Team Jack

[RivkahChaya]

I get the sense, because of the number of Eleanor Glyn-esque stories about MJK, that do seem to go back to her, but are not independently verifiable, and the affectation of the French name, that she would be a poor choice as a conspirator.

For me, that puts to rest the Fenian conspiracies, the Royal conspiracies, where she was the intended victim all along, and also the idea that she was a look-out, or the non-dominant half of a murdering pair, like Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo. I suppose it makes sense that she's the type of partner one would eventually feel the need to silence, but it also means that the hypothetical other partner let her live for quite a long time.

How soon after the double event did Barnett move out? or was it before? No, I'm just kidding. That's more for my novel version.

[Cogidubnus]

Dodgy accomplice?

I'll get me coat

Is it Astrakhan?

All the best

Dave

[moonbegger]

Evening All ,

If an accomplice was out in Hanbury St. how was he supposed to communicate with a killer in the backyard?

According to Long, there was a man and a woman outside 29 ..
" She could not say what the age of the man was, but he looked to be over 40, and appeared to be a little taller "

With Stride, he obviously needed another accomplice as this one was deaf.

But he still did the job .

With Eddowes, three exits to the square, and no accomplice?

There is Mr Levys observation of another couple possibly keeping watch . once again the man is a little taller " he did estimate that the man was about three inches taller than the woman." The same lookout team ?

There really is no solid evidence that either of these women seen at both Hanbury st & Mitre sq were actually the victims of the crime .

If the loiterer in Dorset St. was the new accomplice, how was he expected to communicate with the killer inside room 13?

Finally , what if Kelly was indeed one of the lookouts for the earlier murders ,
and had to be silenced ?

I'll get me coat

moonbegger

[Errata]

I have to wonder what use an accomplice would have been in say, Hanbury St.

If an accomplice was out in Hanbury St. how was he supposed to communicate with a killer in the backyard?
Rush down the passage and be caught in the same trap?

With Stride, he obviously needed another accomplice as this one was deaf.

With Eddowes, three exits to the square, and no accomplice?
(was he fired after the near miss in Berner St?)

If the loiterer in Dorset St. was the new accomplice, how was he expected to communicate with the killer inside room 13?
Rush down the passage and draw attention to himself?

Is the accomplice theory really a sound argument?

I'm not talking about an accomplice. Nor a lookout. I'm talking about someone who participated as much in the capture, murder and mutilation as the other guy.

Is it a sound argument? I don't know. On the face of it, yes because we know that there are serial killer teams. Digging deeper, I always felt like this was a private sort of crime, and sharing that with someone seems weird, but then I would think rape is a private sort of crime and people gang up to do that all the time. I think it answers some basic questions. I think it raises new ones.

[Errata]

Maybe it is just as simple as that's where she went? Down the steps, turn around, let's get this over with.

Maybe, but then he has a choice as to which way to lay he down once he's knocked her out. So with her feet where they were he could have laid her out perpendicular to the stairs in the yard, even with her feet pointed towards the door. But he doesn't. Which seems to make a case he just dropped her and killed her wherever she landed, and she just happened to land in that spot. Which is the murder equivalent of a hole in one.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Or...

Maybe it is just as simple as that's where she went? Down the steps, turn around, let's get this over with.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Errata

I was discussing this just earlier. So possibly, the killer grabbed her from behind once down the steps? I was just commenting on the tight space where her body was found. It doesn't make it impossible, but wow, maybe this murderer WAS good??? Which may seem consistant with the other murders?

[Wickerman]

I have to wonder what use an accomplice would have been in say, Hanbury St.

If an accomplice was out in Hanbury St. how was he supposed to communicate with a killer in the backyard?
Rush down the passage and be caught in the same trap?

With Stride, he obviously needed another accomplice as this one was deaf.

With Eddowes, three exits to the square, and no accomplice?
(was he fired after the near miss in Berner St?)

If the loiterer in Dorset St. was the new accomplice, how was he expected to communicate with the killer inside room 13?
Rush down the passage and draw attention to himself?

Is the accomplice theory really a sound argument?

[Errata]

Interestingly I believe the usual "Murder by Person or Persons unknown" declaration made at the Inquests' completion was not made at Kate Eddowes Inquest, rather it was determined that the medical evidence demonstrated conclusively that only one person was responsible for her murder.

So, there is an answer to the thread question...sort of...it appears only Kates murder was determined to have been a solo effort based on evidence, the other verdicts allowed for more than one assailant.

Best regards

Doesn't some of that have to do with timing? At the Nichols inquest, they had no idea. At the Chapman inquest, they thought the two might be related, but still didn't know. By Eddowes, "Jack The Ripper" singular letter writing madman was firmly established. If Jack the Ripper killed all these women, and Jack the Ripper was a singular person, Eddowes could not have murdered by "persons unknown". Logical thinking, assuming that the supporting statements that the previous women were murdered by the same guy, and that same guy was a single guy are true. But if no one had come up with "Jack the Ripper", how much evidence would there be that Eddowes had a murder singular? I wouldn't think there was more evidence for a single killer for Eddowes than for Chapman.

There also aren't any drag marks, which given the Chapman scene is really remarkable. Her head is right in the middle of like a foot and a half space between concrete steps and the fence. The odds of dropping her into that spot without crushing her skull on the stairs or bouncing her off the fence and THEN crushing her skull on the stairs are pretty slim. But she wasn't dragged there. Which in a way makes sense because that's really the one place in the yard you don't want to try and hack through her neck. So why drag her there? But then again that's the one place you don't want to hack through her neck so why drop her that direction? Why kill here there at all?

The whole thing is weird.

[RivkahChaya]

Interestingly I believe the usual "Murder by Person or Persons unknown" declaration made at the Inquests' completion was not made at Kate Eddowes Inquest

I thought that was standard phrasing, so that if someone was convicted of a crime, and then later another person was also charged with the crime, he couldn't use "Someone else was already convicted" as a defense.

[lynn cates]

solo

Hello Mike. Yes, it seems Crawford offered that observation and so the jury seems to have agreed.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

In the Whitechapel murder file there are murders that have evidence that more than 1 assailant was involved....with Emma Smith, and if indeed Killeen was correct about 2 weapons, we likely have 2 assailants with Martha.

In the Canonical Group there are a few murders where an accomplice would have been most helpful, but I dont believe any evidence suggests one was used. Perhaps in the case of the loitering Wideawake at Millers Court...which lead to a Pardon for Accomplices to be issued, and if you believe Israel Schwartz, there are 2 men that may or may not be working together there, and they are with the victim near the time she is murdered.

Interestingly I believe the usual "Murder by Person or Persons unknown" declaration made at the Inquests' completion was not made at Kate Eddowes Inquest, rather it was determined that the medical evidence demonstrated conclusively that only one person was responsible for her murder.

So, there is an answer to the thread question...sort of...it appears only Kates murder was determined to have been a solo effort based on evidence, the other verdicts allowed for more than one assailant.

Best regards

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Errata

Would the victims have gone off with two men? If not, might that be suggestive of the killers picking the locations then? Planning?

[Errata]

To return to topic a bit more, how would've two people been able to make it any easier? If one individual can't stop a woman from screaming, why should two do any better?

Because one man can clap his hand over her mouth while putting her in a choke hold and the other can grab her legs, lift her, and when she's out lay her on the ground.

That way if she struggles, she is not interacting with her environment in any way. So there are no signs of a struggle.

There are a bunch of way two men can put a woman on the ground without letting her scream, use her arms, or kick out. With one man, you are sort of limited to a hit to the head, or possibly a strong hit to the solar plexus and hope she doesn't vomit. Neither of which happened.

Can we make a case for them being punched in the throat?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Question.

To return to topic a bit more, how would've two people been able to make it any easier? If one individual can't stop a woman from screaming, why should two do any better?