Once you have eliminated the impossible

[curious4]

Hello Wickerman

"The papers often report a gentleman being arrested, held for questioning, and then set at liberty. They could have had him and not known it."

I think they would have known in this case - he kicked up such a fuss and claimed to be a friend of royalty until they sent to his club for someone who could identify him.

Wearing a shooting coat as well and approaching a prostitute, but gets off because he was a "somebody". Enjoyed acting and dressing up. I have always thought that the cartoon of the mirror with all the faces round it portrayed people who could be Jack, but it could also be the many faces of an actor. I certainly wouldn't rule out Sir George Arthur.

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

Having the ability to work by touch & feel is necessary when unable to work by sight. Another indication we are dealing with a person who is not a stranger to the human anatomy.

Hello Wickerman,

Yes, that's true, but the killer would have needed a very good knowledge of anatomy - in the dark. No surgeon would have had that skill, nor any doctor, not even if he had worked on a battlefield. A hunter/poacher could do it probably, but as far as I know when dressing an animal, you take out all the inner organs and sort out the edible bits afterwards. You don't take out the kidneys, heart etc and then remove the rest.

Best wishes
C4

[Pcdunn]

Motive in pair killings? Money or thrills?

It wouldn't be the type of relationship where one would take that offer unless they thought there was a good chance of being caught and one needed to clear them self. That's usually what happens in pairs, the dominant gets tied to a kill or another crime and the submissive tosses out everything they can in a way that makes them as innocent as possible. Sometimes the dominant will plea deal and sacrifice the submissive, which seems to be the case with the Gallegos, but again that only happens when they feel the jig is up.

Besides, I don't believe that anyone would actually take the offer seriously... maybe if they'd offered a better cash reward.

Okay, Shaggyrand, let's consider the idea of Jack being the dominant partner. What is their motive for killing poor "unfortunates" in the worst quarters of London? People back then killed for the same reasons as now: money, inheritance, anger or passion, revenge, and so forth. Pairs of murderers might be hired by a third party to terrorize others, along the lines of criminal organizations or gangs, but I can't help thinking that two men hooking up just to kill for "thrills" would not be common back then, and certainly not among the lower classes, where staying alive from day to day was enough of a struggle. Surely two men from Whitechapel would pick wealthier victims to kill, if robbery was the aim?

I would think "Jack" having an accomplice who helped him for no particular gain except the excitement of killing would suggest some support for the "Gentleman Jack" idea (consider a master and servant, for instance). Of course, they might be young men with no one to answer to, nor employment, but thrill killers are more common today, when work hours are less, and free time more plentiful.

[Wickerman]

Hallo Rosella

But do you believe he could kill and cut someone up in near pitch darkness and at breakneck speed, identifying the uterus (which is normally quite small, about the size of an unblown party balloon) and where the kidney was? Without some extra light I don't think it could be done.

Best wishes
C4

Having the ability to work by touch & feel is necessary when unable to work by sight. Another indication we are dealing with a person who is not a stranger to the human anatomy.

[Wickerman]

Hello Wickerman

"Or someone similar". I think there is a case to be made for a posh Jack,...

Hi C4.

Posh, is a little extreme in my book.
Upper working class to lower middle class, someone along the lines of a Neill Cream or Druitt. Whoever it was had the means to change his clothes which might appear insignificant to us today, but the general East End 'dwellers' didn't have a wardrobe of clothes to fall back on.

I have always had little Sir George fairly high up on my list. Arrested, released because of who he was and almost certainly not searched. Why was the story kept out of the papers in England. On the face of it no more than an amusing episode.

The papers often report a gentleman being arrested, held for questioning, and then set at liberty. They could have had him and not known it.
Had the culprit lived among the dossers and renters of the East End, given their close relationships with each other I feel he would have been sussed out eventually. None of these people had any degree of privacy.

I'm sure this killer lived alone.

[Wickerman]

Of all the serial killer pairs we know of, how many got caught because one talked BEFORE they got pinched for something just as bad?

I don't believe any time limit was assumed in that statement, that is to say, sooner or later someone will talk.
It's been a hundred and twenty seven years now.

[Shaggyrand]

I think that crimes committed by two or more people at the same time were possibly more common in the Victorian period (remember the reports of "High Rip" gangs), and the notion of "Jack the Ripper" as a lone murderer who struck quickly and vanished was far more frightening to the general populace. This is perhaps in contrast to today, when we often hear of lone killers who do not have accomplices.

Fear can seem to impart superhuman powers to a threatening figure like The Ripper, and newspaper accounts of no one seeing or hearing anything would only add to the mystique. I asked once before if this was only because people distrusted the police and didn't speak up, but given the house searches, maybe this wasn't the explanation.

The police did seem to think The Ripper had an accomplice, as they offered to be more leienent with anyone who came forward with information. The fact that no one did so could mean no accomplice ever existed, which seems likely to me.

It wouldn't be the type of relationship where one would take that offer unless they thought there was a good chance of being caught and one needed to clear them self. That's usually what happens in pairs, the dominant gets tied to a kill or another crime and the submissive tosses out everything they can in a way that makes them as innocent as possible. Sometimes the dominant will plea deal and sacrifice the submissive, which seems to be the case with the Gallegos, but again that only happens when they feel the jig is up.

Besides, I don't believe that anyone would actually take the offer seriously... maybe if they'd offered a better cash reward.

[Pcdunn]

I think that crimes committed by two or more people at the same time were possibly more common in the Victorian period (remember the reports of "High Rip" gangs), and the notion of "Jack the Ripper" as a lone murderer who struck quickly and vanished was far more frightening to the general populace. This is perhaps in contrast to today, when we often hear of lone killers who do not have accomplices.

Fear can seem to impart superhuman powers to a threatening figure like The Ripper, and newspaper accounts of no one seeing or hearing anything would only add to the mystique. I asked once before if this was only because people distrusted the police and didn't speak up, but given the house searches, maybe this wasn't the explanation.

The police did seem to think The Ripper had an accomplice, as they offered to be more leienent with anyone who came forward with information. The fact that no one did so could mean no accomplice ever existed, which seems likely to me.

[Shaggyrand]

Hello Shaggy.

"There are good odds that there was more than one killer."

Works for me.

Cheers.
LC

Just talking pure odds. Its common enough among serial offenders that dismissing it out of hand is a mistake to me. It would also help explain why some of the coroner views on anatomical knowledge are at such odds and the speed of escalation. If the police and public are only looking for a single individual, reports of two people walking together around the scene might be dismissed quickly as well. Not impossible or unreasonable to me.

[lynn cates]

counting

Hello Shaggy.

"There are good odds that there was more than one killer."

Works for me.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

I think Jack was a loner who hid in plain sight. An anonymous little man, a bit surly perhaps, not the sort to invite confidences. He was mostly in employment I think, a local who just blended into the neighbourhood that he knew like the back of his hand, worked, came home to his own room, drank a bit at the pub. His neighbours probably didn't give him a second glance.

Hallo Rosella

But do you believe he could kill and cut someone up in near pitch darkness and at breakneck speed, identifying the uterus (which is normally quite small, about the size of an unblown party balloon) and where the kidney was? Without some extra light I don't think it could be done.

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

G'day C4

Invincible yes but Invisible too, like the postie or priest or milko are invisble because we are so used to seeing them we don't.

Hello GUT

Well yes. Someone familiar and unthreatening, as in Hitchcock's film Frenzy. But in that case why wasn't he recognised? People had seen someone who could have been Jtr, but apparently no-one came forward after the description was passed along the grapevine and said "that sounds like Joe Bloggs". People were very afraid and on their guard. And this was the kind of man the police were looking for. I know the area was overpopulated, but I should think that people would recognise at least people they were used to seeing around. I'm not sure anyone would escape suspicion. And would any of the victims have gone anywhere with a penniless street bum?

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

Being committed as a result of suspicion cannot be ruled out. I find it a little hard to believe a willing accomplice would finally turn him in, an unwilling accomplice perhaps, but more likely in my mind (if committed), it was a result of someone close to him being nosy, and reporting suspicious behaviour - a family member perhaps.
There are several "what if's", that when viewed objectively still lead towards Druitt, or someone very similar.

Hello Wickerman

"Or someone similar". I think there is a case to be made for a posh Jack, someone in his employ would risk their livelihood and most probably their future by giving him away. Mud sticks and there is always the issue of whether to trust him with private family information he could be party to. Tough, but servants were easy to come by. So not in a hurry to hand over his lordship to the police.
Although he could possibly be paid off with a pension if he kept it within the family.

I have always had little Sir George fairly high up on my list. Arrested, released because of who he was and almost certainly not searched. Why was the story kept out of the papers in England. On the face of it no more than an amusing episode.

Best wishes
C4

[Errata]

Hi Curious.
Didn't someone say, the only time two people can keep a secret is, if one of them is dead!

Of all the serial killer pairs we know of, how many got caught because one talked BEFORE they got pinched for something just as bad?

[Shaggyrand]

There are good odds that there was more than one killer. A bit more than a fifth of serial killers are teams. Usually a duo, occasionally three. I can't think of any with more offhand. Eric W. Hickey's Serial Murderers and Their Victims is an interesting read, it has some interesting analysis of killer teams.