Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did JTR Have a Helper or Confidant?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Did JTR Have a Helper or Confidant?

    Many believe that JTR must have had help in committing the Whitechapel Murders, or they would not have gone so smoothly. Did JTR have an assistant? A lookout? An informant? Perhaps a confidant? Or was he just a one-man show?
    41
    YES - he must have had at least a lookout, especially in Mitre Square.
    9.76%
    4
    YES - he had an active helper, which is why the mutilations differed between victims.
    9.76%
    4
    YES - he had an informant within the police that kept him abreast of the pursuit.
    4.88%
    2
    YES - he must have had someone to talk - or boast - to.
    7.32%
    3
    YES - he had a procurer that found unwitting victims for him under false pretenses.
    0.00%
    0
    YES - the Royal Theorists are correct!!
    0.00%
    0
    NO - he was just the one man.
    68.29%
    28

  • #2
    Although there has been a few serial killing teams in recorded memory, I would have to go along with the single-killer idea. My feeling that Stephenson is our man notwithstanding,numerous ritual killings involve(d) more than one participant. This is a very good question,Mr.Mosley !
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Just based on the nature of what he did, and the understanding that humans are gosspy by nature, I believe it highly probably he kept his work to himself, and chose to involve nobody else.

      Comment


      • #4
        Although there has been a few serial killing teams in recorded memory, I would have to go along with the single-killer idea. My feeling that Stephenson is our man notwithstanding,numerous ritual killings involve(d) more than one participant. This is a very good question,Mr.Mosley !

        I think now, after the above post three years ago, that its less likely that a ritual was involved. That doesn't mean it didn't of course....just less likely to me. The same suspect is interesting to me....but for different reasons.

        However,the idea that a pair of killers committing the crimes HAS been an interesting thought...and in particular the Mitre Square episode.

        But...its all thoughts anyway...no big issue anyway.

        Anyone else?
        To Join JTR Forums :
        Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by How Brown
          [I]
          I think now, after the above post three years ago, that its less likely that a ritual was involved. That doesn't mean it didn't of course....just less likely to me. The same suspect is interesting to me....but for different reasons.

          However,the idea that a pair of killers committing the crimes HAS been an interesting thought...and in particular the Mitre Square episode.

          But...its all thoughts anyway...no big issue anyway.

          Anyone else?
          Just from what I know and have seen at my job and learned through school and books, IMHO I will go out on a limb and say that it is very unlikely that any kind of black magic or ritualistic practices played any role in the killings. I'm sure Saucy Jacky had some personal rituals that he did with the organs or trophys, but nothing "occult" in nature. I also feel that this was the work of an individual.

          But on another note... I loved Ivor Edwards book! Of all the ripper books I've read thus far, that one held my attention from beginning to end. After reading several ripper books, they all became a bit redundant. While I don't necessarily agree with the ritualistic veisca thingy, I thought Mr. Edwards most definitely built quite a case against D'Onston. I wasn't even going to buy his book at first as I was growing tired of the same old stuff. Anyone who hasn't read it should give it a chance. It changed the way I feel and think about certain aspects of this case. Anyway, that's just my humble opinion, not that there's anything wrong with that!

          Oh, and Howard... nice rock.

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi Debbie:

            Actually people built a case against Stephenson prior to Edwards. Edwards wasn't the first to mention or suggest a black magic ritual,either.....or suggest a pattern within the murder site layout....he was the first to point out the Distance Theory ( I call it that,not that he does...it sounds cool ), which shows an eerie similarity between the Nichols to Chapman to Eddowes murder ( in terms of distance from one to the other ).....and the Stride to Eddowes to Kelly murder.

            Up until recently,Debbie...I used to read from JTRBMR once a week,as a mental calisthenic. Same with True Face,by Harris.

            Ivor's book has a chronology to its credit which True Face doesn't have....True Face,although a more well written book,jumps around too much ( for me at least ).

            I mentioned that the book isn't the first to discuss a black magic angle because the occult/black magic theory went back to that time period in 1888.
            To Join JTR Forums :
            Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by How Brown
              Hi Debbie:

              Actually people built a case against Stephenson prior to Edwards. Edwards wasn't the first to mention or suggest a black magic ritual,either.....or suggest a pattern within the murder site layout....
              And you see, I've been through so many of these books and it goes to show how little that stack of books really is. Once again I'm overwhelmed how many books and papers are out there.

              Comment


              • #8
                Debbie:

                Its also a very real possibility that Arthur Diosy ( if RDS was not the Ripper,of course ) was the first person to ever mention a black magic angle in the crimes. Diosy may have been commissioned by the Star Magazine to do some reporting. He was apparently indignant that his "scoop" on the black magic angle was trumped by Stephenson....and the Pall Mall Gazette,where RDS offered his views on the black magic angle on,said as much.

                We have the allegation that W.T.Stead believed in RDS being the "veritable" Ripper....yet employs him in 1889....and for a social crusader ( both for the good and for self-aggrandizement ) to hire a "veritable" JTR indicates to me at least,that either Stead was tongue in cheek or indifferent to the suffering of the little people he was previously so interested in.

                We have George Marsh,who has been claimed to have been some sort of "dupe" because RDS made such an impression on him ( you'll remember the Marsh incident,from either book written on Stephenson....) and as a result,Marsh went to the police with his story.

                What I think may have happened is that Marsh was not aware of RDS being in the London Hospital for 134 days which encompassed the usually accepted period of time that the Ripper was in action ( 70 days in all,if the C5 theory is correct...).

                Since Marsh was that alarmed at RDS' story to go to the police ( Scotland Yard,in fact...), RDS may have impressed Marsh with his seemingly "inside skinny" to the details of the crimes which no man locked up or in a hospital could know.

                We don't know how perceptive...how smart....how dumb...Marsh was. We do know he was intrigued enough to go to the police with what he had heard over a couple of discussions with RDS.

                RDS was a story teller...if his interest in the murders included a modicum of his imagination,its possible that this is what motivated Marsh. Just possible.
                To Join JTR Forums :
                Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  Let's revisit this old thread, as suggested by Tim.

                  Seems to me that in addition to the Matthews comments, Pipeman and BS do raise the issue of a accomplice.

                  Hutch's behavior raises the question as well. Was he a lookout ?

                  And finally, if one thinks that the Fenians may have played a hand in this, the possibility of a team becomes a distinct possibility.



                  Originally posted by How Brown View Post
                  Currerbell...allow me to introduce you to Stan Russo.

                  Stan is one of the foremost advocates of the "Double Killer" concept.

                  Run your ideas by him....and I think that its possible that someone aided and/or abetted the Kelly killer in some way, if I read the November 23rd comments issued in the House of Commons by Henry Matthews correctly.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think Jack worked alone. Probably did virtually everything alone. I think he was way too paranoid and too "out there" to go around confiding in people about his little hobby--much less trust anyone as an accomplice!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Mrs.Fid....

                      Do you think he lived alone?
                      To Join JTR Forums :
                      Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hi, How!
                        Good question!

                        I just can't see Jack as a "family man"--you know, with the wife and kids and the whole little happy family thing going on. (Altho I could be wrong here--there's a first time for everything, after all! )

                        But living entirely on his own? I don't think so--he must at least have lived in a lodging house of some kind, even if he had to move from one to another as apparently a lot of the poor did in Whitechapel (thinking of the victims here). But I have a suspicion he had more of a permanent residence than various doss-houses, I think he had some kind of family who supported him, altho he may have had various menial jobs.

                        So I'm thinking some kind of blood kin--probably not a wife or children, but siblings, or even parents, who gave him a place to stay.

                        Would they have been aware of what he did on the weekends and holidays? I don't think so--they were probably decent people who knew that he was "odd", that he sometimes went off and returned without explanation--but I don't think they were deliberately shielding him from the law.

                        BUT--they may have had worrisome suspicions about where he went and what he was up to. They might have been afraid to ask too many questions--not that I think he would have confided in them even if they had.
                        Last edited by Mrs.Fiddymont; August 29, 2009, 01:59 PM. Reason: clueless about punctuation!!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I've wondered this myself...? a friend or acquaintance who he might of talked about the newspapers stories with if nothing else.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X