Time gap

[caz]

The double event would surely have been enough to spook any killer who valued his continued freedom and control as much as he valued life itself.

Waking up to reality the day after he killed Eddowes, he may have realised what close calls he'd had in Dutfield's Yard and Mitre Square, leading to a longer cooling off period than if he'd only carried out one attack, in less perilous circumstances.

Love,

Caz
X

[curious4]

Originally Posted by Elamarna

We can suggest various possible hypotheses for the suggested gap between 1888 and 1889.
Of course this assumes that Mackenzie was a victim of the killer, which there is some support for, and that the Torso's were also the work of the same hand, this while discussed much, is not proven or accepted by many at present as fact.

Possible reasons:



1. The need to kill passed, and then returned.

This could apply if the killer was driven by strong inner urges. Such behaviour has been observed in other serial killers of the last 128 years.


2. The killer maintained a low profile after November.

This could apply if he had almost be caught, he may have believed he had been seen. The same idea could be applied for the gap in Oct 1888.


3. The killer left London and returned

This would suggest a degree of calculation and organisation, and appears to be the preferred hypothesis for Pierre.


4. The killer was incapacitated.

The killer may have had an accident or got ill, such has been suggested for the Oct 1888 gap.


5. The killer was temporarily detained either in a prison or a mental institution.

This could tie in with the statements of Cox and Sagar, who suggested the suspect they followed was placed in a private asylum, voluntary admissions were often of limited duration. however there is no evidence to support this at present.

Any of the above are possible. Some may suite the theories of some more than others, however one would also need to show a link to the cases in 1889.

regards

Steve

I'd go for number five, except that he could have escaped from a private asylum. There were few restrictions on opening one except that a doctor had to be in attendance.

Best wishes
C4

[Elamarna]

Originally Posted by caz

The double event would surely have been enough to spook any killer who valued his continued freedom and control as much as he valued life itself.

Waking up to reality the day after he killed Eddowes, he may have realised what close calls he'd had in Dutfield's Yard and Mitre Square, leading to a longer cooling off period than if he'd only carried out one attack, in less perilous circumstances.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

that makes perfect sense to me.

regards

Steve

[Robert St Devil]

Originally Posted by caz

The double event would surely have been enough to spook any killer who valued his continued freedom and control as much as he valued life itself.

Waking up to reality the day after he killed Eddowes, he may have realised what close calls he'd had in Dutfield's Yard and Mitre Square, leading to a longer cooling off period than if he'd only carried out one attack, in less perilous circumstances.

Love,

Caz
X

When it comes to oct88, i agree. It,s easy to read the double event as a part of the history after the fact, but you are right, caz. It,s impact was far reaching in how L8nd8n responded. Proof could be the fact that it,s the last street murder on record for ,jack the ripper,.

Why he didn,t resume again after the city regained some normalcy is more difficult to nail down.

[Elamarna]

Originally Posted by Robert St Devil

When it comes to oct88, i agree. It,s easy to read the double event as a part of the history after the fact, but you are right, caz. It,s impact was far reaching in how L8nd8n responded. Proof could be the fact that it,s the last street murder on record for ,jack the ripper,.

Why he didn,t resume again after the city regained some normalcy is more difficult to nail down.

Robert

of course that is not a problem if he did not kill again after Kelly, while I see some similarities with Mackenzie, i have to say i am not at all convinced of the case for the torso killings.

Steve

[Pierre]

[quote=Elamarna;381624]

3. The killer left London and returned

This would suggest a degree of calculation and organisation, and appears to be the preferred hypothesis for Pierre.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your ideas in this post.

But do your hypothesis above imply that the serial killer decided to leave London as a result of calculation and organisation? And what do you think could have been a motive for that?

I mean, there are many reasons why people leave places. So why the calculation and organisation?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

If the motive was purely to kill, and urge driven, he did not need to return to London, but could have continued elsewhere.
One assumes that if he did return and start again, this was a calculated decision.
I must admit I do not see it myself, we have no evidence to support that or idea or indeed any of the suggestions I gave.

[quote=Pierre;381679]

Originally Posted by Elamarna

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your ideas in this post.

But do your hypothesis above imply that the serial killer decided to leave London as a result of calculation and organisation? And what do you think could have been a motive for that?

I mean, there are many reasons why people leave places. So why the calculation and organisation?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Mayerling]

My own guess is that the gap in October 1888 is that "Jack" was carried away and did eat of the kidney ("kidne") he mentioned in that letter - which I do believe is genuine. It made him sick and he was in the hospital until November, furious that one of the victims was responsible for nearly killing him.

Now based the insistence of Pierre that the events of 1888 were begun again later in 1889, I couldn't guess what the specific reason would be for that. In fact I even question if the later killings are by him. But if we agree they are, then in the interim history began to sweep "Jack" off the central pedestal of attention he craved. He relished the limelight, and found that AFTER the horror of Dorset Street, he had become "yesterday's news".

I feel we have to do a re-evaluation of the case, but by putting it inside a time frame. And I mean we have to think about how central the case is to the period of general events from 1885 through 1895. But I better explain this on my own thread instead of this one.

Jeff

[caz]

Hi Jeff,

I'm not sure a human kidney would have made the ripper sick, particularly if he fried it first. In 1972, the Andes air crash survivors ate practically every part of the bodies of those who had died, and mostly raw because the little fuel they had - including all their paper money - was used for warmth. It was the nourishment they got from eating such a variety of body parts that kept them alive until they were finally rescued when two of them - Nando Parrado and Roberto Canessa - managed to fetch help after a ten-day trek out of the mountains.

I do think the ripper killed again after MJK, but the longer gaps and less confident attacks could reflect a growing fear of being caught and reluctance to take such risks again, which may have dampened the urge to kill over time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Craig H

Several possible hypothesis (what is the plural of hypothesis ???):
* fear of being caught due to much greater police presence after the double murders. This may explain why Kelly was indoors
* JTR was not in London for the gap. Alternatively, JTR did not live in London but was visiting Lindon during months of the killings
* he had people staying with him
* he no longer had a motive (after Kelly) eg if his purpose was to humiliate Warren

Craig

Hi Craig,

I think I have missed this post. (Right now I am going through previous discussions to see what I have missed.)

You say "if his purpose was to humiliate Warren". It wasn´t.

Regards, Pierre