Why did Jack stop?

[jc007]

I'm in the minority here i believe Jack stopped most likely because he had achieved what he set out to do, I don't think he was some lunitic running around slashing women for the fun of it. My reasoning is simply on the first 4 murders he was able to meet his victims kill them quickly and quietly, mutilate them and extract one or two organs and escape without drawing any attention to himself all in near pitch black conditions. Now to me it seems as if to a point his crimes were planned in advance, he knew how to kill his victims in a manner that would be quick and quiet and without the victims putting up much of a fight, he was able to "operate" on his victims and detatch specific organs quickly and with almost zero visibility and was also able to get away with out drawing attention to himself in anyway, its not as if he was sprinting down the street with bloodied organs in his hands, no doubt he would of been seen and heard, so he would of had a escape route planned surely. you could accept luck was on his side if was just a one off murder but 5 murders and no one seeing or hearing anything at all. but anyway thats my opinion.

[jc007]

Sam just saw your reply,....


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.

I would think that Jack didn't need to take the organs away because he had so much time at his disposal unlike when he was killing out in the open, if he had wanted to do something with the organs he had not the time out in the open so he took them with him, but with Kelly he had ample time to do what he wanted with the organs and just leave them behind when he was done, just because no organs were taken doesn't conclude she wasn't a Ripper victim.

[jc007]

[QUOTE=Christine;21722]There's no sane, logical plan that would culminate with Kelly, so if Jack had a goal, he failed to reach it.QUOTE]

This is one of the dumbest comments i've seen in a while, to make such a comment without looking like like a moron you would have to know Jacks motive, and no one does, so how you can possibly assume he failed to reach his goal??

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

Sorry I missed this earlier...

It may not address the "why", Gareth, but it certainly impacts on the "when".

But that's exactly my point - it's a totally different topic. I'm glad we agree

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps an equally pertinent question to ask then is why he started.

Indeed, but that's a whole other conversation, Brummie - not least because it may have had no bearing on why he eventually stopped. Whatever, why Jack might have started is a huge topic in its own right, primarily because there are vastly more reasons that could be suggested for the origin of his pathology, compared to the (relatively limited) number of possible reasons for the cessation of his murders.

[brummie]

Perhaps an equally pertinent question to ask then is why he started. I think if we can understand his motivation then it will be a big help to at least eliminating some of the suspects.Unfortunatly im not a trained psychologist but I have this theory that perhaps an early sexual encounter led to him being ridiculed or humiliated and he kills his partner in a frenzied attack (possibly Martha Tabram) and finds a taste for the killing instead culminating in the ultimate slaughter of Kelly.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

I know you insist that threads be followed to the letter, but no question here can be considered in isolation. Why Jack Stopped implies the When is a "known"....and it isnt.

Some of the more likely reasons for stopping:

* He might have been taken ill and hospitalised
* He might have been incarcerated
* He might have committed suicide
* He might have emigrated or moved out of London
* He might have been banged up in an asylum
* He might have died of natural causes
* He might have died in an accident
* Someone might have killed him

None of those have anything to do with his technique, the nature of the mutilations or his suggested motives. Furthermore, none of them have anything to do with when he stopped, who he killed, or whether we're talking about one or more killers.

[Dan Norder]

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.

Sure you can. Not only is that what the experts in criminal signatures say, but it's also the whole point of Occams Razor: when there's already a logical explanation you don't have to invent up an alternate explanation that doesn't make any sense to try to substitute for it.

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.

It's a certainty? No, not really.

But of course fitting victims with like victims, the ones most closely linked would be Kelly, Eddowes and Chapman. It takes a lot of twisting around, jumping through hoops and weird rationalizations to try to separate Kelly from those two.

Marys killer did not have her abdomen or abdominal organs as a focus of the attack.

I don't know what fantasy world you are living in, but the facts are that her abdomen was entirely ripped open and removed and her abdominal organs were placed all around the bed. That's the case with the most clear intent to focus on the abdomen. You can't get a more picture perfect example.

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

Which is why these threads are usually a waste of time, because there are too many people assuming he stopped after Mary Kelly when there's no fact-based reason to conclude that he did... and it's unfortunate that someone who tries to separate out Kelly from the other victims for no logical reason whatsoever feels the need to try to take over all these threads with that silliness.

Hi Mike,Yes - we'd have to conclude that another killer appeared within a few weeks of the "Double Event", indulged in a one-off mutilation/evisceration murder, and did so no more. We would then have to speculate why two extreme mutilators/eviscerators emerged and stopped within a short period of time.

We would have three then, because someone made the Torso found in early October as well. Jack was not the lone mutilator/killer in 1888, or 1889, that much is clear Sam.

I know you insist that threads be followed to the letter, but no question here can be considered in isolation. Why Jack Stopped implies the When is a "known"....and it isnt.


Best regards Gareth.

[Ben]

The ease of abdominal/thoracic mutilation really has nothing to do with why the killer(s) might have hung up their boots when they did.

It may not address the "why", Gareth, but it certainly impacts on the "when" , since my abdomen versus thorax suggestion would support a cessation (or at least a pause) post-Kelly rather than before. One more:

If the killer of Polly, Annie and Kate wanted their abdominal organs, that would explain why they were cut where they were.

But Mike, if he wanted organs and wasn't especially choosey about which ones, that would also explain why they were cut where they were - they were the easiest ones to access.

I'll leave it there.

Hi Mike,

All's well here thanks! Same with you, I trust?



But again, what if he targetted the abdomen not because he was abdomen-fixated, but because eviscerations were so much easier (and far quicker) from the abdomen than from the thorax?

All the best,
Ben

Hi again Ben,

Yes Im good.. thanks...but bloody hot here the past few days. You can cook a meal by wearing it.

Both you and Sam have pointed out that the ease of access might have defined where he cuts outdoors, but we dont see any indications by what happened to Mary Kelly that clearly show what he was really interested in when given full reign over the environment and full access to the victim.

For example....if say Jack wanted to obtain hearts really, or to strip flesh from bone, what was he doing killing women in the dark then cutting their bellies for? If Mary shows us what he really wanted to do....what exactly was that?
He could take the heart without peeling thighs....or he could have stripped all limbs of flesh, and not bothered emptying the midsection.

Her killer made scores of meaningless cuts from her thigh to her face. If the killer of Polly, Annie and Kate wanted their abdominal organs, that would explain why they were cut where they were. There is no reasonable objective visible with the death of Mary Kelly. To take her heart, you need not strip thighs,....to just enjoy the cutting, you need not place the organs extracted under extremities, to obtain abdominal organs, you need not first remove a face.

And aside from intestines and a colon section, he takes everything he extracts from the abdomen. Marys killer extracted everything...and left it all behind.

Best regards Ben.

[Sam Flynn]

But again, what if he targetted the abdomen not because he was abdomen-fixated, but because eviscerations were so much easier (and far quicker) from the abdomen than from the thorax?

Ben - please don't drag this discussion out, leastwise not on this thread. The ease of abdominal/thoracic mutilation really has nothing to do with why the killer(s) might have hung up their boots when they did.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

If for example he did finish on Sept 30th, could we conclude anything different from a conclusion we might reach if we believe he stopped Nov 9th?

Yes - we'd have to conclude that another killer appeared within a few weeks of the "Double Event", indulged in a one-off mutilation/evisceration murder, and did so no more. We would then have to speculate why two extreme mutilators/eviscerators emerged and stopped within a short period of time.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

All's well here thanks! Same with you, I trust?

Three of the kills attributed to Jack have women who had the majority of their injuries inflicted upon their abdomens

But again, what if he targetted the abdomen not because he was abdomen-fixated, but because eviscerations were so much easier (and far quicker) from the abdomen than from the thorax?

All the best,
Ben

Whether that was on the 30th September or the 9th November 1888 hardly makes any difference, Mike. Even if one extends his charge-sheet through to the murder of Frances Coles, one still has to explain why he "paused".

Hi Sam,

I dont mean to nitpick, I think its a valid consideration. If for example he did finish on Sept 30th, could we conclude anything different from a conclusion we might reach if we believe he stopped Nov 9th?

For one thing.....we would not have to assume he lost control of himself to the degree of madness shown in Millers Court. We might assume that he had goals he had achieved if he quits after the Double Event Night.....or maybe he quits because after the Double Event he sees that he is being blamed for every meaningless little throat cut that happens in the East End, not having the signifigance or meaning of his kills...or maybe after Sept 30th he feels Police breathing down his neck...maybe gets arrested, maybe suspected...so he flees to America. The guy who killed, or had killed, the 1st, 2nd, and 4th victims might have been out on bail when Mary is killed, and thinks he'll now have that on his credit role, so he splits.

I think the options left as to Why Jack Stopped Killing using Mary Kelly as his last are, ...he moved, went nuts, he just quit, or he died. If he stopped Sept 30th, maybe he was finished. Maybe we have a task oriented killer....who hangs up his knife when he has completed an objective.

Cheers Sam