2 Rippers

[clark2710]

How likely is it that JtR was actually 2 people? Is there any evidence that there were 2 people working together?

[Mike J. G.]

How likely is it that JtR was actually 2 people? Is there any evidence that there were 2 people working together?

It's an intriguing possibility, but there's really so very little evidence of anything, unfortunately.

It could have been more than one person, but it could have been just one person, we'll never know.

There have been instances where more than one person was involved in a series of murders, so it's not an outlandish idea, but considering how little was seen or known of the actual murderer, it seems less likely that it was a pair of people, unless they worked separately.

Just my opinion, anyway.

[jerryd]

How likely is it that JtR was actually 2 people? Is there any evidence that there were 2 people working together?

Hi Clark.

When the City Detectives were called to action in the WM case in September of 1888, they formed a theory that the work was carried out by two men working in collusion rather than the single man theory. See here: (Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Philadelphia Times - 3 December 1888)

As a side note, on the night of Catherine Eddowes' murder, a few City Detectives were on a stakeout near the Bishopsgate Police Station. This was on Windsor Street. Interestingly, this location fits well with the story of Mrs. Paumier and Widegate Street.

[c.d.]

Maybe as part of a group like the Fenians but even that seems pretty unlikely to me. I just can't imagine somebody saying to a friend "hey Tom, it's Bob. I was just wondering if you had plans for Saturday night? I was thinking of cutting some whore's throat and ripping out her internal organs and was wondering if you would like to join me?"

Just can't see it.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

There's also the idea that IF the Ripper was 2 people, that it may have been a couple, ergo, a man and a woman.

One to entice and entrap, and the other to carry out the murder.

When we look at serial killers who work in pairs; they are nearly always a man and a woman.

There's also an outlandish idea that springs to mind...

WARNING... CONJECTURE ALERT...

that the Ripper had an accomplice who was a woman...and that woman was Mary Jane Kelly.

When the man thought he was going to be turned into the police, he chose to murder his partner in crime so he would not be caught, and perhaps to claim a reward.

This idea fits well with Hutchinson (false name) having been the Ripper, and Mary Kelly having been his accomplice.

It would then explain why there was a distinctive gap between Kelly and McKenzie.

imagine a scenario whereby Eddowes knew the Ripper; as she eluded to rather nonchalantly, as well as casually stating that she had no fear about her being the next victim.

But was she referring to knowing Mary Kelly?

And the report of her giving the name of Mary Kelly before she was murdered may have been lost in translation and she was trying to tell the policeman that the woman involved with the murders was Mary Kelly

If the Ripper was indeed a couple, then could Mary Jane Kelly have been the female accomplice who needed to be silenced?

The man waited until Barnett was out of the picture before choosing to strike.

That would explain why the killer likely shared a bed with Mary the night/morning she was murdered, and support the idea that she wasn't soliciting a paying client.

The killer knew Mary and she was obliterated because it was a more personal kill.

Can you imagine....

[c.d.]

When we look at serial killers who work in pairs; they are nearly always a man and a woman.

Can you site some examples of this? And is their motive usually robbery?

c.d.

[Lewis C]

I don't think that the Ripper murders were carried out by 2 people, but here are some possible scenarios for that.

I don't think that Emma Smith was a Ripper murder, but it is possible, and before she died, she said there was more than one person involved.

A policeman who was near where Martha Tabram was murdered at close to the time that he talked to a soldier who was lingering in the area, and said he was waiting for a friend.

I don't think Charles Cross is a good suspect at all, but for those who think he is, it seems you could just as easily argue that it was Cross and Robert Paul, working together.

Possibly Elizabeth Stride was killed by BS man and Pipeman, working together.

George Hutchinson stood near Mary Jane Kelly's room at close to the time she was murdered. Maybe he was serving as a lookout for the killer.

[c.d.]

Let me point out the obvious here -- this website exists because of the unique nature of the Ripper murders. If two people had a similar mindset and both were capable of doing what the Ripper did that uniqueness disappears and becomes rather mundane.

c.d.

[Geddy2112]

When we look at serial killers who work in pairs; they are nearly always a man and a woman.

Can you site some examples of this? And is their motive usually robbery?

c.d.

Moors murders.. and not robbery.. Rose and Fred West and no not robbery.

[Abby Normal]

Maybe as part of a group like the Fenians but even that seems pretty unlikely to me. I just can't imagine somebody saying to a friend "hey Tom, it's Bob. I was just wondering if you had plans for Saturday night? I was thinking of cutting some whore's throat and ripping out her internal organs and was wondering if you would like to join me?"

Just can't see it.

c.d.

hi cd

off the top of my head...lake and eng and the hillside stranglers were serial killers who worked together. karla homolka and her husband (in canada) are another and there are more male female pairs. all these were sexual torturers.

so while its not common it does happen. but to your point yes the overwhelming number of serial killers are lone killers.

and even more to your point, the rippers sig was post mortem mutilation and i cant think of a single serial killer pair who engaged in post mortem mutilation as their sig (main motivation). they tend to be sexual torturer/rapist type serial killers like my examples above.

imho the ripper was just one man.

[Tom_Wescott]

We don't think Emma Smith and Emily Horsnell were Ripper victims partly because they WERE killed by two or more people. So perhaps it's a question of perspective? Two weapons were used on Tabram which does not rule out a single killer (or require a second) but points in the direction of a team. And there need not have been two killers for each crime. Dr. Phillips favored the idea of more than one killer in the series, whether working together or independently. In his post mortem notes for Alice McKenzie, Phillips wrote: ‘After careful and long deliberation I cannot satisfy myself on purely anatomical & professional grounds that the Perpetrator of all the “WhChl.murders” is one man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion. This noting the mode of procedure & the character of the mutilations & judging of motive in connection with the latter. I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favor of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances & other evidence are considered.'

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Rookie Detective]

Fred and Rose West
Ian Brady and Myra Hindley
The Sunset Strip killers
The Lonely Hearts Killers

All the above were not motivated by money or robbery, but rather; sexual deviance, perversion and/or sexual sadism.

[c.d.]

Thanks for the info R.D. and Abby. I was not aware of this.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

We don't think Emma Smith and Emily Horsnell were Ripper victims partly because they WERE killed by two or more people. So perhaps it's a question of perspective? Two weapons were used on Tabram which does not rule out a single killer (or require a second) but points in the direction of a team. And there need not have been two killers for each crime. Dr. Phillips favored the idea of more than one killer in the series, whether working together or independently. In his post mortem notes for Alice McKenzie, Phillips wrote: ‘After careful and long deliberation I cannot satisfy myself on purely anatomical & professional grounds that the Perpetrator of all the “WhChl.murders” is one man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion. This noting the mode of procedure & the character of the mutilations & judging of motive in connection with the latter. I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favor of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances & other evidence are considered.'

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Great post Tom.

The fact that Emma Smith was set upon by a group of at least 3 men, should immediately rule her out as a potential Ripper suspect.

However, she still remains in the discussion to this day, and is of course included in a total of 11 potential Ripper victims.

This makes little sense, unless the Ripper was a member of the group of men who attacked Emma, or the Ripper was more than one man; ergo, a gang in it's entirety.

In other words; to even include Emma Smith in the discussion, it then rules out the Ripper having been a solitary killer.

We can also add Rose Mylett to that list; the known evidence implying there were 2 men involved in her untimely demise.

Emma Smith
Emily Horsnell
Rose Mylett
Martha Tabram (perhaps to a lesser extent)

It's also rather intriguing how at least 3 of these women all resided in George Street within yards of each other and at least 2 of them at the same address.

[GBinOz]

Dr. Phillips favored the idea of more than one killer in the series, whether working together or independently. In his post mortem notes for Alice McKenzie, Phillips wrote: ‘After careful and long deliberation I cannot satisfy myself on purely anatomical & professional grounds that the Perpetrator of all the “WhChl.murders” is one man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion. This noting the mode of procedure & the character of the mutilations & judging of motive in connection with the latter. I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favor of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances & other evidence are considered.'

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

I have a different interpretation as to what Phillips was implying. The Casebook entry for McKenzie has Phillip's statement as:

After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Wh Ch. murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.

I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances and other evidence are considered, holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion only on Professional grounds, based upon my own observation.

I interpret Phillips as saying that while on purely medical evidence he can not say that all the Whitechapel murders were by the same hand, based on the mode of procedure, the mutilations and the motive he would conclude to the contrary. He adds that the evidence is almost conclusive that there was a single perpetrator, but it was his duty to report on purely medical grounds.

Can you expand on your interpretation please?

Cheers, George