What could the C6 have been like?!

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

Yes, this may very well be a macabre thread, the tale of mutilation(yes, a sort of tribute to E.A.Poe!)

But, anyway;

if we accept, that the murders ended and JtR died in an accident/was murdered himself/etc...

What he would have done after MJK?!

All the best
Jukka

[kensei]

There are of course all kinds of theories that Jack did not stop after Mary, that he hibernated for a while and then "started small" again with killings like Alice McKenzie, Frances Coles, etc. as if he was thinking, all right, I'll never top what I did to Mary, but I don't want to stop either. And I remember a thread before the crash about what the total body count would be if all theories were true, taking into account the crimes Jack's been accused of in Europe, North and South America, etc. I think it was around 60, if memory serves.

I think that in theory, if he had sought to continue to commit even worse mutilations with each new murder after the disassembly of Mary Kelly, he would have overwhelmed himself and made mistakes that would have gotten him caught. IF he lived on after Mary and continued killing, it would had to have been with an analogy to Leonardo DaVinci, who did not stop painting after the Mona Lisa. (Note: I am not implying any kind of flattery to what Jack did in that comparison.)

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Kensei!

Yes, I remember the thread! If I remember correctly, sdreid was the thread-starter!

But the number would have gone much too high, since the number of many unsolved murders of women in the harbours of the world at the time...

Well, an interesting thought, that he would have had a pause and then starting all over in a smaller scale of mutilations.

Any other case supporting this possibility, folks?!

All the best
Jukka

[Dan Norder]

Serial killers aren't robots. They don't have some built in programming telling them what to do. I think people get the idea that killers are predestined to do first A, then A and B, and then A and B and C with each victim they have. It just doesn't work that way. So any killing after Kelly could have been quite a bit different in a variety of different ways. Probably still a woman and probably still attacked with a knife, but even that could have changed.

I just don't get why people get such a specific idea in their heads about what Jack would or would not have done, especially when so many other serial cases show such a wide variety. It's like they're looking for a villain from a novel or a film, one where the predictability is a tool to pull the audience along instead of confusing them.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Dan!

That was the thorough answer, that I was expecting to the last question of my previous post to this thread, thank you!

But, like it is stated in the first post, the theme of this thread is;

If he really was killed/stopped, how he would have continued if such thing hadn't happened?!

All the best
Jukka

[Hellrider]

and that question is exactly what Dan gave the answer to

Serial killers aren't machines that are predestined to take one step at a time, they are human and can change their behavior spontaneously for a multitude of reasons

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Hellrider!

Yes, indeed they can change their behaviour!

For example, JtR changed his MO with MJK.

But most probably for a practical reason: he might have felt the Vigilante Committee to be too close to him. So, it was "safer" to act indoors.

All the best
Jukka

[caz]

Hi Jukka,

But if Jack's MO was to let his victim approach him and then take him somewhere relatively private, where he killed her as swiftly and as silently as possible with the aid of his knife, then he did not necessarily change his methods with MJK. It's certainly feasible that after bagging at least three middle-aged unfortunates with no room to call their own, his next would be younger and not yet homeless on a regular or permanent basis.

It's only when one starts moving away from opportunism to design that one has to see MJK's murder as an indication of something broke that needs fixing, whether it be a change of focus for Jack, his special focus all along, or out of his focus entirely. If Jack was merely a killer of opportunity, doing what took his fancy when he took his chances, it was arguably a case of more of the same.

Serial killers aren't robots. They don't have some built in programming telling them what to do. I think people get the idea that killers are predestined to do first A, then A and B, and then A and B and C with each victim they have. It just doesn't work that way. So any killing after Kelly could have been quite a bit different in a variety of different ways. Probably still a woman and probably still attacked with a knife, but even that could have changed.

I just don't get why people get such a specific idea in their heads about what Jack would or would not have done, especially when so many other serial cases show such a wide variety. It's like they're looking for a villain from a novel or a film, one where the predictability is a tool to pull the audience along instead of confusing them.

Hi Dan,

I would add that I reckon Jack was never identified because a time-travelling armchair detective was whispering the rules in his ear and he thought "Sod that".

Imagine someone predicting for him that in order to be recognised as a serial killer he will not deviate or hesitate, but will keep repeating at similar intervals what he has done previously, in the only area where he is likely to be recognised or could be tracked down by the first house-to-house searches, and then he will do the decent thing by being stopped while he's on form, and not remaining free to fanny around with more attacks that will only muddy the waters:

"And how do you know all this, my good man?"

"Well it's what the data on convicted serial killers showed me. It's what they tend to do, you see. You will be no exception, believe me."

"Hmmm, is that so? Well thanks for the tip, old sport. If we ever meet again, you can be sure I followed to the letter the example set by the ones who got buckled. Be lucky."

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi all,

It's one thing to caution against fine-tuning an MO too much and/or predicting too uniform a pattern to the exclusion of victims who really shouldn't be excluded, but quite another to reject all potential serial killer paralells and experience simply because Jack wasn't caught.

And Caz, just so we know, how many more "Jack wasn't a local" posts might we expect before I surrender the will to live?

Best wishes,
Ben

[caz]

On the contrary, Ben, I have not posted a single claim that Jack was NOT local or was NOT familiar with his killing field.

It could only look that way to someone who is so certain that Jack DID operate in the one area he could have been recognised that they see anything less than the same degree of conviction as an attempt to make the opposite case.

...but quite another to reject all potential serial killer paralells and experience simply because Jack wasn't caught...

I suggest you change 'reject' to 'question' if you want to inject a bit more balance into your own posts.

If not, carry on being weighed down by all the failures.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Failures?

Caz, no offence, but it always seems to be you and nobody else leaping enthusiastically into a state of righteous indignation against anyone who argues strongly in favour of a local offender. It gets harder and harder to chalk it up to even-handedness on your part after a while.

Best regards,
Ben

[Paula Thomas]

Ben

No offence but I'm with Caz.

The offender probably had a local base but there is no evidence that he had local knowledge.

As I have said before the places that a prostitute takes a client to have a lot of similarities to places that a serial killer would use if he had the choice.

Paula

[Nicola]

Hello,everyone!

I would expect more of the same behavior.

This is an exceedingly creepy and mean dude who gets his kicks off of killing women.

I believe that he would have kept on going. The MO may change,the location may change,he might even switch up his technique but when you strip away all the theories,the reasons,etc and get to the bare bones,this is a psychopath who just loves to attack,kill,and cut up women. He couldn't control it nor did he want to. I don't think that sort of perverse and evil nature can be subdued. Not by prayer,a poor attempt at self control or anything else. The only thing that would have stopped such a man is either incarceration for life or death. Jack didn't seem to be a BTK type who went long periods without killing. He seems almost like killing those poor women was his fix,like a heroin addict. Ye Olde Jack quite liked what he was doing and would have kept at it. Even after the horrific glut of MJK,which I believe was a result of being blocked all October from his fun,he would have been back at it.

Though I believe he was a local I have a friend who believes otherwise. To me,at the very least.he might have been someone who was born and raised in that area. He might have moved away but he went to hunt where he felt most comfortable,the place he remembered most,his home..

[Ben]

Hi Paula,

The offender probably had a local base but there is no evidence that he had local knowledge

I notice we're having a similar discussion on the Sickert thread, and I'm afraid I'm still inclined to disagree very strongly. It wasn't just about picking, or being directed to, convenient crime locations. There are also his escape routes to consider, and there are sufficient indications to suggest a path of retreat from Mitre Square, at least, which involved heading through what would have been a complicated maze of alleys. From the crime scene, it was the most direct and unfrequented route back to the East End, but you needed "local knowledge" to negotiate it.

As I have said before the places that a prostitute takes a client to have a lot of similarities to places that a serial killer would use if he had the choice.

We don't know what choices were available to this particular killer. If he had the relative luxury of private accomodation, he may have preferred to take his victims home a la Dahmer and Nilsen.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

the places that a prostitute takes a client to have a lot of similarities to places that a serial killer would use if he had the choice.

I doubt that the gates in the rather public Buck's Row/Berner Street, or the cobbles in the back-yard of Hanbury Street quite fall into that category, Paula. The truth is that there was very little privacy in either of these locations or the surrounding streets, and they don't quite map onto to the isolated parks, lanes or woodland used for such purposes today. We should be wary of projecting our modern perceptions onto what was, in many respects, a very different world.