Tweet
Originally posted by anna
View Post
Hi Sasha,
Nice to have you amongst us!
We have indeed discussed before the theory that Jack had an accomplace...
Strides murder comes to mind here,as there were two on the scene,one in a pub doorway,when the word "Lipski" is shouted.I suppose it would make sense that he had a lookout,who could also say "he went thataway"to the arriving police,with their whistle blowing mayhem, if necessary,while he makes his exit in the opposite direction.But it also means that there is double the chance of making an error and also of capture.I see Jack as a bit of a perfectionist,as some of his timing leaves little room for error,and I think he needs to be totally in control of the situation.Having an accomplace would eliminate this comfort zone in his mind.
As to the number of victims that he may or may not have achieved.Noting that Jack was a gameplayer,would he have allowed others to jump in and grab themselves a gamepiece?To me, he would have seen this as an interferance,and he wanted all the glory for himself.
If any of the murders were not in his series, I think he would have been amused to have goaded the police on their failure to recognise that fact..he would have scored a point against them.
As to the thought that none of them were in a series,and were just put together to make it look that way.We have always had a definite three on these threads,there is no room for doubt that there was at least a small series of events that were one man's work.
The police may have been a bit incompetant,although with the limited amount of resources available to them at the time,I feel that is a little unfair.They were under a lot of pressure,which would have made them more aware of the danger of including non ripper murders along the way,they didn't want to inflame the mood of the area any more than what had been achieved already.
Nice to have you amongst us!
We have indeed discussed before the theory that Jack had an accomplace...
Strides murder comes to mind here,as there were two on the scene,one in a pub doorway,when the word "Lipski" is shouted.I suppose it would make sense that he had a lookout,who could also say "he went thataway"to the arriving police,with their whistle blowing mayhem, if necessary,while he makes his exit in the opposite direction.But it also means that there is double the chance of making an error and also of capture.I see Jack as a bit of a perfectionist,as some of his timing leaves little room for error,and I think he needs to be totally in control of the situation.Having an accomplace would eliminate this comfort zone in his mind.
As to the number of victims that he may or may not have achieved.Noting that Jack was a gameplayer,would he have allowed others to jump in and grab themselves a gamepiece?To me, he would have seen this as an interferance,and he wanted all the glory for himself.
If any of the murders were not in his series, I think he would have been amused to have goaded the police on their failure to recognise that fact..he would have scored a point against them.
As to the thought that none of them were in a series,and were just put together to make it look that way.We have always had a definite three on these threads,there is no room for doubt that there was at least a small series of events that were one man's work.
The police may have been a bit incompetant,although with the limited amount of resources available to them at the time,I feel that is a little unfair.They were under a lot of pressure,which would have made them more aware of the danger of including non ripper murders along the way,they didn't want to inflame the mood of the area any more than what had been achieved already.
Thanks for the welcome, Anna. So far I have found people on this site to be very tolerant of my insubordinate ideas. I am also very interested in theories - particularly other than the canonical five and the one killer because that theory is already well publicised. As I have mentioned, I'm not against this theory per se, I simply see two victims as standing out as being more the work of one man (I'm thinking Liz Stride & Mary Kelly) than the others. One might of course argue that he simply had more time with these women to do what he wanted in general or, as I feel, these were more likely to be crimes of passion ie the victim was known to the killer. The savagery could point this way. It could also point to two different men killing Stride and Kelly (with the others either random killings or not). The other thing that strikes me is that women were not particularly valued at this time. At best they were chatels and at worse, these unfortunates were not valued at all. Some men at the time would have no remorse in killing these women than they would in killing a rodent or insect if it suited them. Particularly if the women were drunk, insulting or feisty in the way they conducted business.
Again thanks again for your kind welcome and I look forward to your thoughts on this and other topics.
Sasha
I like your thinking Glenn. I certainly would place this theory as Option A in the list of plausible alternatives to the canonical 5 theory. The thing that bothers me most is that while we have a fair idea of what the victims looked like, we don't have a clear picture of "Jack". While of course one could attribute different accounts of him by witnesses as due to poor lighting, inebriation etc, the different accounts could be that witnesses were describing more than one man doing the killings - with the "confusion" making the identification of the killer so much more difficult!
Not sure why we're all so fascinated with serial killers - 'specially Jack (if he is in fact a serial killer). I suspect in the latter case, it's because he was never caught. It's like the perfect crime. I suspect, however, that he would be caught these days. Not because police are smarter but because they have superior investigative powers and because of improved forensic techniques.
Comment