So......who do you think it was?

[Wickerman]

... Just an ordinary schmuck living in the heart of Whitechapel who blended in the crowd, someone you wouldn't look twice at, perhaps someone who rubbed shoulders and shared a pint with the local bobbies....

Exactly, which is why we will never find him.
We simply do not know enough about the day to day life of the ordinary person to even begin to identify a reasonable suspect. Having said that, just on the off chance you did stumble on 'thee' true Ripper, no-one would believe you. The whole process (not that there is one), is doomed to failure.

People new to the group, and often the younger end, seem taken up with the idea of 'name the Ripper'. I have lost count how many times I casually speak about the Ripper murders only to be stopped to ask, "who do you think it was?". Trust me, there is far more interesting subjects across the whole case than trying to name him.
My pessimistic self tells me trying to name Jack the Ripper is a waste of time, hence I cringe every time another suspect book is published.
(apologies to any past & future authors, but there it is)

[lynn cates]

togetherness

Hello Mondegreen. Why assume that they were working together?

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

(Snipped by me for relevancy.)

This is something I wonder about. If there was more than one killer, what were their motivations for killing? What about their motivations for operating together?

If anyone has any pointers on where I could read about more theories involving more than one perpetrator working together, I'd be grateful. I don't know of many such theories, other than the Royal Conspiracy ones.

I have a running theory about a pair of Jacks. I'm not sure I believe it, but I can make a pretty convincing argument for it. What I could not tell you is who they were. No idea, not really interested in that part.

[lynn cates]

theory

Hello Errata. Why not uncork it?

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Why not uncork it?

Cheers.
LC

1. None of the victims fought back, screamed, interacted with their environment, tried to escape to any meaningful degree... and a knife historically does not have the power to buy that kind of compliance. Especially when knowing that a knife wielding butcher is roaming the streets. No torn fingernails, no drag marks, no shoe leather scraped on the pavement, no biting, clawing, scratching, nothing. So these women had to have been completely overwhelmed in such a way that not only dd they not fight or flee, they couldn't even move to any significant degree. Easiest explanation is that they were lifted off the ground and killed, or pinned completely and killed. Easiest explanation is two attackers.

2. It is rare for serial killers to have multiple focuses. Whatever their fantasy is, there is typically one unifying theme. With serial killers with a specific fetish about a body part, it is one body part. Which isn't to say that other things won't happen, but if a serial killer is only given the opportunity to do one thing to a victim, it will always be the same one thing. There is no reason for someone to fetishize both the throat and the abdominal contents. There have been any number of throat cutters in the world, and any number of eviscerators. But with Jack's victims, not only were both present, they were also important. Throat cutting is neither the quickest or the neatest death. A lot of time spent on the neck, a lot of time spent in the abdominal cavity. That is abnormal for a single killer.

3. Jack worked fast. And there is a lot of speculation as to how he could almost decapitate some woman AND remove her uterus, kidney, etc. in such a short amount of time. And he could do it if he was very very good. Very very practiced. But we'd need more bodies in order to show any kind of skill increase. To kill Kate Eddowes so quickly, she would need to be his 20th victim. Not his third or fourth. Unless two men were cutting on her at the same time. One at the throat, which was important to him, and one at the abdomen, which was important to him.

4. Witnesses described a variety of people they thought might have been the killer. But they kind of boil down to one light guy, one dark guy. Conflicting witness statements would stall the police looking for a single killer, but it is possible that witnesses saw two killers.

5. Serial killer teams tend to meet in jail, but there are any number of institutions that are like jail that can foster such a relationship. And orphanage, a poorhouse, a workhouse, etc. Two kids abandoned by prostitutes could form such a bond, two men in a workhouse for soliciting could form that bond. If one man blames prostitutes for selling sex, he might target the sex organs. If the other blames prostitutes for ratting him out, or for being verbally abusive then he might target the throat. The team works because they don't want the same thing.

Basically I can make an argument how it's possible. I can even point out where two is more likely than one in certain aspects. I can't prove it. I can't even prove it likely.

[lynn cates]

a few observations

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Sound enough. But permit a few observations.

Under 1, I'm not sure that Annie did not fight back, possibly even Polly. But it's easy to see how they were subdued, given the bruising patterns on the face.

2. Might add the strangulation in the first two cases. Was the face a focus?

3. IF there was skill in Kate's case, it was not shown in the cutting. Body entry scheme, perhaps?

4. Entirely agree about disparity of description.

5. Do we need a team? Why not independent?

But in conclusion, I think we both agree on a divergence of hands throughout.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Sound enough. But permit a few observations.

Under 1, I'm not sure that Annie did not fight back, possibly even Polly. But it's easy to see how they were subdued, given the bruising patterns on the face.

2. Might add the strangulation in the first two cases. Was the face a focus?

3. IF there was skill in Kate's case, it was not shown in the cutting. Body entry scheme, perhaps?

4. Entirely agree about disparity of description.

5. Do we need a team? Why not independent?

But in conclusion, I think we both agree on a divergence of hands throughout.

Cheers.
LC

1: There's a difference between fighting back and possibly getting a few shots in. Murder scenes, especially of those killed manually (as opposed to with projectiles) are messy. Aside from ripping out fingernails, scrapes, bruises, cuts, popped button, blown zippers, and scrapes of shoe leather, there is a ton of disturbance on the ground, surrounding walls, anything in the area. Even if the victim doesn't actually get a piece of the killer, the victim leaves behind signs of an obvious fight. No some people freeze. But five victims?

2: Strangulation may just have been part of the evolution. And I'm not entirely convinced they were strangled on purpose. Which sounds strange, but if you know you want someone dead, it does happen. Kneeling on the throat, subduing someone while you do something else, like get a knife out. If the method of death doesn't matter, then people die from strangulation and head trauma more often than not.

I think the face only mattered when it was personal. And with two killers, one might target a victim the other would not take because say, she reminds him of his aunt Bessie. In such an instance disfiguring the face may have allowed the compromise.

3: A pair of killers doesn't rely on skill. Skill is required for one person to do a ton of damage in 10 minutes. Not skill necessarily in clean cuts or precision, but familiarity and the ability to prioritize and execute quickly. Experience, not so much skill. But a lot of experience. I can make an Elizabethan corset in two hours. The first time, it took me five days. I didn't get down to under a day until my 12th corset. And as far as learning curves go, that's pretty good. Three major mutilations in ten minutes on the third murder mutilation? That's an inhuman learning curve. There need to be ten more bodies between Nichols and Eddowes in order to evolve like that. And the bodies aren't there. Divide the work in two, halve the time it takes. Whether they cut pretty or not is a different thing entirely.

Although if you have one guy sitting on her chest and sawing away at the throat, it could easily throw off the precision of the guy working on the abdomen. Not an ideal method, but if rushed two killers might get in each others way.

5: There's nothing to say these killers didn't work independently. We have some abdominal mutilations that don't fit, we have some throat wounds that don't fit. But it's only together than they commit a "Jack the Ripper" murder. But it's the split focus and the total domination of the victims that makes me think two killers working together. But another thing about serial killer teams is that while dominance is fixed, it does shift. Throat guy goes first, because uterus guy needs her dead to work. If throat guy takes a long time, it may mean abdomen guy is rushed. Afterwards they argue about it, and next time throat guy gets hurried through so uterus guy can take his time. A pair of killers creates a dynamic, a sliding scale, so skill level, rushing, etc. is not just dependent on external factors like patrols, weather, etc.. It's also dependent on the partner. And since we know nothing about the killer (or killers) the partner is a completely unknown variable, and we cannot calculate how much of an influence he has on the outcome. Which can allow us to explain the unexplainable.

[lynn cates]

point of departure

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"We have some abdominal mutilations that don't fit, we have some throat wounds that don't fit."

Yes. And this is my point of departure.

Cheers.
LC