Once you have eliminated the impossible

[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

[lynn cates]

counting

Hello Shaggy.

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

Works for me.

Cheers.
LC

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[Shaggyrand]

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.

I think the choice of victim was more quantity and available opportunities over anything else. Yes, if they had an aim beyond just killing they would have picked a different class of target. The psychology behind them pairing up would be the same as today as well. If, and I'm not sold on the idea but think its possible enough to not dismiss out of hand, there's plenty of reasons for them to partner up. Often those who need some more extreme levels of control will seek out submissive partners. I don't think it would be harder to find someone who one could mold into the desired kind of submissive in 1888 London than it would now, it might even be easier. The conditions among the lower class seem perfect to breed them. If it was a pair I would lean toward them being like the DC Snipers. A male kid that is desperate for some kind of paternal affection and someone who supplies it as an early means of control.
The submissive partner's gain would not be something other than money or anything that tangible. Just the passing praise or a word of approval from the dominant would be enough.

[Bridewell]

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.

G K Chesterton would certainly agree.

[Bridewell]

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.

Spot on I suspect.

[Wickerman]

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.

Hi C4.
Ah, you were talking about George Arthur specifically, my mistake.
I was merely pointing out that gentlemanly looking males were arrested and quickly let go. When I wrote "him", I meant the killer, not George Arthur specifically.
Sorry.

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.

I wasn't aware anyone suspected George Arthur.