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

[Errata]

So, if JTR was in his early-mid 40s in 1888, it is possible that he killed Mary Kelly, and stopped.

If been thinking about this. We sort of think that Jack died spectacularly. Drowned himself in the Thames, got himself shot, executed by masons or whatever. But what if he stopped because he died? And what if he died because he was a typical Whitechapel man who was older, a heavy drinker, malnourished, exposed to dozens of diseases, been the victim of a whole slew of respiratory problems including TB, and he died because we at the end of his natural life as a poor, undernourished, undervalued man working dangerous menial jobs and compensating through drugs and alcohol? What if he just died of comparative old age? We think of him as young. But he could just as easily have been more mature. Would a woman think to guard herself against a white haired man wearing the weight of his years? And I don't mean he was like 90. I mean maybe he was 45-50.

Does that suck too much of the romance and mystery out of why he stopped if the reason is "he stopped because he dropped dead from his chronic high blood pressure"?

[Nic1950]

Hi

I have never thought of Jack as a younger man, maybe middle aged and upwards but I do think that there is a chance that he died. It probably wasn't anything spectacular but I find it hard to believe that he just stopped killing. The other possibility was that he was sent to prison or even an asylum.
Thanks
Nic

[RivkahChaya]

If been thinking about this. We sort of think that Jack died spectacularly.

I don't. The most "spectacular" death I ever imagine for him is a sort of karmic one, where he gets septicemia, or some other kind of global, very acute infection, and dies, after nicking himself with a knife that could have tetanus, Hep-C (I think that was around then) E. coli, and syphilis on it. Does anyone know what happens if you get blood-borne syphilis? The disease was common enough, there had to be an occasion of someone cutting someone with syphilis, then cutting themselves with the same knife, and people were doing blood transfusions before they had identified the syphilis micro-organism, I'm pretty sure. Of course, in those cases, already ill people got a pretty large dose, and since some people didn't survive a blood transfusion, because blood types were unknown, I suppose it's possible that transfusion-borne syphilis did you in really quickly. I oughtta look that up.

I do think that someone well enough to do what was done to MJK wasn't in a sharp decline from something like TB or an alcoholic decline, but he may have had an acute infection, and that's why he wanted the room so warm.

That doesn't rule out the possibility of him being in a slow decline from cancer, where a person can be at near-normal health one day, and unable to get out of bed three months later-- the aggressive type of pancreatic cancer, for example. Since it was normal (assuming C4/5) for JTR to take a few weeks between victims, he could go from almost 100% of his normal health, by his own perception, when MJK died, to having a lot of back pain, and unable to lift heavy objects, or bend over without a lot of pain by the end of December, but thinking it'll go away, and ignoring it, until he starts to have trouble standing up, and speaking clearly after another month goes by, at which point he realizes something is very wrong.

Minus the murdered women, that's a lot like what happened to my father. He was well enough in early November to be the university's representative at a lunch with Mikhail Gorbachev when he visited the US (my father's Russian was perfect), but was in terrible pain in the New Year, using a wheelchair by the end of January, not speaking clearly by mid-February, and dead by March 25.

[lynn cates]

Master the possibilities.

Hello Nic.

"I find it hard to believe that he just stopped killing. The other possibility was that he was sent to prison or even an asylum."

Or a third possibility: he never existed to begin with.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

I'm with your third possibility.

People in denial call it historical revisionism, but I prefer to call it common sense.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Lynn, Simon,

Phil H. made an interesting point about the Chamber of Horrors museum, which was less than 100 yards away from the Pranzini-style Nichols murder, being a possible motivator for one or more copycats continuing the Whitechapel murder spree. Interesting thought.

Mike

[robhouse]

Hello Nic.

"I find it hard to believe that he just stopped killing. The other possibility was that he was sent to prison or even an asylum."

Or a third possibility: he never existed to begin with.

Cheers.
LC

Or a fourth possibility... the victims never existed either.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Now you're just being silly.

Regards,

Simon

[RivkahChaya]

Hi Lynn,

I'm with your third possibility.

People in denial call it historical revisionism, but I prefer to call it common sense.

Regards,

Simon

Historical revisionism would be something like this: "Stride committed suicide; Eddowes was raped in jail, and murdered by the police as a cover-up; Mary Jane Kelly was an unidentified body from a morgue, staged by journalists to sell papers, and there never was a real 'Mary Jane Kelly' in the first place. McCarthy let prostitutes use the room and took a cut. 'Mary Jane Kelly' was the name on the books he used as a cover. Nichols was a mugging gone bad; and Chapman just died, and then became fodder for a disgusting prank by people who had heard the rumor about the guy who wanted to include a uterus with each copy of his article."

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rivkah,

I suggest you concentrate on writing bodice-rippers and leave the thinking to others.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

sensible reply

Hello Simon. Thanks.

Ah! Common sense. I am given to understand that this is what ONE has and the OTHER fellow lacks. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

shrewd

Hello Mike. Thanks.

Yes, quite interesting.

I think Kate's killer was very shrewd and calculating--a real planner. Not sure he needed much of that kind of motivation.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

real

Hello Rob. Thanks.

Oh, they were real, right enough, as I'm sure you also believe.

Cheers.
LC

[RavenDarkendale]

Hi Rivkah,

I suggest you concentrate on writing bodice-rippers and leave the thinking to others.

Regards,

Simon

I take it that you mean yourself. Why? Rivkah makes a good point. What if this were a long line of misconstrued coincidences? Poly Nichols' death wasn't a pretty sight. Already unnerved people would see a pattern where perhaps none existed.

You like the suggestion that JtR never existed in the first place. It falls within the realm of possibility, even probability, that JtR was a reporter's invention to link crimes just because they went unsolved.

Now Rivkah suggests a possibility where the victims, as linked murder victims, were also an invention, no doubt to sell papers. It could have happened. William Randolph Hearst fomented public rage to back the Spanish American War to sell papers. He is credited with saying to his writers, "You just write, I'll supply the war."

[mklhawley]

Hello Mike. Thanks.

Yes, quite interesting.

I think Kate's killer was very shrewd and calculating--a real planner. Not sure he needed much of that kind of motivation.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Very interesting how you put this. IF this was a serial killer, 'planner' suggests organized behavior, and 'motivation' does not necessarily have to be sexually based. Among the FBI's list of serial offender motivations, many others fit nicely. The FBI even state that a combination of these might be at play, and even an evolving motivation. Because he was indoors, having no concern about an intruding constable, his act could now be completed to fruition. ...but of course, that IF he was a serial killer.

Sincerely,

Mike