Just my theory.

[Sam Flynn]

There was someone lurking about Miller's Court though, and indeed a dead end, right outside Mary Kelly's window, if one account is to be believed -- Hutchinson.

Indeed, and perhaps Hutchinson was also the man with the wideawake hat whom Sara Lewis saw apparently "watching" the entrance to Miller's Court from his vantage-point in Dorset Street.

My previous post referred to this man, whether Hutchinson or not, and to the questionable value of an accomplice being stationed in Dorset Street. Had he moved to a position outside Kelly's room, then he would have been of even less use as a watchman; if anyone else arrived, then both he and the killer were trapped inside the Court.

[Callmebill]

Who gains?

The reason for a lookout? There isn't one. Serial killers aren't reasonable. But up to 29% of serial killers work as a team, apparently. What benefit does a voyeur gain from peaking though spy holes?

[Sam Flynn]

The reason for a lookout? There isn't one. Serial killers aren't reasonable.

Some of them, perhaps, but they're not all unreasonable. Why team up with someone if that increases your risk of being betrayed?

But up to 29% of serial killers work as a team, apparently.

Of those, how many rely on personal motorised transport, i.e. a van or a car? One to drive, one to lure or snatch the victim; that seems to be a fairly common pattern, from memory.

In short, how much of the 29% can be attributed to the late 20th Century phenomenon of the ubiquitousness of motor vehicles? How many "team killers" do so on foot?

[etenguy]

I think JTR wasn't one man, but two. A killing team. Two males competing with each other.
Apparently, the team breaks up when one of them goes too far -even for them.
Wouldn't Mary Kelly be such a victim?

It is, of course, true that killing teams have existed. I have not come across any evidence that points to a murder team in this case. I am inclined to agree with the FBI's profile of the killer (https://vault.fbi.gov/Jack%20the%20R...%20of%201/view )

This profile suggests the murderer had a personal reason for committing these crimes and was likely to be a loner.

Also, the witness statements of those who may have seen the murderer suggest that he was alone with his victim.

Elizabeth Stride's murder was interrupted and no-one reported a warning being given as Louis Diemschutz turned into the yard, perhaps suggesting that there was no look-out protecting the murderer. Though he couldn't know for certain, Louis Diemschutz reported that the behaviour of his horse led him to believe the murderer was still in the yard, suggesting (but not proving) that the murderer was caught by surprise.

[Callmebill]

Upping the anti

We're no different to people a century ago. The reason, maybe, Jack got away, serial killers weren't studied then, and even now they're not understood. Would the killing start more brutally than a slow build up and a vying for position between two would-be killers? – upping the anti from brutality and sharing their cruel actions over a pint and then confessing, "I killed someone once."

[Callmebill]

Pearly Poll

I think Pearly gave an indication about two people in her confession interview - if indeed it was Pearly. Something about the Ripper's long fingers. A good looking chap ...etc

[miss marple]

Hi Callmebill,
I would recommend you read Tom Wescott's Bank Holiday Murders.There is a very different interpretation of the evidence of Pearly Poll. Its possible she lied, as no one saw her and Martha Tabram with the soldiers that night even though there were suppose to be in the pubs. Martha 's cousin saw Martha, but she was alone. Its very enlightening book on the East End charactors closely involved and the pre ripper murders, or were they?

Miss Marple

[Michael W Richards]

We're no different to people a century ago. The reason, maybe, Jack got away, serial killers weren't studied then, and even now they're not understood. Would the killing start more brutally than a slow build up and a vying for position between two would-be killers? – upping the anti from brutality and sharing their cruel actions over a pint and then confessing, "I killed someone once."

Maybe "Jack", or the murderer or murderers at work during that time, got away because the contemporary police, just like many modern students such as yourself, assumed a series when there are quite obvious problems with a Canonical Group that is assumed to have been killed by a serial pm mutilator.

[Harry D]

Maybe "Jack", or the murderer or murderers at work during that time, got away because the contemporary police, just like many modern students such as yourself, assumed a series when there are quite obvious problems with a Canonical Group that is assumed to have been killed by a serial pm mutilator.

When in reality you couldn't throw a stone in Whitechapel without hitting a mutilator. Place was full of 'em!

[Michael W Richards]

When in reality you couldn't throw a stone in Whitechapel without hitting a mutilator. Place was full of 'em!

The point is actually moot Harry, people, not a single person, mutilated some single women during the period in question, and a single throat cut doesn't constitute post mortem mutilation. The question of multiple killers living in that specific region simultaneously isn't the issue though, is it? Its the idea that these 5 murders were not connected by a single killer, and were actually something other than a series. That's the wall.

In terms of this threads premise, there is also some evidence that would support the possibility that 2 or more men worked together on at least one murder within this single crazed killer "series".

[ohrocky]

This is where I always struggle. Despite there being differences in the mutilations of all the C5 that might suggest that they were by a different hand, I then have to accept that there were multiple mutilator killers operating in what was a really small area, in a very short time-frame.

It could well be that there were 3 or 4 killers on the streets of Whitechapel slaughtering women in a similar fashion at the same time. Coincidences do happen of course. But on the balance of probabilities, particularly as post mortem mutilator killers are so rare, it must be so unlikely.

With no "favoured suspect" or book to sell, I am always open to the alternate view, particularly were there to be any evidence of multiple post mortem multilators operating in a very small geographic area over a period of a few weeks. I've not found anything to suggest that there has been, but it is perfectly possible I may have overlooked something, somewhere.

[Mike J. G.]

Hard to believe that two incredibly sick individuals managed to find each other in the small area of Whitechapel. We would have to believe that neither one of them had any qualms over what was done to Kate Eddowes but that somehow what was done to Kelly was somehow over the line.

c.d.

To be fair, two individuals who're into such things, whether aware of each other and working in sync or not, isn't out of the question.

The problem of the other murders including the torsos means that there was very likely two sets of killers overlapping.

There were and still are many nutjobs occupying the same towns and cities across the land.

[Callmebill]

I think she lied. I don't think Pearly was with Martha. She follows the same pattern as Hutchinson : volunteering her information to the police -- but later.

[Callmebill]

It would be interesting to read a published profiler's report and compare it against the convicted serialist.

In the John Duffy (railaway rapist) case the profiler accurately predicted he was small – information deduced from his shoe-print size. He'd have had some martial arts training. If he were small then yes, he would need to have some technique to overpower his prey. But, most importantly, the profiler did not recognise that Duffy worked with an accomplice: David Mulcahy.

‘Deductive reasoning in profiling is used when the police have a large number of suspects, or if the police have no idea who to search for and where to search for a crime suspect. This thinking pattern was developed in the FBI and inspired by the detective Sherlock Holmes and his deductive technique. As deductive reasoning, profiler attempts to build a criminal profile based on the different findings that were identified and analyzed, including sociological and psychological characteristics of the alleged killer.

Profiling has been subject to harsh criticism over the years in that it is not based on science and theory. Similarly, it has been charged that the FBI reports on its successes in solving crimes but does not provide information regarding cases where profiling failed to identify the offender.’ Arnon Edelstein.

[Mike J. G.]

It would be interesting to read a published profiler's report and compare it against the convicted serialist.

In the John Duffy (railaway rapist) case the profiler accurately predicted he was small – information deduced from his shoe-print size. He'd have had some martial arts training. If he were small then yes, he would need to have some technique to overpower his prey. But, most importantly, the profiler did not recognise that Duffy worked with an accomplice: David Mulcahy.

‘Deductive reasoning in profiling is used when the police have a large number of suspects, or if the police have no idea who to search for and where to search for a crime suspect. This thinking pattern was developed in the FBI and inspired by the detective Sherlock Holmes and his deductive technique. As deductive reasoning, profiler attempts to build a criminal profile based on the different findings that were identified and analyzed, including sociological and psychological characteristics of the alleged killer.

Profiling has been subject to harsh criticism over the years in that it is not based on science and theory. Similarly, it has been charged that the FBI reports on its successes in solving crimes but does not provide information regarding cases where profiling failed to identify the offender.’ Arnon Edelstein.

I doubt if he'd necessarily need martial arts training just to overpower a larger person.

It's not about size, it's all about technique. I work with many average-sized people in security, and have seen them restrain and eject people with ease.

It's all about technique and understanding, none of which require martial arts training.