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

[Errata]

Hello Errata,

Thank you for that well thought out response. I figured some responses would run along those same lines.

It has been argued that the police were unable to catch Jack in large part because they were not familiar with serial killers. But they would have been familiar with robbers, cut throats and jealous lovers. Yet those individuals (if they fell into those categories) remained uncaught, for what that is worth. Also, you could possibly argue that the offer of a reward would produce more positive leads if there were different killers as opposed to just one.

c.d.

Jealous lovers are a bit hard to track with prostitutes. And while there would only be so many gangs Liz Stride could have gotten afoul of, the fact that there were no witnesses, no physical evidence, etc. would make any inquiries pretty useless. Even if they knew for fact who her killer was.

But then again, if everyone assumes it's the same guy who killed Nichols, Chapman, et al. then they aren't going to report some hood to police, and they aren't going to think about the guy who was giving Mary Kelly unwanted attention. They expected a monster. An insane one at that. They weren't looking for a mugger or some whore's personal creep. Even if the cops were looking, the public wasn't.

[c.d.]

Hello Errata,

Thank you for that well thought out response. I figured some responses would run along those same lines.

It has been argued that the police were unable to catch Jack in large part because they were not familiar with serial killers. But they would have been familiar with robbers, cut throats and jealous lovers. Yet those individuals (if they fell into those categories) remained uncaught, for what that is worth. Also, you could possibly argue that the offer of a reward would produce more positive leads if there were different killers as opposed to just one.

c.d.

[Errata]

We would, assuming that the multiple killers were serial killers.

Let's say for example that there is a serial killer. He killed Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. Let's say Liz Stride was killed essentially as a result of gang violence. Whether she was robbed or pissed off one of the local gangs, something like that. And let's say that Mary Kelly was killed by a psychopathic stalker, or violent jealous lover.

The serial killer stopping after Eddowes is odd, but not unheard of. The gang who killed Liz Stride didn't stop killing. But it didn't look like Ripper killings because they were either simple throat cuts or beatings. And the guy who killed Mary Kelly may well have killed again, but it would also be a stalker type situation, so a decade could go by without him killing.

Of course if Liz Stride was killed in a botched mugging, her killer may actually have never killed again. Thieves don't like to kill. Way more prison time. It also tends not to be their nature. A study done in the 50s found that about 70% of thieves who ended up killing someone changed their methods to avoid contact with marks. Muggers became smash and grab guys, cutpurses switched to robbery etc. They didn't want to be put in a position where they might kill again. Of course, once alcohol or drugs enters the picture, the rules go out the window.

[Roy Corduroy]

c.d. - I would expect to see more message boards each the master of their domain

Roy

[c.d.]

We can also conclude that however many killers there were that they all managed to elude the police.

c.d.

[c.d.]

If we postulate multiple killers, then by extension wouldn't we expect to see a lot more killings than are represented by the C5? We constantly speculate why Jack may have quit but if there was in fact more than one killer we also have to come up with a reason why he/they may have quit. Perhaps cutting throats and taking out internal organs became too trendy.

This just gets curioser and curioser.

c.d.

Apologies to the Liz 6d. thread but that was started as a discussion of what may have happened to her money.