More than one killer theory dismissed

[Sasha]

Good afternoon. Just wondering why so many bloggers on this site seem resigned to the theory of one sole killer in all this. Isn't it possible that there was more than one killer? That would help explain the hiatus in October as well as the more frenzied killing of Mary Kelly (which seems at odds with the killer becoming more frenzied with each killing but deciding to take a month off just for the hell of it). The other possibility I have entertained is that the other killings were just a ruse ie a cover for the fact the murderer only having one particular victim in mind (again, I'm thinking Mary Kelly). Just throwin' it out there. Looking forward to your thoughts and insights.

Sasha

[CraigInTwinCities]

Sasha,


I don't think the idea of more than one killer has been completely dismissed on these boards; I do, however, think that those who debate which victims were Jack victims and which weren't are choosing to eliminate victims rather than add suspects, if that makes sense.

The prevailing theory, which was first forwarded by Melville McNaughton, is that "Jack" had only five victims... at the time, anywhere between seven to 12 victims were attributed to him.

These five became (properly) the McNaughton Five, although some (improperly) refer to these victims as the "canonical five" or "C5."

Yet the controversy continues. Some folks think Liz Stride doesn't belong as a Jack victim, because she wasn't as cut up as the others. Others would eliminate Mary Kelly for a variety of reasons.

So I think, rather than approaching the case as, "Here's your set of all the Whitechapel Murder victims, now let's see how many killers we have," most folks tend to approach the case Jack-centrically, and drop victims off the list who they consider to be poor matches to the core group of crimes attributed to Jack.

One Ripperologist famously forwarded the theory that ALL the victims were killed by different people and that the idea of the victims being linked by a common killer was a media creation, not an historic fact. (He wrote a book called "The Killer Who Never Was" or something close to that, maybe Bruce Paley? Anyway, look for that title in the book list here on Casebook and you'll find it, if you're interested.

That help?

[Sasha]

Thanks very much, Craig. I am particularly interested in that reference you gave me!

Sasha

[The Grave Maurice]

The theory that all the murders were unrelated and committed by different killers was put forward in:

Peter Turnbull, The Killer Who Never Was: A Re-appraisal of the Whitechapel Murders of 1888. Hull: Clark Lawrence, 1996. ISBN: 1-900540-00-2.

It isn't a particularly well-researched or well-written book; however it was published in such a small print run that, even though it's only twelve years old, available copies are now quite pricey.

You might want to try borrowing a copy through your local public library's interlibrary loan service.

[Sasha]

Thanks Grave Maurice. The beauty of the subject matter is that we'll never know the answer ie all we have is theories. That's why it's so much fun (ie I mean beyond the gruesomeness of the subject matter)! Anyway, I just don't buy the generally accepted lone killer story. It reaks too much of the Warren commission endorsed lone killer story in JFK. Too many things don't fit! Now if that doesn't get a rise out of some of the more traditional bloggers, I don't know what will.

[Mitch Rowe]

Good afternoon. Just wondering why so many bloggers on this site seem resigned to the theory of one sole killer in all this. Isn't it possible that there was more than one killer? That would help explain the hiatus in October as well as the more frenzied killing of Mary Kelly (which seems at odds with the killer becoming more frenzied with each killing but deciding to take a month off just for the hell of it). The other possibility I have entertained is that the other killings were just a ruse ie a cover for the fact the murderer only having one particular victim in mind (again, I'm thinking Mary Kelly). Just throwin' it out there. Looking forward to your thoughts and insights.

Sasha

Although there are many cases of partnerships in serial killings that doesnt appear to be the case with JTR. For all practical purposes it appears as is the victims were unfortunates who lead their killer to their usual places of business. It only takes one man to do that. If the role of the other perp is as a lookout then he/she wasnt very good at it. Another person participating in the murders themselves doesnt seem like either. There were cramped conditions in at least two of the murders and the likeliehood of discovery is at least doubled if not much more considering two people fumbling over each other. In addition there was immunity offered to anyone involved in the murders if they turned Jack in. No one ever came forward.

Having said all this.. There is one thing that the partnership theory has going for it.
It would explain why the killings stopped. There is at least one case I know of where the killings stopped after the two partners who were lovers split up.
However the partner that was acting as the lookout bacame bitter towards the killer and spilled the beans.

So.. All in all the likeliehood of two perpetrators in this instance is pretty remote. But always possible.

[Sasha]

Although there are many cases of partnerships in serial killings that doesnt appear to be the case with JTR. For all practical purposes it appears as is the victims were unfortunates who lead their killer to their usual places of business. It only takes one man to do that. If the role of the other perp is as a lookout then he/she wasnt very good at it. Another person participating in the murders themselves doesnt seem like either. There were cramped conditions in at least two of the murders and the likeliehood of discovery is at least doubled if not much more considering two people fumbling over each other. In addition there was immunity offered to anyone involved in the murders if they turned Jack in. No one ever came forward.

Having said all this.. There is one thing that the partnership theory has going for it.
It would explain why the killings stopped. There is at least one case I know of where the killings stopped after the two partners who were lovers split up.
However the partner that was acting as the lookout bacame bitter towards the killer and spilled the beans.

So.. All in all the likeliehood of two perpetrators in this instance is pretty remote. But always possible.

Thanks Mitch. I've gotta work at expressing myself better! What I meant was different killers for different killings rather than more than an evil partnership doing each killing. But, hey, I'm happy to entertain this idea too. One person (who looks trustworthy) could lure the prossies to the real killer. That would eliminate the space problem! But yes, you make a point. There would have to be something strong holding them together - otherwise you risk one of them talking. A husband and wife team perhaps?

[anna]

Hi Sasha,
Nice to have you amongst us!
We have indeed discussed before the theory that Jack had an accomplace...
Strides murder comes to mind here,as there were two on the scene,one in a pub doorway,when the word "Lipski" is shouted.I suppose it would make sense that he had a lookout,who could also say "he went thataway"to the arriving police,with their whistle blowing mayhem, if necessary,while he makes his exit in the opposite direction.But it also means that there is double the chance of making an error and also of capture.I see Jack as a bit of a perfectionist,as some of his timing leaves little room for error,and I think he needs to be totally in control of the situation.Having an accomplace would eliminate this comfort zone in his mind.
As to the number of victims that he may or may not have achieved.Noting that Jack was a gameplayer,would he have allowed others to jump in and grab themselves a gamepiece?To me, he would have seen this as an interferance,and he wanted all the glory for himself.
If any of the murders were not in his series, I think he would have been amused to have goaded the police on their failure to recognise that fact..he would have scored a point against them.
As to the thought that none of them were in a series,and were just put together to make it look that way.We have always had a definite three on these threads,there is no room for doubt that there was at least a small series of events that were one man's work.
The police may have been a bit incompetant,although with the limited amount of resources available to them at the time,I feel that is a little unfair.They were under a lot of pressure,which would have made them more aware of the danger of including non ripper murders along the way,they didn't want to inflame the mood of the area any more than what had been achieved already.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

I will add just one point to this discussion;

The main question to the theme of this thread is;

Which facts support and which ones outrule this possibility?!

At least there was the Torso Killer on the loose at the same time...

All the best
Jukka

[brummie]

One of the things that first caught my attention when taking an interest in the case of JTR was the number of killings that took place in that area of London in a short space of time, the eastend of London seems to have been a particularly violent area and knife crime was even more prevalent then than it is today.Even on the night of the 'double event' athird murder was committed in Westminster when John Brown cut his wifes throat. A quick look at the list of murder victims on this board, from Emma Smith through to the torso killings suggests that either Jack was more prolific than has been thought or one or more copycat killers were at work or violence was an almost everyday aspect of life in the eastend.

[anna]

Yes,that's another point Mitch has put forward.Jack has no way of making sure his accomplace wouldn't talk or claim the reward money...unless he killed him too,after the series he had planned were completed.
As to your husband and wife team....maybe Kelly and Barnett together, then Kelly during their broken window fight threatens to tell on Barnet to "get him back" so to speak,and he takes out his spite on her in room 13.
But they would have had to have had a reason to kill the others,and as other poster would be quick to point out,there is no evidence that the victims knew each other,with the possible exception of Kelly and Chapman who drank in the same pub,and a possible nod of aquaintance as they lived so close together.
I don't subscribe to this thought,as I think,and always have thought that they knew each other very well .Women like to know who is amongst their territory and as they were in the same profession,just adds to that mix.Besides that,we have discussed the fact that they ran around St Boltophs and gathered in the area of the prostitutes church.Who knows,they may have ran together,at rather a slower pace if we think of Annie and Polly,but nevertheless,they may all have been at this point of reference at the same time and more than on one occassion.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Although there are many cases of partnerships in serial killings that doesnt appear to be the case with JTR. For all practical purposes it appears as is the victims were unfortunates who lead their killer to their usual places of business. It only takes one man to do that. If the role of the other perp is as a lookout then he/she wasnt very good at it. Another person participating in the murders themselves doesnt seem like either. There were cramped conditions in at least two of the murders and the likeliehood of discovery is at least doubled if not much more considering two people fumbling over each other. In addition there was immunity offered to anyone involved in the murders if they turned Jack in. No one ever came forward.

I agree with Mitch.
The only indications we MAYBE have of possibly two people working in collaboration might be in the case of Stride and Tabram - note that I said 'maybe' - but then again we can't be sure if they were Ripper victims anyway.
As far as the rest is concerned, I think Mitch hit the nail on the head. The conditions on the murder sites were difficult enough for the killer, where he needed to act quickly and as silently as possible. And of course, in spite of rewards or pardons, no one came forward to disclose the killer's identity.
Much indicates that he worked alone.

I must add, that there could be a number of reasons for why the murders stopped and the most likely ones are the ones that are most commonly addressed: that he moved elsewhere, that he became ill, that he died or went to prison for other offences.
But then again we must remember that a serial killer don't need specific reasons to stop. Some of them just stop - or takes very long cooling off periods - simply because they've had enough or because their life situation has changed. The myth that serial killers can't stop on their own has proven to be a very questionable one, so it sn't valid to support the accomplice theory.

All the best

[Mitch Rowe]

Thanks Mitch. I've gotta work at expressing myself better! What I meant was different killers for different killings rather than more than an evil partnership doing each killing. But, hey, I'm happy to entertain this idea too. One person (who looks trustworthy) could lure the prossies to the real killer. That would eliminate the space problem! But yes, you make a point. There would have to be something strong holding them together - otherwise you risk one of them talking. A husband and wife team perhaps?

I wouldnt know what motivation a husband and wife team would have.
As far as different killers for the C5 victims goes..I personally think JTR left behind enough clues to say one man did them all with over 90% certainty. And fudged that downwards. Its more like 99%.

Honestly.. Ive been studying these cases for a while now and it all looks and smells like a man on his own with some kind of sexually motivated grudge against unfortunates.

His name probably hasnt even been mentioned yet.

[anna]

Hi Glenn,
With Stride,taking out the possiblilty of a domestic,as I do,because I think her partner would have had the easier opportunity to ask her to meet him at a secluded or private location rather than risk capture on a street outside a busy club.
Thinking along the lines that by the time Strides murder came along,the police already knew,because of the similarities of Annie and Polly's murder that they had a possible series occurring,surely they must have been cautious to not include anything into this unfolding series of events.With domestics and assaults,without the murders being considered,they could have gone on and on.There must have been something that pointed them towards being a group of five.
The police were by this time trying to come up with the answer,they wouldn't have wanted to have added to their problem without careful consideration.
Shame Stewart isn't on this thread,as I would have liked to have known his take on this point.

[Sasha]

I wouldnt know what motivation a husband and wife team would have.
As far as different killers for the C5 victims goes..I personally think JTR left behind enough clues to say one man did them all with over 90% certainty. And fudged that downwards. Its more like 99%.

Honestly.. Ive been studying these cases for a while now and it all looks and smells like a man on his own with some kind of sexually motivated grudge against unfortunates.

His name probably hasnt even been mentioned yet.

Wasn't there some husband and wife team in England who lured girls and killed them? Also some Canadian couple - Karla something? Who knows why they did it. You put a couple of psychopaths together and you don't really need a motive that makes sense. In any case, I'm not particularly sold on the couple theory. I am more of the view that it was not the same killer for the canonical five OR that it was one killer but he killed four other women to cover the real intended victim (which I view as Mary Kelly).