If There Were Multiple Killers Wouldn't We Expect to See More Killings?

[Nic1950]

Hi

If there were 2 killers, would that be based on the victims injuries or are there other factors to consider? I personally don't think so but I would be interested in the logic??

[Fisherman]

I understood that as an entirely tongue-in-cheek comment, for what it's worth.

So did I - it was not until the next post came along that there was some confusion. But itīs all cleared now, Rivkah!

The best,
Fisherman

[RivkahChaya]

Raven, what I pointed to as straying from the given facts was your proposition that Lechmere and his mother produced pies ā la Sweeney Todd.

I understood that as an entirely tongue-in-cheek comment, for what it's worth.

There were large gashes on her arms

Oh. For some reason, I thought what you could see in the photo were defensive wounds, but now I see that's wrong. I can't remember where I got that idea.

Still, he doesn't deflesh her arms. It's almost like he slices her arms, and realizes it isn't doing anything for him. The inner thigh-abdomen-genital region seems to be one thing, in his head, and that's what he was after, if that makes sense.

I don't know why the facial mutilations, unless it was just because he could. Maybe he wanted to shame or obliterate her, as part of dominating her.

Her age is the thing that separates her from the other victims. However, she seems relatively slender in the photo, and since her upper arms, shoulders, and lower legs are intact, she certainly doesn't appear to be as zaftig as Nichols or Chapman. The body type and facial mutilations are what make me consider that one person could have killed Nichols & Chapman, and another, Eddowes and Kelly.

There's a bit about the Boston Strangler that relates to this, but I have to go right now. I'll post it later.

[Errata]

There were large gashes on her arms

Which is one of the many reasons I personally think that Mary Kelly was killed by someone else. Although barring the obvious, she could have been a victim of the torso killer. The emptying of the abdomen is similar, the treatment of the organs as props is similar... but of course, she wasn't dismembered. Which could indicate interruption, or that the torso killer didn't feel a need to dispose of the body. But personally I think that her murder was terribly personal.

As an aside, the question of more killings is equally valid for a single killer. We know that one serial killer can vastly outstrip the body count of two serial killers. Or even three. Two killers means twice the murders of one in the context of one of those two killers, but hold those two killers up to Chikatilo, or Bundy, or the like, and they don't measure up. If one man was responsible for those six murders, why not eight? why not twenty? Why not after Mary Kelly? And really the only answer can be, because that's just his thing. He didn't want to kill every night, or he wasn't capable. His pace was his pace. It's a very unsatisfying answer, but really the answer has to be, because that's just how that guy worked. And it's the same for a multiple killer theory. Why only kill one? As best we know, that's just how he worked. And people with far more degrees than absolutely necessary can break down the psychology and the behavior and the motivation, but in the end all of those things just explain why that's how a killer works. But it doesn't alter the fact that that is how he works. In the end, it always boils down to "because that's his thing." whether he wants it to be or not, that's his thing.

[Abby Normal]

Some serial killers are terrorists. They like holding a city hostage to fear. They don't move to a new location, and aren't married to a method, as long as they know they can use it. Zodiac had probably hunted animals, and therefore knew how to kill with both knives and firearms. Terrorists generally have little of no contact with their victims. The New Orleans Axe-man, and the DC sniper were terrorists. Zodiac and probably the Axe-man communicated with the authorities. BTK had elements of both, although sometimes I wonder if his sexual elements weren't just part of the way he created fear.

One reason that I doubt any of the Ripper letters are real, is that I don't think creating terror was part of his motive. I'm happy to be proved wrong, though, as accepting even one letter as real suggests that JTR didn't kill anyone after Eddowes (or, maybe Kelly), because the few serial killers who have communicated with authorities, and not been caught, have continued to try to keep the spotlight on themselves even after their last murder. If JTR were trying to create terror, even as a secondary motive, and he killed one of the later victims, like Coles, or Mackenzie, I think he would have communicated with the police or papers sometime around the time of those murders.
That's an interesting observation. In the case of MJK (assuming for the moment that he killed her), the inner thighs seem to register as part of the abdominal/genital region for him (they did with film censors as well; under the Hays' Code, filmmakers could show the outside of a woman's thigh, but not the inside, even when everything above it was out of frame). He isn't interested in her arms at all, not even as an extension of breasts.

There were large gashes on her arms

[Fisherman]

OH! That was just a joke, Fisherman! Sweeney Todd wasn't even a real person!

Well, believe it or not, Raven, that was exactly why I said that we were straying from the facts. Mind you, there is some discussion going on about the veracity of the story. I donīt think it is proven beyond doubt that Todd never existed.

Anyhow..!

The best,
Fisherman

[RavenDarkendale]

Raven, what I pointed to as straying from the given facts was your proposition that Lechmere and his mother produced pies ā la Sweeney Todd.
Who the Ripper was, what he could, would or should have done was not something my post touched upon. I know that these are unresolved matters.

The best,
Fisherman

OH! That was just a joke, Fisherman! Sweeney Todd wasn't even a real person!

[Fisherman]

Really? Which ones? There was a torso killer, JtR, and probably a third or even fourth, but it doesn't ignore any evidence to say they could have all been the same person. We don't know who the Ripper was, so how is it avoiding evidence to say he COULD have done them all? I am not saying JtR DID all the murders. in fact I don't think he even did all of the C5. I am pointing out that serial killers sometime vary their method of operation

God Bless

Darkendale

Raven, what I pointed to as straying from the given facts was your proposition that Lechmere and his mother produced pies ā la Sweeney Todd.
Who the Ripper was, what he could, would or should have done was not something my post touched upon. I know that these are unresolved matters.

The best,
Fisherman

[RivkahChaya]

Killers who vary their MO are not invested in the MO. They have no psychological ties to how they kill. Zodiac is a perfect example. He didn't have an attachment to guns or knives. He may have switched things up based on curiosity, based on the size of the male victim, who knows. What was important to him is that these death be linked to the image he created for himself (but not to his actual self).

Some serial killers are terrorists. They like holding a city hostage to fear. They don't move to a new location, and aren't married to a method, as long as they know they can use it. Zodiac had probably hunted animals, and therefore knew how to kill with both knives and firearms. Terrorists generally have little of no contact with their victims. The New Orleans Axe-man, and the DC sniper were terrorists. Zodiac and probably the Axe-man communicated with the authorities. BTK had elements of both, although sometimes I wonder if his sexual elements weren't just part of the way he created fear.

One reason that I doubt any of the Ripper letters are real, is that I don't think creating terror was part of his motive. I'm happy to be proved wrong, though, as accepting even one letter as real suggests that JTR didn't kill anyone after Eddowes (or, maybe Kelly), because the few serial killers who have communicated with authorities, and not been caught, have continued to try to keep the spotlight on themselves even after their last murder. If JTR were trying to create terror, even as a secondary motive, and he killed one of the later victims, like Coles, or Mackenzie, I think he would have communicated with the police or papers sometime around the time of those murders.

The limbs meant nothing to him.

That's an interesting observation. In the case of MJK (assuming for the moment that he killed her), the inner thighs seem to register as part of the abdominal/genital region for him (they did with film censors as well; under the Hays' Code, filmmakers could show the outside of a woman's thigh, but not the inside, even when everything above it was out of frame). He isn't interested in her arms at all, not even as an extension of breasts.

[Errata]

Really? Which ones? There was a torso killer, JtR, and probably a third or even fourth, but it doesn't ignore any evidence to say they could have all been the same person. We don't know who the Ripper was, so how is it avoiding evidence to say he COULD have done them all? I am not saying JtR DID all the murders. in fact I don't think he even did all of the C5. I am pointing out that serial killers sometime vary their method of operation

God Bless

Darkendale

They do occassionally alter their MO, but this is why the signature of a serial killer becomes vital to the understanding of the man. And slightly different from the signature (though often inextricably interlinked) is the reward. What does the killer get out of the act? Not the motive... but what is the psychological reward in doing precisely what they do? Killers who vary their MO are not invested in the MO. They have no psychological ties to how they kill. Zodiac is a perfect example. He didn't have an attachment to guns or knives. He may have switched things up based on curiosity, based on the size of the male victim, who knows. What was important to him is that these death be linked to the image he created for himself (but not to his actual self). Thus the communication with police, the press, the codes, etc. BTK varied his MO, but usually a version of oxygen deprivation. But his attention wasn't focused so much on method, as much as it was on resolution. He stalked his victims, he planned, he built a fantasy methodically and he saw it through. Evidently his inability to get some victims he had stalked created a huge amount of distress, manifesting in rage. He also taunted cops with letters.

Not every serial killer has fetishized some part of the act. But those who do don't stray from that. Not without some catastrophic event that makes them look elsewhere for their kicks. Almost getting caught can do it, something happening that the killer finds disgusting, some association being created that makes the act no longer enjoyable. Mutilators fetishize the mutilation. And in our minds, we say "well he's willing to cut them open, why wouldn't he be willing to cut off their limbs?". In our minds the outrage is the same. But it doesn't work like that. A person may like to be tied to the bed during sex, but that doesn't mean they want to be beaten during sex. A husband may enjoy rape role playing with his wife, but would never ever commit a rape. I bite my nails well past the quick, but I don't cut myself. The fetish lies in the fantasy, and the fantasy is very specific in terms of focus. Jack the ripper focused on the abdomen. And there is a reason for that, even if we don't know what it is. The limbs meant nothing to him. And one can conceivably evolve into the other, but the two types of crimes were occurring at the same time. If Jack had evolved into the torso killer, he would not have reverted back to an abdominal fetish for a couple of kills. That fantasy would have been replaced, and would offer no satisfaction to him. Its how fetish killers work. They are very obsessive. And it is brutally hard to knock loose an obsession.

[RavenDarkendale]

Perhaps, Raven. Such a proposition, however, involves straying some way from the given facts ...

All the best,
Fisherman

Really? Which ones? There was a torso killer, JtR, and probably a third or even fourth, but it doesn't ignore any evidence to say they could have all been the same person. We don't know who the Ripper was, so how is it avoiding evidence to say he COULD have done them all? I am not saying JtR DID all the murders. in fact I don't think he even did all of the C5. I am pointing out that serial killers sometime vary their method of operation

God Bless

Darkendale

[RivkahChaya]

Interesting note: when kosher butchers either cut into an animal, and discovered some reason it wasn't kosher, or, more likely, made some mistake in the butchering, they would sell that meat to gentiles at a very low price, and some Jews bought it as dog food (I recall my mother doing so). Shecters (kosher butchers) also sold the meat they cut out to remove the sciatic nerve, which isn't kosher, to gentiles.

Some gentiles got the idea that the kosher meat was in some way "better," though-- since it was expensive, it must be, and if Jews fed the other stuff to their dogs, well.... Then there was a bit of a scandal in the US regarding how unsanitary some of the slaughterhouses were, and gentiles started going to kosher butchers in droves. Some butchers were running out of kosher meat for the Jews.

Anyway, some shecters got the idea that they could just tell the gentiles that the non-kosher meat was kosher, and if it was salted, they wouldn't know the difference, and it wouldn't matter. The more honest ones still sold it at the cheap price.

Keep in mind, there was nothing wrong with the meat, it simply wasn't kosher, but there's nothing cleaner, or better tasting about kosher meat, and it matters only to observant Jews-- not that I'm defending mendacity; I'm just saying, no one got sick from it. Nonetheless, the rabbinical courts in New York made a ruling that it was wrong (in the sense of violating Jewish law) to sell non-kosher meat to gentiles, and allow them to think it is kosher.

[Cogidubnus]

Horsemeat - Catmeat

Hi Rivkah

I'd assume the reason Horsemeat eating never really caught on in the UK is at least partly sentiment - it's certainly eaten "sur le continent" (and by all accounts is very tasty)...I'd personally have no problem with horse (so long as usual abbatoir standards were observed and no "Bute" was present...why not...we don't baulk at venison (which is IMHO omnivore/carnivore heaven) after all...

Catsmeat depends on how you interpret it...In the 19th and early 20th century context, particularly in the East End, catsmeat really was horse or beef, well well beyond sell-by, potentially "off", and often dyed green or blue to demonstrate that possibility...it was hawked around by salespeople yelling out "walla, walla catsmeat"...I've no doubt it sometimes ended up in the family cookpot....

If you want to define cat's meat literally (as in the siege of Paris), or dogs meat the same for that matter, again I daresay it happened...people ate rats after all...but I suspect the, by far, common definition and understanding was as above!

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

Yes, Rivkah - the meat was put on skewers in the shape of cubes and sellers brought it into the streets to sell it. It was pet food, but of course the odd risktaker probably had a bite or two at times... Since most of the meat was way past itīs "best before" date, it would not have been healthy.

For humans, there's a world of difference between eating horsemeat and catmeat, which is to say, a world of difference between eating an herbivore and a carnivore. I'm a vegetarian, and have been for 27 years, so I'm not up on methods of preparing meat, and probably the meat never got up to whatever the current health department temperature was, for the required 20 minutes. But as I understand it, the main reason, historically, people haven't eaten horses, was that they were too valuable as work animals; people who had to make every scrap count, though, butchered old horses that couldn't work anymore.

Thanks Greg
Sometimes i find it hard to fathom that there was a Jack the Ripper and Torso killer trolling simultaneously, especially this early in the history of serial killers.

I can give you that Abby but I'm not so sure we're early in the history of serial killers. We've simply put a name to something that's probably go on since Cave Man days. Now granted, as RivkahChaya has pointed out, the modern city is a fertile killing field but in the Dark Ages such motiveless murders went by other names;we called them witches, werewolves and vampires...

Or just never put 2 & 2 together.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but serial killing, to the killer, probably qualifies as a hobby, or indulgence, or something. Every sort of leisure pursuit, from making miniatures, to (harmless) role-playing sex games, to spelunking, has grown in the last few centuries as people gained more leisure time.

And yet, another point: there have been municipal police forces for only a few hundred years, so, pretty much, you only had a murder if you had a body. People disappeared, and up until about 120 years ago, if the person wasn't highly placed, or there wasn't a ransom note, there wasn't the assumption that a crime had happened-- or at any rate, a murder. When a person disappears without a trace now, if they aren't deliberately hiding (which isn't common, unless they are fugitives), there is a good chance they've been murdered.

But people would travel, get into accidents, and never be identified. Or, people would locally know their name, but not know how to get in touch with their families-- Mary Jane Kelly's family may have considered her missing for years, for all we know, either until news of a Ripper victim reached Ireland, or maybe forever.

So we don't know how many missing people were actually victims of murderers who knew how to dispose of a body.

Greg is quite right, though: There's a pretty well-documented story of a guy named Peter Stubbe, who supposedly savagely killed several people, after first having been an animal mutilator. This happened in 1589. He was tortured, and it seems, eventually confessed to witchcraft, and a lot of things, but the original charge was being a werewolf. The "proof" was that someone wounded the "wolf" in the act of killing one of it's victims, and Stubbe had the same wound the next day. It's murky, how much is legend, and how much is false accusation and panic, but there were some people savagely murdered, and, aside from the fact that wolves tend to attack big game, like humans, in packs, they also tend to eat what they kill, particularly if they are desperate enough to attack humans. So, they were probably killed by another person. It may have been incomprehensible to people at the time that someone could do that, so clearly, there must be something supernatural, or the devil, involved

[GregBaron]

Count Dracula...

Thanks Greg
Sometimes i find it hard to fathom that there was a Jack the Ripper and Torso killer trolling simultaneously, especially this early in the history of serial killers.

I can give you that Abby but I'm not so sure we're early in the history of serial killers. We've simply put a name to something that's probably go on since Cave Man days. Now granted, as RivkahChaya has pointed out, the modern city is a fertile killing field but in the Dark Ages such motiveless murders went by other names;we called them witches, werewolves and vampires...



Greg