Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sergeant Stephen White

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Location of he White Sighting

    I've just been having another read through White's encounter. I've always supposed that Castle Alley was the best fit for the location:
    "a certain alley just behind the Whitechapel Road".

    For whatever reason the police had been watching this 'alley' for five nights. That's a lot of time to devote to an operation of that nature and brought me back to the IWMEC on Berner Street. None of the murders really fits but, if White's "Whitechapel Road" reference is an error, wouldn't Dutfields Yard be a better fit than most? This is what he says about the discovery of the body, the part of the incident which (to my mind) is most likely to stick in the memory:

    "At the end of the cul-de-sac, huddled against the wall, there was the body of a woman, and a pool of blood was streaming along the gutter from her body".

    Someone suggested, near the beginning of this thread and in jocular fashion, that White might have been 'Pipeman'. I don't necessarily go along with that, but should the possibility that White was alluding to the Stride murder be lightly dismissed?

    Before I retire to my Anderson Shelter to await the inevitable bombardment, can I point out that I am only suggesting that the matter is worthy of discussion, not that it was necessarily the fact of the matter?
    "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

    Comment


    • Is the idea of a non-participatory accomplice really practical? I can't think of any known instances of serial killers using them. All the accomplices I'm aware of participated in the events even if they were directed by or secondary to the lead killer. Teams of serial killers are rare enough to begin with.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Penhalion View Post
        Is the idea of a non-participatory accomplice really practical? I can't think of any known instances of serial killers using them. All the accomplices I'm aware of participated in the events even if they were directed by or secondary to the lead killer. Teams of serial killers are rare enough to begin with.
        Yes, but you base that only on captured serial killers. Serial killers operating with accomplices would be less likely to be caught. And I imagine only about 33% of serial killers are ever caught.

        Yours truly,

        Tom Wescott

        Comment


        • Its difficult to speculate on negative/unknowns. We can really only base our theories on known quantities otherwise I'm convinced that uncaught serial killers are aided by Martians but we don't know because they are never caught. In known serial killer pairs there's usually one who is dominant/in control and one who is submissive/follows. In pretty much all those cases the submissive half was the weak link. In the case of a theoretical non-participatory accomplice, why would the accomplice stay perfectly silent and how could JtR be certain they would?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Penhalion View Post
            In the case of a theoretical non-participatory accomplice, why would the accomplice stay perfectly silent and how could JtR be certain they would?
            Maybe they remained silent because they were never identified, detained and threatened with serious charges by the police. The only case of a non-participatory accomplice to a serial killer I can think of entrapped the actual murderer into confessing their crimes in exchange for their own immunity, and in all likelihood they would have kept their mouth shut were it not for this threat of imprisonment.

            JM

            Comment


            • I doubt if there was any accomplice. The only way I can see an accomplice being the slightest use to him, would be if it was a woman, to help gain the trust of the victims. But this is so far-fetched, it's really wandering into the realms of fantasy.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                I doubt if there was any accomplice. The only way I can see an accomplice being the slightest use to him, would be if it was a woman, to help gain the trust of the victims. But this is so far-fetched, it's really wandering into the realms of fantasy.
                It may be far-fetched where the Whitechapel Murders are concerned, but it's far from unheard of in the world of serial-killers as a whole, Myra Hindley and Rose West being obvious examples.

                Just for the record, having reactivated this thread, I don't contend that there was an accomplice, female or otherwise. I just think the description of the body - cul-de-sac - against the wall - blood flowing along gutter - sounds more like the Stride murder than that of Kate Eddowes.

                Disturbed killer? - Quick! Back to the Anderson Shelter!
                Last edited by Bridewell; 11-09-2013, 05:35 AM. Reason: amend grammar
                "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                  I doubt if there was any accomplice. The only way I can see an accomplice being the slightest use to him, would be if it was a woman, to help gain the trust of the victims. But this is so far-fetched, it's really wandering into the realms of fantasy.
                  That may be so Robert, by to my recollection only Kate Eddowes Inquest ended with a verdict of Murder by Person unknown, the rest were all by Person or Persons unknown.

                  I can imagine how a lookout on some of the crimes may have been invaluable to the killer, for example watching the entrance to the courtyard off Dorset, or one or 2 of the alleys leading into Mitre Square.

                  Cheers
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • OK Michael let's suppose that a lookout is stationed at the entrance to Miller's Court. He sees a policeman approach along Dorset St. He doesn't know if the policeman intends to enter the court, so to be safe he nips into the court with the idea of jumping the policeman in the event that the policeman looks through the window. Where does he hide?

                    Comment


                    • The Miller's Court scenario is the one JtR murder which wouldn't need an accomplice for safety. The beat cop is hardly likely to start randomly knocking on doors just in case Saucy Jack is up to something behind a door in a dark, quiet courtyard.

                      A female accomplice has a better chance of making the average Victorian Whitechapel sex worker suspicious than of lulling her into feeling safe. By the very nature of their trade, they expect lone men to approach them and to then go off into dark secluded places with them. Having a woman solicit them would probably seem bizarre and suspicious. The time a female accomplice is useful is in luring otherwise cautious victims into a dangerous situation. The victims of JtR were not cautious, they were desperate.

                      Comment


                      • Hi Penhalion

                        I was wondering if the beat PC might take it into his head to peer through the window, but you're right, the idea of an accomplice is a non-starter, as far as I'm concerned.

                        Comment


                        • The potential for a second or even a third individual involved with one or more of the murders is there, there is no evidence that Im aware of that would discount it as a possibility. Only Kates Inquest ended with a conclusion she was killed by an individual. Of course they could just be men working in collusion to commit murder, and not serial killers.

                          Cheers
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            The potential for a second or even a third individual involved with one or more of the murders is there, there is no evidence that Im aware of that would discount it as a possibility. Only Kates Inquest ended with a conclusion she was killed by an individual. Of course they could just be men working in collusion to commit murder, and not serial killers.
                            How many of the 5 murders were committed in the City of London? Different coroner there; different wording; same meaning. There is nothing in that statement. Person or persons unknown = unknown person. You can't read what you want into this. It just isn't there. Sorry.

                            Mike
                            huh?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
                              Person or persons unknown = unknown person. You can't read what you want into this. It just isn't there. Sorry.

                              Exactly Mike.
                              In fact, the Coroner basically said the medical evidence showed it to be the work of one man only, and directed the jury to go for the person unknown option.


                              He [Coroner] presumed that the jury would return a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown, and then the police could freely pursue their inquiries and follow up any clue they might obtain. A magnificent reward had been offered, and that might be the means of setting people on the track and bringing to speedy justice the creature who had committed this atrocious crime.
                              On reflection, perhaps it would be sufficient to return a verdict of wilful murder against some person unknown, inasmuch as the medical evidence conclusively demonstrated that only one person could be implicated. The jury at once returned a verdict accordingly


                              Daily Tel Oct 12th:

                              Comment


                              • Did White see Casebook's 12th most popular Ripper suspect that night.

                                People here might want to look at a thread I have started in Casebook Witnesses. Itís about identifying the man, thought to be the Ripper. Detective Sergeant Stephen White supposedly encountered this man October 30th 1888. This senior police officer, under direct orders from Sir Robert Anderson, who was in charge of the Whitechapel investigation, was making enquires door to door, on the day of a double event. He was on Berner Street, where a victim was found. The man White encountered moments after and very near, a ripper murder, matches the homeless East End poet who walked the streets at night. Francis Thompson, a man who happens to be Casebookís 12th most popular suspect. The thread Iíve posted in Casebookís Witnesses forum asks did a police officer see Thompson leaving a murder scene right after the 2nd of the double murders. You are welcome to take a look at a thread Iíve posted on Casebook in the Witnesses section.

                                http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8564
                                Author of

                                "Jack the Ripper, The Works of Francis Thompson"

                                http://www.francisjthompson.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X