Once you have eliminated the impossible

[curious4]

C4, i agree with your line of thinking. Its not that i think that Leather Apron couldnt have murdered on his own. He was a slasher by nature. Its that i dont think he could have murdered in this way, in public & under 15 minutes on his own. Im open to the idea of an accomplice because I wonder about the light aspect too. In some reports it is so dark that none of these people can see below armpit level apparently; in other reports, its bright as day. I dont remember night vision goggles in 1888. So yea! I could see someone holding a lantern. (We carried flashlights in the military. We could switch out the clear lens for a red lens for night operations. It wasnt so bright that an enemy could detect you, but it still gave you some illumination. How would it be if Leather Apron did the same thing using a blood-stained lens on a bullseye lantern).
As for the accomplice id be unbiased. In this case an accomplice could be a woman. Not Bonnie & Clyde, more partners - pimp & prostitute or likewise. Afterall, what would the accomplice really need to do. Keep lookout. Hold a lantern. Help position the body. If its a woman and all the police are looking for a man, then shed be ideal to conceal items. Or maybe he slices the neck and the accomplice cuts the body. 2 different knives.
An accomplice better explains the efficiency of the murders.

Hello Robert

Yes, it did seem to have been extremely dark. Diemschutz, for example, had to light a match to see what it was that had startled his horse.

Of course there is always the man with the glow worm eyes, nice legend but not perhaps evidence of someone who could see in the dark.

Best wishes
C4

[packers stem]

At least one of the locations was described by a reporter as 'as dull and lonely a spot as an be found anywhere in London'. Mitre Square was black away from the dim glow of the two lights and virtually uninhabited.

It was mere chance that Lawende and the others were coming out of the Imperial Club that rainy night and saw a couple standing near the entrance. And it was the same in Bucks Row in the early hours, dark, gloomy, nobody except the beat policeman about.

So long as an ear was kept out for the patrolling police the Ripper was safe in both these locations. With the others, especially Hanbury St and Dutfield's Yard, it was much more risky. However, if Jack kept his nerve and his eyes and ears open he was safe. There would be no need IMO for an accomplice who posed his/her own risk to his safety.

Hi Rosella
How do you explain kidney removal in the darkest corner of mitre square on an overcast,drizzly night,presumably no moon light,without an accomplice with light?

[Rosella]

At least one of the locations was described by a reporter as 'as dull and lonely a spot as an be found anywhere in London'. Mitre Square was black away from the dim glow of the two lights and virtually uninhabited.

It was mere chance that Lawende and the others were coming out of the Imperial Club that rainy night and saw a couple standing near the entrance. And it was the same in Bucks Row in the early hours, dark, gloomy, nobody except the beat policeman about.

So long as an ear was kept out for the patrolling police the Ripper was safe in both these locations. With the others, especially Hanbury St and Dutfield's Yard, it was much more risky. However, if Jack kept his nerve and his eyes and ears open he was safe. There would be no need IMO for an accomplice who posed his/her own risk to his safety.

[Robert St Devil]

C4, i agree with your line of thinking. Its not that i think that Leather Apron couldnt have murdered on his own. He was a slasher by nature. Its that i dont think he could have murdered in this way, in public & under 15 minutes on his own. Im open to the idea of an accomplice because I wonder about the light aspect too. In some reports it is so dark that none of these people can see below armpit level apparently; in other reports, its bright as day. I dont remember night vision goggles in 1888. So yea! I could see someone holding a lantern. (We carried flashlights in the military. We could switch out the clear lens for a red lens for night operations. It wasnt so bright that an enemy could detect you, but it still gave you some illumination. How would it be if Leather Apron did the same thing using a blood-stained lens on a bullseye lantern).
As for the accomplice id be unbiased. In this case an accomplice could be a woman. Not Bonnie & Clyde, more partners - pimp & prostitute or likewise. Afterall, what would the accomplice really need to do. Keep lookout. Hold a lantern. Help position the body. If its a woman and all the police are looking for a man, then shed be ideal to conceal items. Or maybe he slices the neck and the accomplice cuts the body. 2 different knives.
An accomplice better explains the efficiency of the murders.

[curious4]

I am of the opinion that the Ripper's ability to avoid detection and appear to be invisible as such has come out of the in-depth knowledge he had of the area he operated in. They City of London is a rather beautiful place now with many of the old alleyways of the 1800's still in use. Very quick and convenient rat runs to get across the city without having to follow the main roads.

I can only imagine what these rat runs and alleys would be like around the end of the 1880's, probably very dark and very quiet in the early hours of the morning with many places where an individual could stand only inches away from someone passing and not be detected.

Maybe this is a contributing factor as to how the Ripper managed to fade into the background of Whitechapel and remain undetected when he was prowling?

Hello Majic

I think you are correct, he definitely knew the area well and took advantage of the darkness. There were people around 24 hours a day, so I think he must have been someone who fitted in and didn't seem a threat.

Best wishes
C4

[Majic]

Was Jtr some sort of superman who could see in the dark, disappear at will, move at lightening speed? If you don't believe this, and all the myths and legends which have sprung up around him, then the only logical conclusion must be that he must have had help. Someone who could provide him with light, keep a lookout and perhaps even provide him with victims.

I am of the opinion that the Ripper's ability to avoid detection and appear to be invisible as such has come out of the in-depth knowledge he had of the area he operated in. They City of London is a rather beautiful place now with many of the old alleyways of the 1800's still in use. Very quick and convenient rat runs to get across the city without having to follow the main roads.

I can only imagine what these rat runs and alleys would be like around the end of the 1880's, probably very dark and very quiet in the early hours of the morning with many places where an individual could stand only inches away from someone passing and not be detected.

Maybe this is a contributing factor as to how the Ripper managed to fade into the background of Whitechapel and remain undetected when he was prowling?

[Rosella]

It was most probably in reference to this being the only one of the killings to have taken place indoors in a room. However, by this time the police were undoubtedly getting very frustrated and must have thought 'Somebody somewhere knows something'. Maybe they were again pressing the Home Office for a large reward to be offered for information received.

Didn't Bond infer that Jack might be living with elderly, respectable relatives, in his report which Anderson commissioned ? Perhaps the police had got hold of some information now lost to us, about a suspect in that sort of accommodation. It might have been thought that such relatives may have seen the killer come home early that morning somewhat bloodstained and bedraggled and, while desperately worried, kept their mouths closed, mouths that might be opened by police questioning.

[curious4]

Certain circumstances

Matthews is quoted as saying: "in the case of Kelly there were certain circumstances which were wanting in the earlier cases, and which made it mre probable that there were other persons who, at any rate after the crime, had assisted the murderer." (Scotland Yard Investigates, Evans and Rumbelow).

Is there any clue as to what those circumstances were? Could it just have been that the murder was commited indoors? Or is there something in the theory that Maxwell saw the killer dressed in Mary's clothes, and the "man in plaid" was an accomplice? Or was it that the police were of the opinion that the murderer must have been covered in Mary's blood and must have had help to escape?

Or were the "certain circumstances" something completely different? And what could it have been that was "wanting" in the other murders?

Best wishes
C4

[GUT]

Morning GUT
Think the Jewish hints were there well before the gsg
Elizabeth Long's Hanbury Street description hinted as much by saying foreign appearance
Think it was the press opinion of 'an englishman couldn't possibly do this sort of thing' helping things along

And they're hints from the killer?

[curious4]

None of which was a requirement for the real killer, in my view, C4.

Hello Ben

If he did dress up to allay suspicion it would, but it is speculation, I freely admit.

Best wishes
C4

[Ben]

Not saying that Sir George Arthur was the killer, but he did have a passion for the theatre and acting, and the money to have various changes of clothes

None of which was a requirement for the real killer, in my view, C4.

[packers stem]

G'day Emma and welcome.

But what Forensic Evidence??

Forensics basically didn't exist.

The "Jewish implication" only really arises from the GSG and we have no idea, in all reality who wrote it.

There were literally thousands of letters and we have no idea if the killer wrore any of them and if so which ones.

Morning GUT
Think the Jewish hints were there well before the gsg
Elizabeth Long's Hanbury Street description hinted as much by saying foreign appearance
Think it was the press opinion of 'an englishman couldn't possibly do this sort of thing' helping things along

[curious4]

Sir George

Not saying that Sir George Arthur was the killer, but he did have a passion for the theatre and acting, and the money to have various changes of clothes.

One possibility which has occured to me from time to time is that that a soldier suffering from "battle fatigue" (think that's what it's called nowadays) would make a good suspect. I had a weekend and holiday job, as a schoolgirl, in a private mental hospital and there were two patients who scared me stiff - one who reputedly had committed murder and another, an ex-soldier, who was suffering from what was called shell shock. He was quite "normal", if quiet, but heard voices which he believed were orders. One day he heard a message telling him to kill all women and tried to strangle one of the ward maids. The matron in charge was a very forward-looking woman and was against locking patients up in their rooms so all the patients were free to roam the large house, something I think benefited them greatly but was not without risks. I left not long after this incident and believe he was moved to a safer environment quite quickly. But perhaps a Jack who thought he had his instructions from higher up?

Best wishes
C4

[Rosella]

Hi Emma and welcome. Do you mean that you feel that Jack may have decided to bamboozle witnesses by dressing in disguise, in character as it were, in clothing hinting at a profession like being a sailor or a well off Jew in an astrakhan coat etc? Perhaps that hints at someone who acted, was used to the theatre etc.

We know so little about this killer that gathering all the loose threads together about what he knew about detectives, about witnesses, how the police worked etc. would be well nigh impossible at this point in time, anyway.

I don't believe that Jack was an extraordinary smart killer, though he was certainly an incredibly lucky one. My own opinion is that he was a local and an opportunist, a 'disorganised' murderer, who killed in a millieu that suited him down to the ground, grimy, dimly lit, an area full of black alleyways and dark yards and courts where he was able to lure desperately poor women to go with him.

I think he knew the local area like the back of his hand. He probably did keep an eye out for police on the beat and the immediate environment in which he killed these women, yet he also took incredible risks. I'm not so sure that Jack deliberately and consciously set out at any time with a plan, however, whether to confuse or manipulate police or witnesses, or achieve anything other that to kill and mutilate, though I'm sure he secretly enjoyed the terror he caused among the local population.

[GUT]

G'day Emma and welcome.

But what Forensic Evidence??

Forensics basically didn't exist.

The "Jewish implication" only really arises from the GSG and we have no idea, in all reality who wrote it.

There were literally thousands of letters and we have no idea if the killer wrore any of them and if so which ones.