More than one killer theory dismissed

[Sasha]

Well.. I dont have much to say about that. It seems impossible to me. But for entertainment Ill postulate.

Annie Chapman and MJK are always together in my mind. Eddowes is connected to MJK by facial mutilations and the like. Stride is in because of the timing mostly.

So that only leaves Polly as a possible non JTR victim. And who would exclude her?

So the concept of more than one killer becomes ridiculus to me because the evidence I see pretty much bonds the C5 together.

Im pretty firm on that.. And Im not alone. MacNaghten never said more likely or I believe. He said 5 victims and five victims only. He seemed pretty sure of himself on that account.

Dunno, Mitch. Is only one man capable of facial mutilations? And timing? If that were true, what of other killings at a similar time? And MacNaughten? I find his theories interesting, if a little expeditious. That of course does not negate them in any way. We'll never be sure what really happened. But if something is that concrete, why are there so many questions left unanswered. Why are people so unsure? If it was so tied up a case, why wasn't Jack hanged in the middle of Mitre Square?

[Roy Corduroy]

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. ...available copies are now quite pricey.

No kidding, Maurice. I could get a new lawnmower for that price. Maybe even some gas to run it, too.

What about before 1888? Most books don't talk of that. What were the murder rates for the same area for the several years before the Whitechapel Murder Files were opened?

Roy

[CraigInTwinCities]

MacNaghten never said more likely or I believe. He said 5 victims and five victims only. He seemed pretty sure of himself on that account.

Trouble is, Mitch, that McNaughton isn't exactly the most reliable source on the matter. He was only involved directly in the Kelly murder and wasn't around for any of the priors.

Some Ripperologists also argue that McNaughton was not exactly a reliable source for other reasons, but I believe the fact that he wasn't even involved in the other investigations is the most solid argument to disqualify him on framing "which victims are Jack's and which are not."

So, perhaps the McNaughton 5 theory is correct and perhaps it is not, but we would need to use more than his opinion alone, however confidently stated, to prove it, one way or the other.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Trouble is, Mitch, that McNaughton isn't exactly the most reliable source on the matter. He was only involved directly in the Kelly murder and wasn't around for any of the priors.

Sorry, Craig, but don't you mean doctor Bond here?
As far as I know, Sir Melville Macnaghten (it's 'Macnaghten', Craig, not 'McNaughton') wasn't involved in the investigation of the murders of any of the so called Canonical Five. He was appointed Assistant Chief Constable in 1889 and before that didn't have any contact with the Ripper investigation first hand, and certainly not the Kelly murder. His information is therefore based on source consulting after the murders occurred, not during the actual Ripper investigation.

Doctor Thomas Bond, however, specifically singled out Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly as the canonical Ripper victims and was only involved in the Kelly post mortem while only having theoretical knowledge of the others. Maybe you confuse the two?

Besides that, I agree with your post.

All the best

[Mitch Rowe]

Dunno, Mitch. Is only one man capable of facial mutilations? And timing? If that were true, what of other killings at a similar time? And MacNaughten? I find his theories interesting, if a little expeditious. That of course does not negate them in any way. We'll never be sure what really happened. But if something is that concrete, why are there so many questions left unanswered. Why are people so unsure? If it was so tied up a case, why wasn't Jack hanged in the middle of Mitre Square?

No..Its possible two Men could be capable of facial mutilations and mutilating of the body. But is it probable? Yes it is even probable if the torso murderer or murderers were not JTR. But in the specific instances of the double event it does not seem very probable to me that by coincidence these two Men decided to kill on the very same night in the very same time frame. Or even if the killer of Stride was not JTR or the torso killer.

But I do acknowledge the remote possibility that at least Stride was not killed by JTR but I would really require some form of solid or substantial evidence to sway me. I dont see it. And if I want to form some sort of unbiased opinion I can only use the evidence that is left of these cases.

And it seems to me that one Man was the killer of the C5.

[CraigInTwinCities]

Sorry, Craig, but don't you mean doctor Bond here?
As far as I know, Sir Melville Macnaghten (it's 'Macnaghten', Craig, not 'McNaughton') wasn't involved in the investigation of the murders of any of the so called Canonical Five. He was appointed Assistant Chief Constable in 1889 and before that didn't have any contact with the Ripper investigation first hand, and certainly not the Kelly murder. His information is therefore based on source consulting after the murders occurred, not during the actual Ripper investigation.

Doctor Thomas Bond, however, specifically singled out Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly as the canonical Ripper victims and was only involved in the Kelly post mortem while only having theoretical knowledge of the others. Maybe you confuse the two?

Besides that, I agree with your post.

All the best

Glenn,

Thanks for the assist, I believe you may be right; however, I do believe that it was Macnaghten who coined the core five victims, wasn't it?

Anyway thanks and doesn't really change the general thrust.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi everyone.

OK, no one answered my question, what was the murder rate before 1888, so I'll take a wild guess. Yes there was violence, domestic murder, armed robbery, social unrest, disease and all the rest, but, in the years immediately prior to 1888, there was nothing like the string of murders ennumerated in the Whitechapel Murder File.

And why am I making this point? Because what began in 1888 was a phenomenon.

Yes, there is certainly a theory, advanced by Evans and Gainey, and not dormant at all, but in fact, discussed at great length, that the murders were not all of one hand. That three of the murders were commited by Dr. Frances Tumblety. And as part of the theory, a historian analyzed the situation as thus: "Jack the Ripper' was a creation of the media, just as surely as it was a newspaperman who penned the famous letter.

This approach, of course, tests all that we tend to think about serial killers. And, if true, it leads one to consider another, equally strange phenomenon, that several men began to simultaneously murder the unfortunate prostitutes, in grisly ways.

Roy

[Sasha]

Hi everyone.

OK, no one answered my question, what was the murder rate before 1888, so I'll take a wild guess. Yes there was violence, domestic murder, armed robbery, social unrest, disease and all the rest, but, in the years immediately prior to 1888, there was nothing like the string of murders ennumerated in the Whitechapel Murder File.

And why am I making this point? Because what began in 1888 was a phenomenon.

Yes, there is certainly a theory, advanced by Evans and Gainey, and not dormant at all, but in fact, discussed at great length, that the murders were not all of one hand. That three of the murders were commited by Dr. Frances Tumblety. And as part of the theory, a historian analyzed the situation as thus: "Jack the Ripper' was a creation of the media, just as surely as it was a newspaperman who penned the famous letter.

This approach, of course, tests all that we tend to think about serial killers. And, if true, it leads one to consider another, equally strange phenomenon, that several men began to simultaneously murder the unfortunate prostitutes, in grisly ways.

Roy

Roy you raise an important question ie what was the murder rate (of prostitutes) prior to 1888. I don't have any evidence on this one but some postulate that it wasn't very different. The difference according to those who see the world this way is the media exposure these particular murders got (and of course, the consequent public response).

[brummie]

It is certainly the case that the education act of 1870 greatly increased the access to education for the working classes and led to a great increase in literacy rates. This new market was fed by a massive increase in the number (if not the quality) of newspapers springing up ,and also the so called 'penny dreadfuls' to feed the appetite of the new readers.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glenn,

Thanks for the assist, I believe you may be right; however, I do believe that it was Macnaghten who coined the core five victims, wasn't it?

Anyway thanks and doesn't really change the general thrust.

Absolutely, Craig. That wasn't my point - I only wanted to point out that it may have been Bond you were thinking about when you referred to the authority who 'was only involved in the Kelly murder' since Macnaghten wasn't around at all during the time of the C5 murders.
As you say, Macnaghten did coin the Canonical Five (which is why they also are referred to as the 'Macnaghten Five').
That said, I would say that Bond probably did it before Macnaghten in his 'profile' of the killer.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

It is certainly the case that the education act of 1870 greatly increased the access to education for the working classes and led to a great increase in literacy rates. This new market was fed by a massive increase in the number (if not the quality) of newspapers springing up ,and also the so called 'penny dreadfuls' to feed the appetite of the new readers.

All that is needed is to take a look at the 600 Ripper letters, many of them penned by seemingly normal people, in order to realize how the news of the murders infected - and affected - the minds of people and arousing their morbid traits.

All the best

[caz]

Hi All,

I've noticed that a popular argument is to point to the unsolved torso murders, or other solved murders that were totally unconnected with the Whitechapel crimes, such as the third knife murder in Westminster on the night of the double event, and suggest that, because this proves Jack was not the only one killing over the same period but one of several (no, really?), it somehow makes a stronger case for removing potential victims from his tally and adding to the number of unidentified individuals who turned into violent killers.

That doesn't strike me as a particularly logical argument, and indeed it could be turned on its head and suggested that the number of separate killers active at roughly the same time as Jack is already high enough, statistically speaking, without sending it over the top by sharing out unsolved, violent and apparently motiveless Whitechapel murders among umpteen more one-off killers.

I may be mistaken, but I get the impression that those who regularly make full use of the torso murders etc to try and introduce even more unknown killers are also the ones who will argue that if Kate Eddowes hadn't been killed when and where she was, then nobody would ever have laid Liz Stride's murder at Jack's door. We have to play with the cards we are dealt and we can no more discard Kate to turn Liz into the one-off victim of someone she knew than we can play the Westminster or torso cards to the same effect.

Liz, with or without Kate, is still far and away more likely to have been killed by someone who could not be tied to her personally or circumstantially, any more than the killer of Polly or Annie could be tied to them.

And don't even get me started on Mary Kelly.

Love,

Caz
X

[fodsaks]

I've had the theory of several unrelated killers kicking around in the back of my mind for a while, too and I don't think it should be dismissed too readily just because we've had the image of a single, fog shrouded murderer since we first heard of the case as children.
It would certainly explain why no concrete description of Jack has ever been agreed upon. Carrotty? Foreign? Tall? Short? Stocky? Well dressed? Shabby?

I'll try to crystalise my thoughts:
There is something in human nature that seems to want to stoke the fires of crisis and fear. When things are bad or dangerous and they do not directly affect us, there is a dark part of our nature that wants to make them even worse, just in order to enjoy the morbid thrill it gives.
Just look at the hundreds of bogus letters that were sent to the police and press during the Whitechapel murders, solely with that purpose: To keep the pot bubbling. To keep the scent of fear strong in the air and keep the hysteria whipped up in order to enjoy the crisis.
Well, out of those hundreds of letter writers, suppose there were just three sick and callous individuals who decided to take the morbid pranks a little further. The inquests on previous killings were public and described in lurid detail in the press, so a prankster would know exactly how to leave the crime scene to give it the 'Ripper' effect.
After all, following the Smith and Tabram attacks, Mary Nicholls death signalled the begining of the medai frenzy, so a copycat could have struck as early as Annie Chapman.

Anyway, just a thought.

[lynn cates]

motives

Hello Fodsaks. You may be on to something. Instead of a prank, suppose someone had a regular motive for killing Kate and "MJK."

Many possibilities.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Fodsaks

Motives and copy cats aside, medical evidence links a number of the murders.