Team Jack

[martin wilson]

Hello Lynn
I didn't know what the Jonas letter was, I had to look it up.


With the greatest of respect, I'm going to give that a wide berth.
All the best

[lynn cates]

conundrum

Hello Martin. Thanks.

Not a problem. The whole conundrum is puzzling, isn't it?

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

They offered a pardon to an accomplice. Do you think they could have imagined that any accomplice might be a full partner?

[lynn cates]

wishing

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Wish we had the report.

Cheers.
LC

[martin wilson]

Hello Lynn
My reluctance to question the veracity of the Maybrick diary can only be put down to something similair to cowardice.

Hello Errata.
The Star on the 3rd of October reported there was a total of £1200 available to anyone who named the killer(s), it could be argued that Matthews was not so much stubbornly adhering to government policy as taking the practical view that the rewards on offer had not provided any information thus far,so what use would a further reward be?
My take on it is from the 5th of October Warren was actively pursuing the idea of an accomplice, both with the huge reward and offer of a pardon, but also the advertisement placed in order to meet with the 'alleged accomplice'.
All the best.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

A possible example of Team Jack.

BSM and Pipe/Knifeman. You have one who engages whilst the other looks out. After the engager has subdued the victim, the lookout moves in for mutilation whilst the engager looks out. Only Stride's throat was slit because the mutilator/Knifeman gave chase to IS to ensure BSM had enough time to dispatch the victim. Knifeman either returns or goes off in another direction. No mutilation because there is too much risk involved. Perhaps only one of them then moved on to murder Eddowes. Maybe BSM. His first solo gig. Then "MJK" is mutilated by both. Not sure about the last two. Gots to think about it.

[Phil H]

BSM and Pipe/Knifeman. You have one who engages whilst the other looks out. After the engager has subdued the victim, the lookout moves in for mutilation whilst the engager looks out. Only Stride's throat was slit because the mutilator/Knifeman gave chase to IS to ensure BSM had enough time to dispatch the victim. Knifeman either returns or goes off in another direction. No mutilation because there is too much risk involved. Perhaps only one of them then moved on to murder Eddowes. Maybe BSM. His first solo gig. Then "MJK" is mutilated by both. Not sure about the last two. Gots to think about it.

Let's be honest - speculation based on hypothesis based on...

We don't even know, from Schwartz' confused testimony that the two men were connected. I doubt even Schwartz could have been sure.

Yet now we have them as a pair working in tandem.

Go back three decades, of course, and you have Stephen Knight identifying them as Anderson, Gull, Netley, Sickert....

Nothing new and no more true now than then... Sorry

Phil

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Oh Lord Phil H.

What's the title of the thread? Just an exercise. Creating a possible scenario based on the premise of Team Jack. The thread Phil! The thread!

[Phil H]

I must confess, between this and the BS Man thread, I am not sure which one I was responding in.

Point taken. Speculate away.

Phil

[lynn cates]

pithy remark

Hello Martin. Thanks.

"My reluctance to question the veracity of the Maybrick diary can only be put down to something similar to cowardice."

And lack of a pith helmet? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

pincers

Hello DLDW. But on this scenario, does it give you reason for pause that one partner is near the Nelson, the other back at Commercial?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

frustration

Hello Phil.

"We don't even know, from Schwartz' confused testimony, that the two men were connected. I doubt even Schwartz could have been sure."

Quite. As is evident from Abberline's frustration on trying to ascertain at whom "Lipsky" was shouted. ("Oops, let me ask the chap who made up that story." heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Lynn.

Hello DLDW. But on this scenario, does it give you reason for pause that one partner is near the Nelson, the other back at Commercial?

Cheers.
LC

No, not really. If they had been following her or found her then you send one around from the other direction to scope out what's going on. So you are not surprised by a parade of people or coppers etc. Cover both sides first then engage type thing.

[Errata]

Let's be honest - speculation based on hypothesis based on...

We don't even know, from Schwartz' confused testimony that the two men were connected. I doubt even Schwartz could have been sure.

Yet now we have them as a pair working in tandem.

Go back three decades, of course, and you have Stephen Knight identifying them as Anderson, Gull, Netley, Sickert....

Nothing new and no more true now than then... Sorry

Phil

I figure there are three ways to approach a case such as this.

1: We can look at the facts we have at hand and try to formulate a case based on that alone. And we have many people doing that. I can't add to that really unless I can trot out some piece of knowledge that was previously useless to add to the conversation. It is simple reasoning, and whether a person tries inductive, reductive, or deductive, they are only operating within the known.

2: We can try to add to the facts at hand through research and adding context. We can find new information on the case, or possibly find new information on the players. For example if we discovered that Kosminski had a crippling knee injury, that would change things. I'm not in a position to do such research. Londoners have a distinct advantage in this arena, and besides there are plenty of people here who are a lot better at that than I am.

3: We can look at a problem and figure out what solves that problem. Then go back and see if it can apply to the case. I call it the experimental method, or the "throw something at the wall and see if it sticks" method.
And there are problems with this case, or "mysteries" if you will. I do a lot of experiments. My fiance is sick and tired of having to play victim for various attacks, anytime we buy a chicken you don't want to know what it goes through before it gets cooked... and I've taken some good shots and bruised and bled in the course of it (not intentionally, stray elbow encounters). I try things. I experiment.

It doesn't bother me that none of these murders were witnessed, for example. That I understand. I don't understand the dichotomy between knife skills and a lack control. What explains that to me is that the killer was using a longer knife than he was used to. That idea stuck to the wall. In this thread, I'm exploring the mystery of how none of these women were able to fight to any degree to even scuff the dirt. I've explored drugging, strangulation, chloroform, chemical exposure, blows to the head, blows to the solar plexus... none of those stuck to the wall. So I'm down to multiple attackers, or possibly a punch in the throat, but I think a crushed larynx would rate a mention in the autopsy.

If I can make two killers work, in the land of hypothesis, then I can apply it back to the case and see if it fits. If it doesn't, next idea. Whatever the next idea may be.

[lynn cates]

block

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

Very well. But an entire city block?

Cheers.
LC