Jack The Ripper Forums  - Ripperology For The 21st Century  

Go Back   Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century > Mysteries Within The Mystery

Mysteries Within The Mystery Forum for researchers to list what they feel are the most uncanny mysteries within the greater mystery....the identity and motive of the Whitechapel Murderer

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old July 15th, 2017, 02:37 PM   #31
Jennifur Roberts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 22
Default Why One Killer?

Whether the police promoted the single killer line or not, I will leave to more learned minds.

I will deal with why the police or any one else would want there to be just one killer.

1. It would seem, prima facie, unlikely that two killers be on the rampage in such a limited locale. It is just easier to believe it is one killer.

2. To have multiple killers makes it harder to end the killings. For the police, that would be a nightmare scenario. If they can't catch one then how would they catch two?

Just my tuppence's worth.

Be gentle,

Jennifur
Jennifur Roberts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2017, 02:50 PM   #32
Mr. Poster
Twit
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Twit Town
Posts: 2,471
Default

Having two killers with similar pedelictions seems improbable.

Having one killer of a suite of women and other who kills one but tries to piggy back his killling onto the other guys sequence with a view towards subterfuge is an entirely different probability.

P
__________________
"Chance hasn't yet peached on Jack the Ripper.If she ever does, it will probably be cause for grotesque disappointment among the Ripperologists, who get as much joy from attacking one another's lunacies, as from any problems originally posed by the Whitechapel murderer" R. Gowers, The Independant, Saturday, 31 December 1994
Mr. Poster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2017, 10:49 AM   #33
Phil Carter
Author
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,755
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicker Man View Post
Hello Phil.

In what way do you see the police promoting the idea of a lone killer to the public?
Internal reports, notes, memo's maybe, but they are not for public consumption. Even official published descriptions only deal with the murder at hand.
The press certainly did, but the police hardly ever contributed to a newspaper story.
Hello Jon,

I will give you one clear example. It was the police that promoted the two scribbles from "Jack" by claiming Firstly they were of the same hand..and then putting them up on posters outside police stations asking if anyone recognised the handwriting.
Now..I may be getting old.. but they weren't asking for MORE than one writer were they.

This.."the police did nothing publically wrong" idea is nonsense imo. They helped to deliberately spread the word that one single maniac killer was responsible for these crimes.
It is called watching your own back.


Phil
__________________
from 1905...to 19.05..it was written in the stars
Phil Carter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2017, 12:01 PM   #34
Wicker Man
Researcher
 
Wicker Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,993
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Carter View Post
Hello Jon,

I will give you one clear example. It was the police that promoted the two scribbles from "Jack" by claiming Firstly they were of the same hand..and then putting them up on posters outside police stations asking if anyone recognised the handwriting.
Now..I may be getting old.. but they weren't asking for MORE than one writer were they.

This.."the police did nothing publically wrong" idea is nonsense imo. They helped to deliberately spread the word that one single maniac killer was responsible for these crimes.
It is called watching your own back.

Phil
Hello Phil.

So you think the police were at fault for assuming those two murders on the same night may have been committed by the same person?

Do the police claim, in print to the public, that the previous murders (Tabram, Nichols & Chapman) were all by the same hand, and by the same killer as these latest two?
There may be something to that effect, but I don't recall such a claim.

I just fail to see the suggestion that the police promoted the idea as based on anything tangible. It also seems that this accusation is based in part on an assumption that the assumed single killer of the double murders, was the same one responsible for the previous murders.
But isn't this an assumption by the author, not the police?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
"
The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
" observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.
Wicker Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2017, 01:12 PM   #35
Phil Carter
Author
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,755
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicker Man View Post
Hello Phil.

So you think the police were at fault for assuming those two murders on the same night may have been committed by the same person?

Do the police claim, in print to the public, that the previous murders (Tabram, Nichols & Chapman) were all by the same hand, and by the same killer as these latest two?
There may be something to that effect, but I don't recall such a claim.

I just fail to see the suggestion that the police promoted the idea as based on anything tangible. It also seems that this accusation is based in part on an assumption that the assumed single killer of the double murders, was the same one responsible for the previous murders.
But isn't this an assumption by the author, not the police?
Hello Jon,

Forgive my tardy response.

I didnt say anything about the police assuming anything.
Perhaps Im being a little opaque.
If I had the time and the energy I would list every quote by every individual policeman during these murders referring to "the killer" or "a killer". Sadly..I havent..but Im sure that there are many examples from many policemen.
What IS missing DURING..my emphasis..is any suggestion that there was more than one killer that could have been responsible..note DURING the murder seige.
It is obvious to me at least why. As I..and others have suggested..if the police were found wanting in their ability to capture one killer..and the press were already laying heavy accusations of incompetence on both the police hierarchy and the Home Secretary..then all hell eould have broken loose under the suggestion of more than one killer on the loose. The Whitechapel murder spree was originally intended to include Smith, Tabram, McKenzie and Coles.
The list is on Swanson's paper shown in Scotland Yard Investigates.
It wasnt until the announcement of the so called C5 that Smith and Tabram were excluded..and by dint of the aftermath, so too McKenzie and Coles. But..and it is a big but..the police were still looking for "Jack" when McKenzie and Coles were murdered. Thus alone is a further indication of keeping to the "one killer" proposal. They were still looking for "Jack the Ripper"..single lone killer.

I keep saying this..and it gets ignored..quietly put to one side, that IF the C5 were the only victims of "Jack the Ripper".. then youve got 4 other victims to explain. Smith's killing has nothing to do with the other three..likewise Tabrams. Likewise McKenzie, Likewise Coles. And IF you believe Ye Olde Met Police..especially Andersons faith in his medical man.. none of those four victims had anything to do with the C5. Ipso facto..even ignoring the Stride question, even ignoring the Kelly question..you have four MORE killers on the loose.
But this problem is shuffled away as if it doesnt somehow doesnt matter. Nobody has addressed this very real possibility.
And IF that is the case..Stride being murdered by someone else becomes quite acceptable. Ditto Kelly.

I respect your views. .but honestly.. it doesn't take much working out. The police had to have just one OFFICIAL killer on the loose. Reputations were at stake from the top down.
Infact..the future of the pride and joy of law enforcement.. the Met Police.. could well have been in danger itself...bu being shown to be run by incompetents. Thankfully.. it dudnt happen.


Phil
__________________
from 1905...to 19.05..it was written in the stars
Phil Carter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2017, 01:55 PM   #36
Cris Malone
Historian
 
Cris Malone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Jackson, Tennessee
Posts: 2,403
Default

The police investigated each of these murders as individual cases as they had a system in place to do so. To expand that into a possibility of them being linked also would be natural since this was an unprecidented series of murders in a small geographic location, perpetrated on a certain class of women.

They would have been happy to solve just one case, and none of the others, if they could have, which is exemplified by the way the Coles case was carried out.
__________________
Best Wishes,
Cris Malone
______________________________________________
"Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."
Cris Malone is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2017, 04:10 PM   #37
Howard Brown
Proprietor-Administrator
 
Howard Brown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Eagleville, Pa.
Posts: 73,127
Default

What Cris said.
__________________
To Join JTR Forums, Contact :
Howard@jtrforums.com
Howard Brown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2017, 04:59 PM   #38
Chris G.
Registered User
 
Chris G.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 12,371
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Carter View Post
Hello Jon,

Forgive my tardy response.

I didnt say anything about the police assuming anything.
Perhaps Im being a little opaque.
If I had the time and the energy I would list every quote by every individual policeman during these murders referring to "the killer" or "a killer". Sadly..I havent..but Im sure that there are many examples from many policemen.
What IS missing DURING..my emphasis..is any suggestion that there was more than one killer that could have been responsible..note DURING the murder seige.
It is obvious to me at least why. As I..and others have suggested..if the police were found wanting in their ability to capture one killer..and the press were already laying heavy accusations of incompetence on both the police hierarchy and the Home Secretary..then all hell eould have broken loose under the suggestion of more than one killer on the loose. The Whitechapel murder spree was originally intended to include Smith, Tabram, McKenzie and Coles.
The list is on Swanson's paper shown in Scotland Yard Investigates.
It wasnt until the announcement of the so called C5 that Smith and Tabram were excluded..and by dint of the aftermath, so too McKenzie and Coles. But..and it is a big but..the police were still looking for "Jack" when McKenzie and Coles were murdered. Thus alone is a further indication of keeping to the "one killer" proposal. They were still looking for "Jack the Ripper"..single lone killer.

I keep saying this..and it gets ignored..quietly put to one side, that IF the C5 were the only victims of "Jack the Ripper".. then youve got 4 other victims to explain. Smith's killing has nothing to do with the other three..likewise Tabrams. Likewise McKenzie, Likewise Coles. And IF you believe Ye Olde Met Police..especially Andersons faith in his medical man.. none of those four victims had anything to do with the C5. Ipso facto..even ignoring the Stride question, even ignoring the Kelly question..you have four MORE killers on the loose.
But this problem is shuffled away as if it doesnt somehow doesnt matter. Nobody has addressed this very real possibility.
And IF that is the case..Stride being murdered by someone else becomes quite acceptable. Ditto Kelly.

I respect your views. .but honestly.. it doesn't take much working out. The police had to have just one OFFICIAL killer on the loose. Reputations were at stake from the top down.
Infact..the future of the pride and joy of law enforcement.. the Met Police.. could well have been in danger itself...bu being shown to be run by incompetents. Thankfully.. it dudnt happen.


Phil

Hi Phil et al.

I think there's a good possibility that the idea of "Jack the Ripper ... single lone killer" comes from the idea being reinforced in the consciousness of both the police and the public by the letters. Not that I am saying there was not a single lone killer nor either that the letters were genuine.

Of course we also need to be careful to note that although each time there was a murder the police and the coroner would talk about "the killer" that doesn't mean that they meant it was necessarily the same killer as in other murders. It's more that there was no evidence that there was more than one perpetrator in that single murder. The coroner and the coroner's jury were taking one murder at a time while the police were taking the longer more measured view at what was happening. Unless of course you are coroner Wynne Davies reaching sensational conclusions he probably should not have made public.

Best regards

Chris
__________________
Christopher T. George
Organizer, RipperCon 2018 in Baltimore
http://blog.casebook.org/chrisgeorge
For info about RipperCon in Baltimore, MD,
April 7-8, 2018, go to http://rippercon.com/
Chris G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 07:39 AM   #39
Caroline Morris
Author
 
Caroline Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Carter View Post
Hi all,

Like it or not. .the epithet "Jack the Ripper" is still deemed today as one serial killer.
Every few months a new theory comes out in big bright headlines as to whom this one mad, all seeing genius of crime is. And the underlying reason for it goes back 129 years. "Leather Apron" didn't stick. "Jack" did. And Simon is quite correct in saying that Ye Olde Met Police actually encouraged this one man killing machine idea. So did the press. So has nigh on every author of every book since.

I've long argued that by eliminating the "one man killing machine" theory, the "bubble" of mystery surrounding most of Ripperology bursts. And I'm not wrong in saying that it disappoints many. Somehow..the "game" gets spoiled.
Pin the tail on one's favourite Jacky boy doesn't work if "Jacky boy" alone..never existed.
There are people around..genuinely good hearted souls mostly, who know..deep down..that more than one killer of the C5..especially.. really screws up the epithet "Jack the Ripper". People just don't want to let go.
Stewart Evans suggests that..like many of us, Stride was not killed by the same hand as the other four. That..ladies and gentlemen..makes TWO killers around.
Furthermore..he..as do others..suggests that MJK is not of the same hand as the others. That makes THREE killers.
Where is Jacky boy now?.. non existent...thats where.
Plus Tabram..plus McKenzie..plus Coles.
Thats SIX killers. Because none of the three mentioned now in the C5 CAN be linked with "Jack"..because all the proposed jacks were otherwise occupied..dead or incarcerated.. ..hey presto..the game is suddenly over.. . Because if Jack the Ripper didn't exist..then each promoted theory cant either. Unless each theory is of a killer of MAX two women.

Jack the Ripper didn't exist as a single serial killer. It is a name invented and a lable promoted...and pushed...and pushed...it has become boringly obvious to some of us.
Find out why the myth had to be continually spun.. that is the most real key to the game. Not hunt a non existent person. Hunt various killers..sure. but not one all seeing serial killing genius. He didn't exist

Just my humble opinion.

Phil
Hi Phil,

Why do you feel so very strongly about this, when you know no more about how many killers accounted for these murders than anyone else?

You seem so sure that there was no serial killer operating in 1888 Whitechapel, so what is your evidence that one man did not murder 3 or more of the victims? Most people were, and are, open to the suggestion that one man did not kill the whole lot, so I'm not sure what your beef is.

Unless you seriously believe each victim was killed by a different hand, you presumably accept that one man was a repeat offender who killed more than once, so what's the huge difference between speculating that only 2 were by the same hand, and allowing for 3, 4 or more? And how would one justify an insistence that 2 at most was the reality, while any more than that (thus symbolised by "Jack") is but a cynical myth created by others, in an era before such lone predators began springing up all over the place, proving themselves and the phenomenon to be only too real?

The irony is that the Dear Boss author, who coined "Jack the Ripper", did so after only two of the C5 had been ripped. His "Jack" would have looked a bit lame had there been no further murders of a similar nature.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen
Caroline Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 09:13 AM   #40
Caroline Morris
Author
 
Caroline Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,991
Default

Following on from my previous post, we know the "Yorkshire Ripper" was no myth. Nor was the "Gay Slayer", and nor was the "Ipswich Strangler". Had one of them not been caught and convicted for his horrific crimes, would his bogeyman 'image' now be viewed as a myth, dishonestly and deliberately promoted by the authorities to cover up for their own failures of detection? Would there now be similar multiple killer theories, resulting from a deep suspicion that the police had always known this to be the case but simply refused to admit it publicly?

Before the above three individuals were identified by their real names, would it have been in any way responsible of the police to issue public statements to the effect that multiple independent killers could well be at large, attacking their victims in a similar way? Even if the authorities had suspected it in any of those infamous cases [which seems doubtful, once the "Gay Slayer" had communicated with them to give certain information linking his victims], would they not have been wrong to say so and cause more panic, given that they couldn't have known what or who they were dealing with all the while the crimes remained unsolved?

I don't see why the police in the LVP should be criticised for not warning the public to watch out for stranglers, cut throats and mutilators lurking round every corner, when nobody was ever convicted for any of the murders. They are accused on the one hand of not having a clue, but accused on the other hand of knowing there was no "Jack" but keeping that knowledge from the public. Sounds to me like trying to have it both ways. I don't believe they did have much of a clue - but that would extend to how many or how few Whitechapel murderers may have sprung up between 1888 and 1891. How could anyone know until one or more of the buggers was caught?

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen
Caroline Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10 Beta 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright @ Howard & Nina Brown 2015-2022