Originally posted by GBinOz
View Post
In actual fact, murder in London was rare at that time and many of them were domestic related. It was dangerous in certain parts but the type of crime we're talking about is alcohol-fuelled casual violence and robbery.
The impression of Victorian London as ripe for producing rare sexual serial murderers, isn't supported by events at all. All of the cities in England have always had parts of the city that are relatively poor when compared with other parts of the city, complete with slums and lawlessness. There's nothing different about London in that regard. There have been something like only five serial killers in London throughout history that you could say committed similar crimes to the WM and TM. London is a big place and those five murderers operated in different parts of the city.
That impression of Victorian London masks the reality that these types of crimes are extremely rare throughout the whole country and throughout history.
I reckon too much emphasis has been placed on what doctors and the police of the time thought in terms of linking crimes to one another, i.e. drawing conclusions based upon skilful or otherwise, type of weapon used and so on. Ultimately, they were expecting all crimes within a crime series to display pretty much the same behaviour including type of knife, type of cut, injuries inflicted and so on. We know from experience that sexual serial murderers do not follow such rigid behaviour. The authorities of that time didn't understand that. We know that post-mortem mutilation and body posing are signs of linked crimes, particularly when you consider the location and proximity of time; and whether or not a different knife was used or the cut to the throat was different or whatever, does not detract from the overall theme of a connected series of murders.
I'd agree your conclusion on what's more likely, George.
Comment