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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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??

[Nic1950]

Hi again

Just had time to read full thread, something I picked up on was that there is a possibility that the killer moved to a different area/county even country. There have been quite a few serial killers that have travelled around but I think what is more confusing about JTR is that we have no solid evidence that he has killed elsewhere yet I believe he has. The only reason serial killers stop committing these crimes is because they are caught for their crimes and imprisoned or that they are dead or they are incapable of carrying out anymore murders due to ill- health. I find it difficult to believe after MJK he decided to retire, someone who is capable of such a murder cannot simply fall back into a normal life.

[RivkahChaya]

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??

Age and body type. Looking just at the C5, Nichols and Chapman were stout, Eddowes and Stride were thin, and Kelly looks to be slender by modern standards, even if she looks much better nourished than Stride & Eddowes.

Then, there's age. The first four were about the same age; Kelly was significantly younger.

Age and "type" (meaning size, hair color, and general appearance) are usually important to sexual serial killers. Ted Bundy's victims look like they were all sent up from central casting for the same role. Jeffrey Dahmer liked well built men in their mid-30s, and, unusually, race was not important to him, although, someone once pointed out to me that he seemed to like white men who were tanned, or olive skinned, and black men who were somewhat lighter-skinned, and generally, they all had neat, short hair, and a sort of collegiate appearance. He also had Asian victims. It's worth noting that one of his victims, his youngest, was a wide deviation from his usual, but more importantly, was older than the picture the press kept using. The papers kept using a picture of him that was two or three years old, when he was 15, and looked younger, and not above the age of consent, which he was when Dahmer brought him home.

Yes, I realize it's a very small thing to say "At least Dahmer wasn't a pedophile"; it's important, though, if you want to use him in discussions of victimology.

There have been quite a few serial killers that have travelled around but I think what is more confusing about JTR is that we have no solid evidence that he has killed elsewhere yet I believe he has.

You are probably right. One thing about talking about more than one killer, is that if we look for a pattern seen in the C5 (or even C5 - Stride), we see escalating mutilations that pretty much dictates we look for something like another MJK, or at least an outdoor victim with mutilations progressing beyond Eddowes.

However, if we think in terms of multiple killers for the C5, then we can look for later victims that look like Nichols & Chapman, without a progression to facial mutilations. If we look for a progression beyond MJK, I'd look for women in dire straits, who lived alone, and disappeared. I think a progression beyond MJK would be a similar degree of butchery, but with more organization, and the ability to conceal the body, or dispose of it in a way that it wouldn't be found with Victorian technology.

[Errata]

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??

In the end, no matter what logical dressing we put on it, it comes down to gut. I think that Elizabeth Stride's murder and Mary Kelly's murder are different enough to question if they were killed by the same man, but admittedly if you dig deep enough in any of their murders, you will find differences.

Liz Stride had her throat cut. As did the victims of Jack the Ripper, but it was not a totally uncommon way to kill a person, especially women. I just don't think there is any evidence that actually links her death to the Ripper. Mary Kelly's murder seems super personal to me. And highly symbolic. Also not consistent with Ripper killings. But I have admitted elsewhere that if Jack knew Kelly, and her death was personal, she would have been killed by the Ripper, but not for the same reason the other women were killed. But I think whoever killed Kelly wanted something different that the Mand who killed Chapman.

But mostly it's gut. I'm not going to lie.

[lynn cates]

reasoning

Hello Nic. You might look at my reasoning in "Possibly the work of an imitator" in Don Souden's "New Independent Review" number 4. I have laid out many reasons why I think Kate was killed by a different hand.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Errata,

What do you feel was personal and highly symbolic in Mary Kelly's murder?

c.d.

[Errata]

Hello Errata,

What do you feel was personal and highly symbolic in Mary Kelly's murder?

c.d.

The facial mutilations were extensive, but spared the eyes. External sexual characteristics were targeted. Really, if you were going to punish a woman for having sex with other men, the most symbolic parts of the body would be the lips, the breasts and the genitals. All of which were targeted on her, but not the previous victims. And her heart was taken, but not the uterus. It isn't inherently more convenient to take a uterus as opposed to a heart. It just requires slightly different tools. So if he wanted hearts, he could have had them at any time. She was also staged to a ridiculous degree, complete with organs under her head like a pillow. I think she was also propped up afterward, her hands on (or in) her abdomen as though at rest. She is in a fairly natural pose for someone who has been eviscerated, flensed, and generally cut up. With the blood involved, there is no way the killer would have thought that she could be mistaken for being asleep b a passerby. So he had to do it for his own reasons, and peacefully composing a body typically indicates a feeling of guilt. Which combined with everything else makes it look personal. At least to me.

[Nic1950]

Hi all,

Personally, I think Stride is a ripper victim. No mutilation tells me that he was interrupted or realised maybe that the location didn't give him enough time to carried out more injuries hence Eddowes. For some reason I'm not getting that JTR knew MJK personally, I feel it's more a general dislike for women probably women who lead that life of prostitution/alcoholism etc. The injuries inflicted on MJK just tell me that this is someone who has made the most of the location (less likelihood of interruptions and more time to spend). The other victims locations were enough for him to carry out his mutilations sufficiently but not as much as a room with a locked door.

[c.d.]

Hello Errata,

Thanks for your response. I just don't see anything personal or symbolic in Mary's murder. Look at what happened to Kate. According to Dr. Brown's report "a piece [of intestine] was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm apparently by design...the face was very much mutilated." Don't we see the same thing in Mary's killing but just to a greater extent which can easily be explained by her killer having more time?

If we attach symbolism to the heart being taken, what symbolism should we attach to Kate's kidney being taken? Isn't it natural for a collector of any kind to want most what he doesn't have in his collection?

I think way too much weight is given to the mutilation of Mary's face. After all, there was only so much flesh to work with. Why do we readily accept that a killer can cut a throat and rip out intestines but are then shocked when he mutilates a face?

Just my opinion. Thanks again for your response.

c.d.

[Nic1950]

Hi

I don't think there is a personal link in the case of MJK, I think it's just a case of progression and pushing the boundaries. When we compare MJK to Eddowes, all the signs are there, face mutilations, removal of organs and and even the specific areas where he placed the intestines for example. This is even apparent in Chapman but there were no facial mutilations, To me it's a case of natural progression and the result being Kelly where he had time and location to progress even further. I do think mutilating the face is personal but this could have been his growing hatred not the fact that he knew them.