Was Jtr some sort of superman who could see in the dark, disappear at will, move at lightening speed? If you don't believe this, and all the myths and legends which have sprung up around him, then the only logical conclusion must be that he must have had help. Someone who could provide him with light, keep a lookout and perhaps even provide him with victims.
Not saying this was definitely what happened but I am starting to lose confidence in almost magical Jack or even the man with the peculiar/glowworm eyes.
Didn't someone say, the only time two people can keep a secret is, if one of them is dead!
I tend to think that 'Jack' was not invisible, more likely that there were people who did see 'something', but were too scared to come forward.
He was lucky, he was swift, he blended in, he worked alone, lived alone, and he did not draw attention to himself - but was not by any stretch of the imagination, superhuman.
The killings stopped, so perhaps someone couldn't keep quiet. At the time, I believe, anyone who was insane could be contained in a private asylum provided a qualified doctor was in charge. Quietly and with no fuss.
Being committed as a result of suspicion cannot be ruled out. I find it a little hard to believe a willing accomplice would finally turn him in, an unwilling accomplice perhaps, but more likely in my mind (if committed), it was a result of someone close to him being nosy, and reporting suspicious behaviour - a family member perhaps.
There are several "what if's", that when viewed objectively still lead towards Druitt, or someone very similar.
Regards, Jon S.
Last edited by Wickerman : 09-06-2015 at 12:17 PM.
I'd say the chances are slim to none. Very few serial killers work in pairs, and those who do generally pick up their victims and take them elsewhere, they wouldn't go prowling the slums together. Double the manpower, double the risk.
I want to say that maybe pairs are caught less often, because of the working together thing, but I doubt it, because it seems to me that people have a tendency to first of all, want to tell secrets, and second of all, be sloppy, and so I really doubt that uncaught serial killers over-represent duos. If anything, they are probably under-represented.
Also, I suspect that duos tend to egg each other on, so you end up with spree killers, rather than serial killers who have long cool-down periods.
That's all supposition, and I'm prepared to be shown wrong, but judging by the way people behave when they commit lesser crimes together or separately, from minor vandalism, to civil disobedience, to terrorism, that seems to be the pattern: long cool-down periods, great secrecy, and happenstance catching people (like the parking ticket that caught David Berkowitz); fast escalation, willingness to claim credit, even if it's under a pseudonym, and loose lips sinking ships (like Susan Atkins bragging about killing Sharon Tate when she's in jail for a lesser crime).
I'm sure someone is going to respond by listing all kinds of exceptions, but I really think there's generally a pattern.
I suppose it's possible that one partner struck it out on his own and did MJK in her room, less in need of help indoors, and that was the end of the partnership. There's your novel. Maybe the abandoned partner attempted killed the other women-- Coles, et al., in a feeble attempt to go out on his own, but gave up, while the MJK partner decided that it always had to be indoors from there on out, and the body disposal became something new altogether that was part of the thrill.