Why did Jack stop?

[perrymason]

I think with the Jack the Ripper cases, when he stopped is the key starting point for arriving at possible conclusions as to why he stopped....as is it for why he killed.

If Mary Jane ended it...you would almost have to conclude based on the progression that he went nuts, and perhaps did away with himself. Or Fled. Or Fled and killed elsewhere. If it was only Polly and Annie, what then can we conclude? Or Polly, Kate and Annie? Or all the Canonicals plus Martha and "Clay Pipe" Alice?

What if he only kills the women with abdominal post mortem wounds? What conclusions could there be based on those actions? After Alice?

Or did he move on to Torso's..something he may have begun in August88 and continued into the following year. Maybe Mary was his last try at working with an intact body. Maybe from defleshing her thighs he gets other ideas.

Maybe he goes to New York.

Im sure you see the point Im making....hard to know whats the "cut-off" line.....so to speak.

Best regards.

Best regards.

[Dan Norder]

If Mary Jane ended it...you would almost have to conclude based on the progression that he went nuts, and perhaps did away with himself.

That seems to be the conventional wisdom of Macnaghten and others, but it also doesn't match what we know about other similar serial killers.

If it was only Polly and Annie, what then can we conclude?

That pigs are currently airborne over the snow-covered fields of Hades.

[perrymason]

That pigs are currently airborne over the snow-covered fields of Hades.

Well.... thank the Lord, it seems someone knows the exact victims list, so we can finally answer the questions. Would this be the Canon, or something more elaborate and disjointed?

Cheers.

[brummie]

For what its worth I have this idea forming that Martha Tabram was the first victim,and that something happened during or just before the sex act which left JTR feeling belittled or humiliated. maybe he was unable ot perform or she made fun of him, anyway he lost it and stabbed her in a wild frenzy and later found that the act of violating Tabram with a knife gave him as much if not more satisfaction than sex. Thereafter it became an obession and a replacement for sex until on reading the extent of the horrible mutilation of MJK he realised he had a real problem and either did away with himself or left London in the hope that a new location would mean a new start, you cant get much more of a change than S.America, and a new series of murders starts up there. Well just an idea but I welcome peoples reaction.

[Sam Flynn]

Would this be the Canon, or something more elaborate and disjointed?

Neither Canon nor elaboration, at least not as far as I see it, Mike. It's the principle of Occam's Razor, which is the very antithesis of elaboration. Is it easier to believe that more than one person in the same small geographical area and short time-frame were driven to disembowel and eviscerate women, as opposed to its being the same killer on more than two occasions? Given that such outrageous behaviour is extremely rare, the latter would seem to be the simplest, and therefore the more likely, explanation of the two.

[diana]

Disease in Whitechapel

I happen to be currently reading a book on the influenza epidemic of 1918 which killed so many. The author goes into great detail about the causes of epidemics and disease in general. It comes down to crowding (allowing easier transmission of pathogens) and malnutrition (weakening the immune system).

From everything I have read these conditions were quite common in Whitechapel and they were living in the age before antibiotics. Germ theory was just beginning to be accepted. A lot of doctors and scientists still thought disease was caused by "miasmas".

I searched in vain for any evidence of a fatal epidemic in late 1888 or early 1889 . Nevertheless disease must have been rampant in Whitechapel and its possible that JtR was taken by smallpox, typhus, etc. etc. etc.

[sdreid]

Hi Diana,

Yes, that is a good possibility. I always wondered if the New Orleans Axeman died of the flu and that's why there were no more of those murders after 1919 especially since the traditional "solution" has been shown to probably be apocryphal..

[Yasmin B.]

why did jack stop...?

I don't think he committed suicide. If i would be him i would continue living and wait to see if i managed to become a legend or at least known around the world.
Maybe he just became Bored! once you've done something amazing, smaller things bore you to death and maybe Mary Jane Kelly's mutilitations were enough for him.
And what if the person who killed the victims who weren't killed by him was a woman (or a man if you take Jill the Ripper) and they fell happily (?) in love? they would have a lot in common.
But maybe he just tried to get away from one murder site too fast, heard a bloodhound bark and forgot to look before crossing the street and then got trampeled by a horse....

[Elias]

I fail to see how anyone could think the man who murdered and mutilated MJK in such a horrific way could suddenly stop after that. He was in his element during this crime, alone, secluded, left free to do what he wanted for as long as he wanted - and look what he did. If anything the murder of MJK would've satisfied his desires the most and increased his appetite for more. I also think he was a born and bred east-ender and doubt he would've suddenly moved from there - he did his crimes in the area where he felt most comfortable. I also don't think he was a complete lunatic displaying any symptoms in every day life which would've led to him being admitted to an asylum. So by the process of elimination I think the most likely reason is death.

(I also I don't go along with the idea that 'the police' as a whole thought they knew who Jack was. It seems every detective on this case had a different opinion - and when later events happened, such as the new letter in the 1890s and subsequent deaths - they were investigate fully to see if any connection to Jack could be found - these weren't the actions of a force who thought they knew what had happened to Jack)

[perrymason]

A response to Sam, With all due respect I think you are incorrectly using Occams Razors as applies to the case of Mary Kelly. The most simple explanation must include all the data, and the known data includes more than Jack The Ripper being active at that time in that location.

It is a fact more than one man with a knife was killing in the East End during this 88-89 period. There are some 6 unnassigned victims, some in 88 and 89 and later...in the coming few years, let alone the 5 that create the "Canon", and Marys murder is somewhere in between the severity of the Torso killers wounds, and Elizabeth Strides single wound.

I would think Occam as applied to Mary Jane would lend credence to the notion that she was killed by someone who is not the same man that killed Liz Stride.... at the very least, and by the lack of wound focus, he is probably not the man that was transfixed by abdomens. Which "Jack" clearly was.

Simple and logical I believe, which is the principle of "The Razor."

Best regards Sam.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I'm not so sure that Jack was fixated on the abdomen per se. Innards-fixated he may have been, but it may well have been the case that eviscerations from the thorax were next to impossible in the time available (which was less of a problem at Miller's Court), which wouldn't have been the case with the abdomen.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

I would think Occam as applied to Mary Jane would lend credence to the notion that she was killed by someone who is not the same man that killed Liz Stride.... at the very least, and by the lack of wound focus, he is probably not the man that was transfixed by abdomens. Which "Jack" clearly was.

Simple and logical I believe, which is the principle of "The Razor."

The precise definition of the "razor" is that "one should not multiply entities beyond what is necessary". The act of positing two mutilators and eviscerators at large in the same time period and geographical area might fairly be seen as infringing the principle straight off the bat.

As to Jack's being transfixed by abdomens, I might remind you that Kelly's abdomen, flesh and organs alike, was thoroughly dismantled and excavated by her killer.

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,

I'm not so sure that Jack was fixated on the abdomen per se. Innards-fixated he may have been, but it may well have been the case that eviscerations from the thorax were next to impossible in the time available (which was less of a problem at Miller's Court), which wouldn't have been the case with the abdomen.

Best regards,
Ben

Hello Ben, I hope youre well.

I did say focussed, and for your reasoning Ben. Three of the kills attributed to Jack have women who had the majority of their injuries inflicted upon their abdomens....or within them. I would preliminarily link those three murders with one man myself.

And the disparity in the wounds inflicted upon Liz to those inflicted on Mary Kelly would preliminarily separate those 2 murders from a single killer categorization I would think. The only logical connection of the first 3 is their autopsy's, the area of the body on which he worked post mortem. Neither of the remaining 2 were shown to have that "focus".

I dont think we can speculate he did more because he now had an indoor venue, for one....because working outdoors he was 100% incriminating evidence free, and two.....he may well have enjoyed working outdoors for the shock value, and three, most obviously...the middle aged desperately poor prostitutes without lodgings were working outdoors...a profile that fits all three "abdomen" victims.

You know I believe Mary was not a Ripper victim...and thats just opinion based on my perceptions of the known facts, ...but as to how many men were killing street whores with knives during the period in question here......no one can conclude that the most logical answer for Mary Kelly is that her killer was the same man who had "focus".

With 11 unsolved murders, how many men are we talking about that killed street whores with knives? More than one......that is all we know.

So the most logical guess on Mary Kelly would be that she was killed by someone other than the killer who had abdominal focus, as we know for a fact there were other men killing... for different reasons.


Best regards Ben.

[Sam Flynn]

Anyway... why did Jack stop?

[perrymason]

Sam just saw your reply,....

My point was to apply Occams Razor to answer who killed Mary Kelly based upon her wounds, you cannot just use a single killer roaming free who mutilates women. Because its a certainty that we are looking at 2 or more killers for the 11 unsolved murders, some of which fit far better with a "Jack" type than Mary Kelly does.

Marys killer did not have her abdomen or abdominal organs as a focus of the attack. It appears simply destroying her was the killer's focus. In fact, she is the first and only victim with abdominal organs extracted.... and left behind.


PS....You cant answer Why Jack Stopped until you know When he did.

Best regards Sam, all.