2 Killers Or 1 Killer?????

[newton1878]

my belief is that Mary Kelly is the key to this case. I believe that she was the main target all along due to the violence inflicted upon her and that the murderer was known to her.I say two killers possibly because the killer of Mary kelly used the other womens murders as cover or if there is one killer maybe killed the other women to hide the real intended target.The fact that the other women were all older and killed outside with great risk to the murderer,while kelly was younger and killed inside.I cant understand why more people have not looked at Joseph Barnett more closely along with George Hutchison both whom knew the victim.Barnett himself had qurarrels with Kelly did not like her being a prostitute and lost his job at the time of the killings.

[Sister Hyde]

i think there might have been 2 different killers as well, looking at the canonical victimes some do present differences in the way they were killed, and the "non-canonical" do present similarities with the others too. I think it's hard to distinguish the different methods, but still, there were 2 (at least 2)

[c.d.]

Since there are differences in each of the C5 murders, there could have been five different killers. That is an easy conclusion to reach when you focus solely on the differences.

c.d.

[Monstrosity]

2 Killers Or 1 Killer?????

My problem with the 2 killers theory is that all the murders follow the same M.O., same area, similar butcheries, similar murder weapon, and within a relatively short span. And remember prior to this the term "serial killer" was unknown. The police all believed it was the work of the same killer. I don't see how Mary Kelly was "the intended target all along" this is mere speculation. Also we also cannot be certain that the five canonical victims were the only victims of JTR.

[Sister Hyde]

yes, I agree, there are differencies in all the murders, but the differences are stronger in some cases

[c.d.]

That depends on how much weight you want to give the differences.

c.d.

[Sister Hyde]

well there are differences on every field (except that they were all prostitues) so it's one of the tricky questions, although most differences are probably due to the circumstances

[sdreid]

There's even speculation that Eddowes wasn't a prostitute. It could have been anything from 1-5 but I'd vote for 1.

[newton1878]

My problem with the 2 killers theory is that all the murders follow the same M.O., same area, similar butcheries, similar murder weapon, and within a relatively short span. And remember prior to this the term "serial killer" was unknown. The police all believed it was the work of the same killer. I don't see how Mary Kelly was "the intended target all along" this is mere speculation. Also we also cannot be certain that the five canonical victims were the only victims of JTR.

I only say target due to the fact of the level of violence,because someone with a great love or hate could kill like that even if it is their first time.Of course it is mere speculation

[Sister Hyde]

There's even speculation that Eddowes wasn't a prostitute. It could have been anything from 1-5 but I'd vote for 1.

maybe she was only an occasional prostitute, maybe she was just doing it when in desperate need.

[Phil H]

My current view is:

Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes killed by "Jack".

Stride - probably(?) killed by her lover/partner Michael Kidney (60:40 possibility).

Kelly - killed by someone like Barnett or Flemming who knew her, but was NOT "Jack". I base this on the sheer ferocity of the wounds and ease of access, her state of dress etc. I feel sure she felt "comfortable" with her killer. [I have also discussed elsewhere my view that a fenian connection of some kind might be remotely plausible.]

Tabram - killed by at least two - maybe the same group who killed Smith.

I do NOT see any more than one man as responsible for each/any of the canonical five, but have come seriously to doubt whether all the five were killed by the same hand.

The idea that the others were killed at random to hide the always intended victim MJK, or in the process of finding MJK, dates back at least to Matters in 1929. I long ago rejected the idea as only fit for detective novels.

Phil

[Sister Hyde]

The idea that the others were killed at random to hide the always intended victim MJK, or in the process of finding MJK, dates back at least to Matters in 1929. I long ago rejected the idea as only fit for detective novels.

Phil

nah... i don't buy that theory either, people rather like that kind of stories better than facing that the streets were a real rough area

[c.d.]

Kelly - killed by someone like Barnett or Flemming who knew her, but was NOT "Jack". I base this on the sheer ferocity of the wounds and ease of access, her state of dress etc. I feel sure she felt "comfortable" with her killer.

Hi Phil,

Weren't the wounds to the other victims "ferocious" as well and couldn't the sheer magnitude of Kelly's wounds simply be attributable to more time in which to inflict them?

c.d.

[Sister Hyde]

Weren't the wounds to the other victims "ferocious" as well and couldn't the sheer magnitude of Kelly's wounds simply be attributable to more time in which to inflict them?

c.d.

yes, the murderer got all the time to "knock himself out" on MJK. but it's still looks like she was "comfortable" enough with him to let him go up into her room and take her clothes off indeed. I'm not so sure that was a "usual" thing to do for a prostitute back then in Whitechapel.

[sdreid]

Murders committed to cover an intended victim's murder has actually happened. Stella Nichell and Christiana Edmonds are two examples