitechapel Murder file being open until 1892 with some 11 or 13 names in it. If one man did only the Canonical Group, then someone pretty darn close to that same kind of man did Alice and maybe some of the others in the file. Tabrams murderer was a very vicious man to be sure, but he didnt cut into his victims in any kind of methodical fashion.

Ive been thinking on this thread premise more and Ive come to consider that the bulk of any faeces on the knife was wiped on something he kept..like a hanky. Thats why the apron section was needed, for his hands. maybe the hanky was monogrammed and he hadnt intended to be cutting any colons at the nights beginning. Maybe its that action that truly separates this man from the Hanbury man. A stinky mistake.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Phil Carter]

Hi Lynn et al,

Those who believe in the entity known as Jack the Ripper are sometimes asked why 'he' stopped after the Kelly murder. If a stance is taken that there were two or more separate killers at work, the question becomes: why did they all stop? Did they all die? Were they all incarcerated in a lunatic asylum? Several killers all operating in a broadly similar fashion, in the same time period and the same small area of London. They all stopped. Why?

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Colin,

in my humble opinion, this posting is one of the best I have seen written on these boards.

It asks various questions. It is open. It encompasses all thoughts without the questtion of whom.

It also deliberately doesn't condone nor antagonize. Whatever your personal 'overall scenario' opinion, it leaves room for the views of other opiners of a different sway. For all of that I say thank you.
It also asks a sub question that needs looking at.
What halted these occurances- all in a short space of time in a small area?

Respectful as I am of Lynn's answer on the individual basis, the timeline he produces shows a remarkable scenenario of how x amount of individuals can 'fade away' in almost quiet sequence- all different. Co-incidence in a spread timeline that is ONLY co-incidental when put together under the same umberella. Taken individually, no-one would think that their demises are connected.

Unbelievable- thats the thought of those believing in the entity 'Jack'. The exact same reaction of those who see the possibility of one 'Jack' only. Unbelievable.
Respect for both camps I say.

That underlying question- why- over a long period- did this scenario of random or planned killings fade into silence? The debates could rage on this point alone- and until we find ONE of the reasons for the murder of either Eddowes and Kelly- it may well remain fogged in the mists of time. Why these specific two you may ask?

technically- before the end of September- ther was no 'Jack the Ripper'. What we had was a set of murders, Smith, Tabram, Nichols and Chapman. Two of these were later separated into a 'Jack' subset (Nichols and Chapman) but before that occured (Nov 10th) and previous to September 30th, the quantity lumped together included Smith and Tabram.
They, over the course of time, for differing reasons, were dropped and relegated into two individual killings after being initially put together under the epithate 'Whitechapel Murderer'.

So for the sake of this posting, let C1 and C2 remain banded under the original epithate of the WM along with Smith and Tabram. That murderer sub divides, for most people, into 2 or 3 different killers. That in itself is alarming. Bv the time of Chapmans'demise, and up to the Dear Boss letter, the police have a problem on their hands. They may or may not have alienated Smith already. They may or may not have alienated Tabram, first from Smith, then from Nichols and Chapman. That means they may or may not be looking the 'unbelievble' that at least 2, possibly 3 killers on the loose in a small area.
The press at this time didnt separate them. One killer roaming the streets. One Whitechapel Murderer was starting to pump up the population. Sales started to increase. A nice opportunity to get more sales- a sales war started. The murder scenario sold more and more.
How would one keep the pot boiling WITHOUT another killing?
Cue Dear Boss. Cue Saucy Jack. Cue utter sensation.

C3-Stride- may, just may, be co-incidence that got included in this runaway series of one man promotion by dint of happening on the same night as Eddowes. 'First one squealed a bit' smells of known info. Is it possible that a person on the scene used a titbit of local gossip before posting that postcard quickly afterwards? Especially as the press were remarkably quick to turn up at the scene of C4-Eddowes.

It has to be said the situation is a newspaper owner's dream. Headlines that scream out 'BUY ME'. And if Dear Boss and Saucy Jack WERE a pressman's invention as we are led to believe- we have the culmination of weeks of pumping the engine of sales.

This intricate involvement is an important backdrop. The press had lumped ALL the murders together even though the police may or may not have kept Smith and Tabram separate from C1 and C2. By the time of C3 and C4, Dear Boss and Saucy Jack, the police had no choice.
ONE JACK THE RIPPER on posters galore.

Then Kelly. Warren's head had been press and politically hunted. It culminated in a false scenario that when C5 happened- he resigned. That wasnt the cause nor the correct date but it fed the baying press hound7 perfectly to convey to the masses.
A dread scenario.

Kelly, however, stands out. This murder is way, way worse than the others. Explanation is privacy and time. Natural logic. Same killer, more time, more freedom to' forfill' the ultimate murder. Day after Kelly, Bond writes to Anderson 5 and 5 only. It ISNT leaked to the press. Why? Because if it was- 'Jack' only killed 5- so who killed Smith and Tabram? 1 or 2 MORE killers?
2 or 3 on the loose? No way the police could have that reputation on their faces. ONE Jack uncaught was bad enough. But three? Unacceptable.

Stride- firmly interwoven into the C5- had to be kept there. Through Dear Boss and Saucy Jack poster promotion- which sealed her inclusion despite major differences from C1 and C2. The police could NOT say 'we think Stride's killer was NOT the same as the others'. That would be telling the world that they have 2 murderers loose not only in the same area, but at the same time and THEY cant catch either. They HAD to have one killer max on the loose. Because if they hadnt- the picture would be one of total chaos. Especially if they voiced that Smith and Tabram had 2 different killers as well!

If they thought, or knew, that for example C1 and C2's killer was already locked away- they couldnt say- because if they did that then it would split the one killer story they stuck to. Police rarely, if ever, publically back track. The outer image of unity is paramount. It is only years afterwards we see that there was no unity. Nobody agreed. Quantity of victims or identity of killer.

It is there then, the basis of thought against a ONE 'Jack' lies. Is it correct? Is it possible?

If it is, Lynn's idea is also very plausible. One incarcerated, one unconnected and unknown, and the last two with a possible death included. All separate. All quietly fading behind the major headline banner of ONE 'Jack the Ripper'. Not so unbelievable. Incredible YES. Against all presented evidence? YES. Unlikely? YES. But not as unbelievable as a one man genius with 2 or 3 modus operandi. (Nichols-Stride-Kelly) with different weapons (Stride-Kelly) and different descriptions in height,dress,headgear,even gait. All unlikely too.

Colin- a really good post of yours. It asks the right questions. Perhaps, though for a good few, I doubt it, there are possible explanations above.
People will rightly argue that the simple explanation is the answer. Others will argue that if it were that simple, we wouldnt have a problem tying loose ends. And STRIDE is a loose end. Killed by a IWMEC man? It puts one VERY large hole in ONE killer named Jack.
Smith,Tabram, Chapman, Stride. 4 deaths, 4 possible killers.out of 7 murdered women.
No wonder the police said ONE JACK.

Best wishes

Phil

[DrHopper]

Thanks Phil for a really interesting post - lots to chew over.
Personally, I do think we are dealing with 2, possibly 3, killers:
Jack (Kelly, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Tabram);
Unknown #1 (Stride);
Unknown #2 (other unsolved murder, perhaps but I haven't made up my mind who and what yet).
Stride for me seems to be a 'normal' murder (domestic, pimp, random robbery gone wrong), the others are much more complicated. I agree utterly with you about the lumping of murders together to save the reputation of the police though, a very interesting historical point that needs to be borne in mind.

[lynn cates]

start and stop

Hello Colin, Phil, Dr. Thanks.

Another way of approaching Colin's question is to ask an analogous (to my mind) question: "Why did John Wilkes Booth stop killing?"

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

No wonder the police said ONE JACK.

Did they?

I thought the various Police officials had their own, various theories.

Reid - 9 murders
Macnaghten - 5
Abberline -6
Anderson -6
Dew -7
Bond-6

As Phil Sugden wrote: There was no contemporary consensus.

We may be only be aware of this in later years, but that doesn`t mean that Reid didn`t disagree with Abberline in his office about the authors of each murder. Weren`t they investigating each murder individually? Helson was making inquiries on the Nichols case, Reid on Tabram. McKenzie and Stride , Chandler on Chapman, Collard on Eddowes ...

[Jon Guy]

"PROPOGANDA ALERT !!!"

A comparison. (And it's propaganda--heh-heh.)

Ouch!! :-)

[Errata]

Hello Colin, Phil, Dr. Thanks.

Another way of approaching Colin's question is to ask an analogous (to my mind) question: "Why did John Wilkes Booth stop killing?"

Cheers.
LC

I'm nitpicking here, but I think John Wilkes Booth is a poor example. As far as assassins go he was remarkably organized and goal oriented. Nor was he insane. A more analogous example may be someone like Ed Kemper, but in the category of assassins James Earl Ray is probably the closest.

In theory he was a raving racist who broke out of prison to stalk and kill Martin Luther King. Which he did. But other important civil rights leaders were right there on the balcony. Why not kill them? Why not kill black people he encountered while on the run? Here is a man who is confronted with more examples of what he apparently despises, yet he stays his hand. A mystery.

[lynn cates]

"Bond, Thomas Bond."

Hello Jon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Bond was a 5 man?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

mission accomplished

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"As far as assassins go he was remarkably organized and goal oriented. Nor was he insane."

Indeed. And that was why I chose him. He accomplished his "goal" and then stopped.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hello Lynn

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Bond was a 5 man?

I believe McKenzie made it six.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Lynn



I believe McKenzie made it six.

In fact Jon, Dr. Bond discounted Alice as a likely Ripper victim because, in one of many ironic moments in these investigations, he didnt see any of the skillful cuts made by the killer of the Canonicals. He also didnt see any personal opinion contradiction either evidently.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Cogidubnus]

Phil's post #245 does indeed contain much food for thought...for example it'd never really occurred to me before that perhaps the police themselves had a reason to perpetuate a mythical JtR (the alternatives, released to a panicky public, being worse)...There's certainly a lot in that post I want to take away and think about...thanks Phil

All the best

Dave