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

[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.

[c.d.]

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

c.d.

[Roy Corduroy]

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

Roy

[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.

[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]

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.

[lynn cates]

base assumptions

Hello CD. Good idea for a thread.

What you are saying is absolutely correct, PROVIDED that they are all serial killers bent on random killing.

Although I cannot speak for others, I know of no one who believes that.

Can you think of any?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

good

Hello Errata. Excellent reasoning. Should have read your post before replying.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

caught

Hello CD. That's a good point. Of course, if I happen to be right about JI, then, as a matter of fact, they DID catch him.

Cheers.
LC

[bolo]

Hello c.d., Errata, all,

I agree with Errata, multiple killers doesn't mean multiple serial killers. If Liz Stride and Mary Kelly were murdered by different hands, the perpetrators may have slipped under the radar because they didn't fit to the idea of a criminal mastermind with almost superhuman abilities as propagated by parts of the press.

Maybe the higher-ups in the Police force were not as easy to impress with these tales than the people of the East End and other parts of the country, but something tells me that all that talk about a cunning Jack and the "no Englishman could have done it" chauvinism had a negative impact on the idea of a possible suspect of the normal Constables on the beat or Sergeants on duty.

Regards,

Boris

[RavenDarkendale]

More bodies is not necessarily needed for multiple killers. Spur of the moment, heat of passion killers usually kill once only. For any of the Whitechapel Victims right on up to Frances Coles, a spur of the moment killing is possible, even the slashed ones, if we conjecture that the slashes were born of anger. A copycat could have done any murder after Polly Nichols, to make it seem a pattern.

But there's the thing. The Torso Killings were also taking place. Who knows how many bodies were never found. between JtR, the Torso Killer, and copycats? Maybe there were more bodies. But to believe in multiple killers doesn't require any more than those about which we know.

[Michael W Richards]

Cd,

We have within 3 months, 6 unsolved murders. I would think that statistically that number, within that time frame and specific geographical area, is more unsolved murders than you might see in any given period since they began recording such events. So why would we need more murders to convince us of the possibility of multiple murderers, we already have more than could have been predicted.

The issue here isnt whether there were multiple killer(s), the issue is how many were active during this period in time. We know of at least 2...Torso Man, a multiple murderer in all probability, and whomever killed the Canonicals.

Which is more likely...that one man killed all 6 women, despite the obvious differences in some of the killings...or that someone or some people killed Martha, some people killed the Canonicals, and someone made Torsos.

Cheers cd

[Nic1950]

Hi all

Possibility of 2 killers?......maybe. My opinion is that it's one man only, one man who's confidence grows with each killing. The Stride murder has always been questioned due to the lack of further mutilation but I feel that Eddowes would not have been a victim if he had more time with Stride. Lets look at the Tabram murder which was a stabbing frenzy so compared to Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly it would seem the work of different hands but let us suppose that the Tabram murder only increased his hatred, give him a taste and with each victim the mutilations became worse until we reach Kelly. The idea that two people living in close proximity who are psychotic killers with a desire to mutilate seems unlikely.

[RavenDarkendale]

Hi, Nic

If we accept your scenario as what really happened, progression from Matha Tabram to Mary Kelly, then Joseph Barnett would have to lead the pack as for suspects, because the absolute destruction of the body at Miller's Court speaks of a personal vendetta.

I, BTW, I also think Tabram was a victim of JtR. But personally, I discount Stride and I am not convinced the body in 13 Miller's Court actually was Mary Kelly, nor a victim of JtR.I take the witnesses who saw Kelly alive after that body was dead seriously. Their testimony wasn't liked at the time because it conflicted with stated TOD, and people now want to think that the witnesses were wrong or the TOD was wrong, perhaps both. As long as they are stuck on the notion that the body was Mary Kelly, they cannot see that the witnesses and TOD were both right and the victim was one of the women who occasionally roomed with MJK. This sharing of the room is what upset Barnett.

[RivkahChaya]

I agree with Errata, multiple killers doesn't mean multiple serial killers.

This, very much.

Also, bear in mind that some killers move around. Ted Bundy left victims in Washington State, Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, Utah and Florida, and probably also in California. He spent time in New York, but he was never tentatively matched to a victim there (and Debbie Harry was just wrong, because he didn't have the Beetle in New York; good story, though). Rodney Alcala had victims in both California and New York, that we know of. The reason they are worth mentioning, is that they were both "working" at the same time, leaving victims in the same states, which also happened to be the same approximate time David (Son of Sam,) Berkowitz was killing people in Queens, New York (part of New York City, but Bundy and Alcala were in Manhattan).

Now, I don't believe each JTR victim was killed by a separate serial killer, but it is possible that one or two genuine serial killers (in addition to the torso killer) stopped in London in the fall of 1888, killed 1, 2, or 3 victims, and left the jurisdiction. Most of the investigations into possible American victims have been pretty bogus, IMO, but if you look in the US for victims who fits the pattern of only Nichols and Chapman, you find some more promising connections.

Also, just a thought, that I don't consider especially likely, but considering people have looked at Lewis Carroll and Prince Eddy, as well as masonic conspiracies, has anyone looked in Sweden for something along the line of prostitutes killed by whatever the 1888s version of a pimp was? Maybe Stride left some nastiness behind, and it caught up with her. In that case, we won't find any similar murders in London.

Here's a funny quote, from American stand-up comic, John Mulaney:

On Cold Case Files [an American TV show documenting the resolution of old cases] they solve old murders and it's really interesting. What I learned from it is that it was really easy to get away with murder before they knew about DNA.