Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Conspiracy to suppress the identity of JTR?

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

  • Conspiracy to suppress the identity of JTR?

    Was there a conspiracy to suppress the identity of JTR at around the time of the murders?

    Optionally give reasons for your choice. If you think there was
    a conspiracy, please state who, why etc.
    28
    Yes
    14.29%
    4
    No
    67.86%
    19
    Not sure, don't know.
    17.86%
    5
    It was me. I let the dogs out.

  • #2
    JJ Hainsworth’s theory is a possibility. I don’t believe in large far-reaching conspiracies though.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-19-2019, 01:38 PM.
    Regards

    Herlock






    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

    Comment


    • #3
      No conspiracy; no conspiracy to kill the victims, and no conspiracy to cover-up any any evidence that might have led to an arrest. Just a misogynist psychopath (disorganized/opportunist marauder) suffering from piquerism. JTR was incapable of formulating even a complex plan of attack, never mind maintaining the complicated social relations necessary for a conspiracy; me thinks this guy didn't even have friends.

      Besides, the likelihood that five people acting together, finding a common cause to kill 'unfortunates' would probably never all turn out to be psychopaths and the killings would never have been so gruesome. As a conspiracy, the killings would have been done professionally or possibly by ritual; had there been a conspiracy the women most likely would have just disappeared.

      I maintain that Saucy Jacky was JUST a serial killer and nothing more; just one more broken human-being that the contemporaneous press, and then later on historians, have tried to make more of; they want a "Moriarty" Ripper. Conspiracy theories lend themselves to that agenda.

      But the truth is as sad as it appears to be, he was just another loser who murdered women.
      Last edited by APerno; 05-19-2019, 05:00 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        If two or more people decide to keep quiet about something - is that a conspiracy?
        If the guilty party confesses to a priest, and they keep it to themselves, is that a conspiracy?
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          If two or more people decide to keep quiet about something - is that a conspiracy?
          If the guilty party confesses to a priest, and they keep it to themselves, is that a conspiracy?
          Yeah, good point Wick. But I suppose that if, as Jon Hainsworth believes, they engaged in a plan to actively misinform the public by hiding Druitt’s identity then might that be called a conspiracy of a kind?
          Regards

          Herlock






          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            If two or more people decide to keep quiet about something - is that a conspiracy?
            If the guilty party confesses to a priest, and they keep it to themselves, is that a conspiracy?
            If no direct act of concealment takes place then common knowledge of an event is not a crime, even if that common knowledge is about a previous crime.

            Concealment constitutes a crime, but here lies the rub, 'failure to report a crime' is merely a misdemeanor (even if the crime is murder), and only in some States (USA Law), but in every State, to actively move to conceal a crime becomes 'accessory after the fact' and a felony.

            To say two people were involved with a conspiracy to conceal a crime necessitates an in concert, active attempt of concealment, not merely remaining quiet.

            So I would say "no," two people just keeping quiet is not a conspiracy because it is not active concealment.

            I think conspiracy should be purely a legal word. That usage fits well here:
            If you found two people who knew, and were just too scared to speak up, you wouldn't call it a conspiracy; and if instead you found they moved to cover it up, you would.


            -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Confiding in a Priest can never be a crime ('free exercise clause,' 1st Amendment) so it can never be a conspiracy legally speaking.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi,

              I don't think conspiracy would apply to the confessional, as in such confessions the priest effectively is bound to not divulge that information before they even know what it is. In a conspiracy, the information is known a priori, and an agreement is reached to not divulge it.

              One could also apply that to the police. If they had someone as a prime suspect, but could never prove it, I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed to reveal that information publicly. They would not, therefore, be considered to be conspiring to supress information, but rather are bound by regulations not to (similar, but not quite identical, to the priest in the confessional).

              I suppose someone who knew JtRs identity, but did not turn them in (a relative, friend, etc), could be a conspiracy of sorts, provided there was discussion between JtR and this hypothetical person to agree not to reveal his identity. If the hypothetical person was simply afraid to go public, that wouldn't be a conspiracy (pending on how active JtR was in directly threatening the person, they become a victim of threats and so forth, not a co-conspirator).

              Conspiracy implies an active decision, before or after the fact, and one that is not determined by a pre-set collection of rules/regulations of what information can be divulged. That's not to say there couldn't be conspiracies within such groups. There could be, for an example, a conspiracy within the police to withhold information that would have led to JtRs capture (I"m making this up as an example), because their actions are designed to thwart the normal flow of events.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • #8
                Speaking of conspiracies; I was just reading randomly and came across this ditty:

                The Star, October 3rd, 1888

                "One Who Knows" expects to find in the Times shortly a facsimile letter of Mr. Gladstone's, showing that he is employing the assassin in order to demonstrate, when the full number of murders are completed, that there is more crime committed in the English capital in three months than in all Ireland in three years.

                I am not sure if I am getting this right but is this accusation suggesting that PM Gladstone is killing whores to make the Irish look good?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by APerno View Post

                  If no direct act of concealment takes place then common knowledge of an event is not a crime, even if that common knowledge is about a previous crime.

                  Concealment constitutes a crime, but here lies the rub, 'failure to report a crime' is merely a misdemeanor (even if the crime is murder), and only in some States (USA Law), but in every State, to actively move to conceal a crime becomes 'accessory after the fact' and a felony.

                  To say two people were involved with a conspiracy to conceal a crime necessitates an in concert, active attempt of concealment, not merely remaining quiet.

                  So I would say "no," two people just keeping quiet is not a conspiracy because it is not active concealment.

                  I think conspiracy should be purely a legal word. That usage fits well here:
                  If you found two people who knew, and were just too scared to speak up, you wouldn't call it a conspiracy; and if instead you found they moved to cover it up, you would.


                  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Confiding in a Priest can never be a crime ('free exercise clause,' 1st Amendment) so it can never be a conspiracy legally speaking.
                  Thankyou for all that, very interesting.
                  However, we should make every attempt to apply British Law if we are to understand the issue correctly.
                  That said, I'm intrigued that you used the term "in concert", it's a little used term today but was current in the late 19th century in Britain.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                    I suppose someone who knew JtRs identity, but did not turn them in (a relative, friend, etc), could be a conspiracy of sorts, provided there was discussion between JtR and this hypothetical person to agree not to reveal his identity.......
                    Hi Jeff, thankyou. That's what I suspect to be the more likely assuming this killer didn't live by himself.
                    If the killer lived at home and/or, his exploits were known by a brother, mother or wife then depending on if or to what degree they assisted him before or after the fact may constitute 'conspiracy'.
                    I have to wonder if this is not what Dr Phillips was thinking after his meeting with the Home Office.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      Hi Jeff, thankyou. That's what I suspect to be the more likely assuming this killer didn't live by himself.
                      If the killer lived at home and/or, his exploits were known by a brother, mother or wife then depending on if or to what degree they assisted him before or after the fact may constitute 'conspiracy'.
                      I have to wonder if this is not what Dr Phillips was thinking after his meeting with the Home Office.
                      Hi Wickerman,

                      That makes sense. Issuing a pardon would cover both "active agreement to help conceal" but also those who didn't report due to fear, either of reprisal by the suspected person or fear they would get in trouble by association.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Considering that a vital piece of evidence was scrubbed out to prevent a riot, do I think it's possible that other evidence was suppressed for political reasons? Absolutely. If the killer was a mad Jew who had been packed off to an asylum, the police may have been satisfied with that but kept the case "unsolved". Not sure if that's conspiratorial, as such.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                          Considering that a vital piece of evidence was scrubbed out to prevent a riot, do I think it's possible that other evidence was suppressed for political reasons? Absolutely. If the killer was a mad Jew who had been packed off to an asylum, the police may have been satisfied with that but kept the case "unsolved". Not sure if that's conspiratorial, as such.
                          Well, the text of the graphito was presented at the inquest, so it wasn't really suppressed from public knowledge. I've sometimes wondered, though, if Schwartz was not at the inquest to prevent his description being made public, or perhaps, because they feared his "Lipski" testimony might cause a riot. I think, though, that without a trial they couldn't name someone publicly as being JtR as I'm sure there would be legal ramifications for doing so (but I'm not an expert on that, it just seems unlikely they could say basically say someone was guilty without a trial). We know, that some of the post C5 murders were, at least initially thought to be JtR by the police, and extra patrols reinstated, etc, so clearly the police were not of the mind that they were sure JtR was dead in 1889.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I don't think there's evidence to suggest there was a conspiracy to conceal the identity of Jack the Ripper...but I feel sure that following the death of MJK there was a conspiracy to rush through/hush up the evidence at Inquest and get her buried and out of the way as soon as possible...

                            Nothing new, (it's all been said before), but look where the body was taken, look at who wasn't permitted to hold the inquest, look at the way the jurors were slapped down, look how the evidence was indecently rushed (no proper evidence of identity, no evidence regarding weapons, not even which wound was the fatal one), how even the alleged purpose of an inquest was fudged, and finally look at how indecently quickly the body was buried without any apparent attempt to even trace or notify the family...presumably because politics had got in the way by then...

                            Wonder whether Baxter's subsequent preferments were in part, at least, a sweetener to keep him quiet on the subject, or perhaps something else - or perhaps I'm seeing a further conspiracy where there may not be one...

                            Of course, this is before we even consider whether or not McCarthy, Bowyer et al conspired to cover up their knowledge of MJK's activities and possibly her real identity too...

                            Cheers

                            Dave
                            Last edited by Cogidubnus; 05-20-2019, 12:30 PM. Reason: Silly spelling error corrected

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                              I don't think there's evidence to suggest there was a conspiracy to conceal the identity of Jack the Ripper...but I feel sure that following the death of MJK there was a conspiracy to rush through/hush up the evidence at Inquest and get her buried and out of the way as soon as possible...

                              Nothing new, (it's all been said before), but look where the body was taken, look at who wasn't permitted to hold the inquest, look at the way the jurors were slapped down, look how the evidence was indecently rushed (no proper evidence of identity, no evidence regarding weapons, not even which wound was the fatal one), how even the alleged purpose of an inquest was fudged, and finally look at how indecently quickly the body was buried without any apparent attempt to even trace or notify the family...presumably because politics had got in the way by then...

                              Wonder whether Baxter's subsequent preferments were in part, at least, a sweetener to keep him quiet on the subject, or perhaps something else - or perhaps I'm seeing a further conspiracy where there may not be one...

                              Of course, this is before we even consider whether or not McCarthy, Bowyer et al conspired to cover up their knowledge of MJK's activities and possibly her real identity too...

                              Cheers

                              Dave
                              Hello Dave,

                              I don't think we can discount a much simpler explanation. Kelly's murder was so brutal that the authorities simply wanted it gone from the public eye as quickly as possible to avoid panic.

                              c.d.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X