Tweet
that for whatever reason that Jack could have stopped killing after the Mary kelly murder? I know experts say serial killers never stop killing, but is it possible at all for him to have stopped completely? If you looked at all of his murders, it seems that with each murder (besides the one he was supposedly interrupted at), he would mutilate the body more than the last up until Mary kelly where he did the worst possible harm and carnage you could do to a human body. If he wanted to kill more prostitutes I'm sure that he could have.
-
-
psychological episodes
Hello Jon. Although such a cessation would be unlikely, certainly it could happen. Consider a psychological episode that comes, then goes.
The best.
LC -
Hey guys.
The general impression is that serial killers do not "just stop" unless they are impeded by some outside circumstances (such as arrest, death, or re-location). However, this is just not true. What is more likely is that serial killers do, in fact, "just stop" if they have a valid reason. Usually it's due to the fear of being caught by the police. So, if the heat is up, they wait for a while for it to "cool down" before resuming their murders. it could be anywhere from months to years before resuming. THat's why I'm not quick to dismiss Alice McKenzie and Frances Coles as being Ripper victims. After the Kelly murder, I think the killer stopped in order for the situation in Whitechapel to "cool down" before starting again. He kills McKenzie in 1889 but there is no mutilation. This may be due to him being "out of touch" with his M.O. for awhile, so it needs to build up again. Then, Coles is murdered in 1891 and again, the damage on her body is unlike the others so again, he may have needed more practice in order to get back to his original M.O. After that, who knows? Maybe he was killed, maybe he left for somewhere else, or maybe he just stopped again.I won't make any deals. I've resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed,de-briefed, or numbered!Comment
-
JTR, is it possible that Jack could have returned to killing with a different mo just to throw police off? Wouldn't Jack have had good self control to not kill for a while?Comment
-
mutilation
Hello Jon. Well, he could if his point is just to kill, not to mutilate. But then, why mutilate at all?
The best.
LCComment
-
A reason
I dont think The ripper was just 'killing for the hell of it' as Lynn said then why mutilate at all? Why take extra time to dismember these women when his initial rush was from the kill itself?
I think the ripper ment to mutilate those women because it was his fantisy, his ritual, his "rush".
yours trulyWashington Irving:
"To a homeless man, who has no spot on this wide world which he can truly call his own, there is a momentary feeling of something like independence and territorial consequence, when, after a weary day's travel, he kicks off his boots, thrusts his feet into slippers, and stretches himself before an inn fire. Let the world without go as it may; let kingdoms rise and fall, so long as he has the wherewithal to pay his bills, he is, for the time being, the very monarch of all he surveys. The arm chair in his throne; the poker his sceptre, and the little parlour of some twelve feet square, his undisputed empire. "
Stratford-on-AvonComment
Comment