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.

[perrymason]

.... 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.

I didnt copy the rest of that post Dan because I dont think you want too many people knowing that you inferred its plausible to consider 1 killer for all 11 women..since Mary Kelly as The Last Ripper Victim is the basis on which this question was founded, injecting that it was not, nor is not a foregone conclusion she was is valid.

And as to your contention that all experts agree with who and how many were killed by Jack, I will remind you that perhaps the leading authority on the crimes today, that posts here, has stated on a post in response to one of mine last year, that he has never been personally satisfied, from all he has researched and read, that more than 3 victims were actually Jacks,....three that did not include Mary Kelly.

Lets not forget to add that to the expert opinions offered as to "The Canon."

Best regards.

[Christine]

[QUOTE=jc007;23793]

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??

What sane plan could Jack have been following, and what goal could he have successfully reached?

[jc007]

[QUOTE=Christine;23825]

What sane plan could Jack have been following, and what goal could he have successfully reached?

Thats a fantastic question, i think we all wish we knew the answer to that. But it does look as if some thinking was put into his crimes at some point and he wasn't just a lunatic slashing away, like i said you could use luck as a point if he commited only one murder but at least 5 were done, either he was a very very very lucky lunatic, or he wasn't completely loony and there was some kind of premeditation to it, and i'm not sure anyone could be that lucky that many times over and possibly more if other victims are accepted as his.

[Dan Norder]

I didnt copy the rest of that post Dan because I dont think you want too many people knowing that you inferred its plausible to consider 1 killer for all 11 women..

Of course it's plausible. I don't know that it's all that likely, but it's sure as hell a lot more likely than that he only killed two, like you have been known to argue.

since Mary Kelly as The Last Ripper Victim is the basis on which this question was founded, injecting that it was not, nor is not a foregone conclusion she was is valid.

Mentioning that the assumption may be invalid is a reasonable comment, and I made just such a comment near the very beginning of the thread. But there's a difference between merely mentioning it and choosing to use an unrelated thread to try to make the same old tired arguments you've made in countless other threads.

And as to your contention that all experts agree with who and how many were killed by Jack

I never made any such contention, not in this thread nor elsewhere. Considering that you claim to have read my recent article on the very topic you should already know that I think the so-called "canon" isn't definitive. As I also mentioned in that piece various authors who try to separate off Kelly from the list of Ripper victims, you certainly do not need to remind me of anything. Indeed you apparently need a reminder to not misrepresent what others say to try to score cheap points.

[CraigInTwinCities]

...either he was a very very very lucky lunatic, or he wasn't completely loony and there was some kind of premeditation to it, and i'm not sure anyone could be that lucky that many times over and possibly more if other victims are accepted as his.

JC,

You present that as though there are only two possible options in this matrix. I would counter that supposition.

I don't believe the choices are as clear-cut as that. It is possible Jack was somewhere between those two extremes, or even possibly something else entirely.

But it's late, my brain is tired and I need sleep, so I'll restrict myself to saying this much and no more at this point.

Blessings!

[brummie]

[QUOTE=Christine;23825]

What sane plan could Jack have been following, and what goal could he have successfully reached?

Perhaps the facial disfurements and bodily mutilation of previous victims was not enough and the butchery of MJK represented to his twisted mind not only the killing but literally the destruction of the source of his sexual frustration. I dont put this forward as a professional opinion merely a possibility for some thought. The posts on this thread do show one of the major problems looking at the crimes from this distance in time in that even people who have devoted considerable research are unable to agree even on the number of victims.Personaly while i have reservations about Stride i think the other 4 canon victims were down to Jack plus possibly Martha Tabram, and while i think it unlikely possibly some of the later victims.

[jc007]

Craig,
i'm not trying to suggest Jack was definately either sane or insane, thats impossible to determine for sure, but what my point is, is that i don't think he was completely insane as there does appear to be some some kind of cool cunning to how he went about his crimes, he was in and out in a matter of minutes so he didn't actual indulge in what he was doing (another reason to discount the sexual serial killer theory) and was able to get away and back into the shadows without anyone seeing or hearing anything at all. To me if it was some one who was completely insane and out of control then he would be drawing attention to himself some how and would have less control over how the crimes took place, when in fact he had complete control everytime, from stalking his victim to executing them to fleeing all without leaving many clues for police and with out drawing any attention to himself from the public except maybe in a couple in instances where witnesses say they saw a man talking to a victim shortly before they died and even then he was able to keep them from seeing his face clearly. So to me this does not show a man who is completely insane and unable to control himself, he sounds more like the Ted Bundy type, smooth, handsome and intelligent, the working girls had no problem going with him, so he was not drooling at the mouth or anything and must of looked like he was not a threat to the women who went with him, and the way he went about keeping his face obscured from anyone but his victim and went about his crime and his escape on as little as five occasions or more (depending what you like to believe) it does show to some degree intelligence on his part. But unlike in Bundys case where Bundy was a sexual killer and took his victims to secluded areas where he could slowly and painfully kill his victims while sexually gratifying himself, Jack didn't do this his kills where swift and virtual painless to his victims so getting himself off on his victims suffering was not a priorty.

[Christine]

[QUOTE=brummie;23908]

Perhaps the facial disfurements and bodily mutilation of previous victims was not enough and the butchery of MJK represented to his twisted mind not only the killing but literally the destruction of the source of his sexual frustration. I dont put this forward as a professional opinion merely a possibility for some thought. The posts on this thread do show one of the major problems looking at the crimes from this distance in time in that even people who have devoted considerable research are unable to agree even on the number of victims.Personaly while i have reservations about Stride i think the other 4 canon victims were down to Jack plus possibly Martha Tabram, and while i think it unlikely possibly some of the later victims.

I agree, this is a very real possibility, but as you say, it's the plan of a twisted mind driven by pathological sexual frustration--not a sane and rational plan. I'd say it was likely that the satisfaction would wear off eventually as the real source of his distress (sexual problems? hatred of women? brain damage?) would not have gone away. That's why the profilers and psychologists say that serial killers don't stop unless some external factor changes. Of course its quite possible for a killer to stop; all he has to do is stop. But you'd think he'd not have started in the first place if he was completely rational and in control of his impulses.

[jc007]

Interesting theorys, but unless you can back it with some kind of factual imformation or evidence from the crimes, its completely baseless and can't be taken seriously, there is more factual evidence to show that the killer was not as insane as some may think he is, and very little beyond theorys and guesses to suggest he might be insane.

[Ben]

he sounds more like the Ted Bundy type, smooth, handsome and intelligent, the working girls had no problem going with him, so he was not drooling at the mouth or anything and must of looked like he was not a threat to the women

Why "smooth, handsome and intelligent"?

I've no problem at all with the idea that Jack was a sociopath rather than an out-and-out psychotic, but he needn't have been "smooth and handsome" to inveigle middle-aged, intoxicated, desperate prostitutes. He just needed to be normal - a tried and tested local perhaps.

You've already been provided with ample reasons to accept the probability that JTR was a sexually-motivated serial-killer, and unless you know better than criminologists and experts who study these types of crimes, then I'm afraid you're in no position to claim superior knowledge. "Sadism" is a term that can be applied to the perpetrator of post-mortem injuries.

[Christine]

Interesting theorys, but unless you can back it with some kind of factual imformation or evidence from the crimes, its completely baseless and can't be taken seriously, there is more factual evidence to show that the killer was not as insane as some may think he is, and very little beyond theorys and guesses to suggest he might be insane.

Well, technically insane is a legal term that means he isn't responsible for his actions. Most serial killers are not insane. And Ted Bundy was a sexual sadist, despite being a fairly high functioning person.

So far I can think of three possible motives for the crimes:

1) Sexual sadism.
2) Irrational hatred of women and sex.
3) Some sort of delusional motive: he thought it would summon a demon, or he thought it would make some girl love him, or something along those lines.

One and two are related; there's ample evidence from the crimes for one and two; there's ample proved, factual precedent for one and two. So it's a strong theory based on lots of evidence. Three is not impossible, but given the nature of the crimes, it's impossible for me to believe that this would have been a secondary motive, an excuse of some sort.

So if there was a sane, rational motive, what could it have been? What sort of goal could he have successfully reached? Do you even have a theory or a guess?

[jc007]

Ben & Christine,

You both have said there is ample evidence to prove Jack was a sexual killer or a sexual sadist, please share all this evidence then, but please make sure its factual and and not guessing based on only the wounds that were inflicted? and a sadist?? what a load of bulldust he killed his victims quickly very quickly hardly the actions of a sadist like Bundy who took pleasure out of killing his victims and watching them suffer. If your going to say there is ample evidence please provide it.

[Christine]

Ben & Christine,

You both have said there is ample evidence to prove Jack was a sexual killer or a sexual sadist, please share all this evidence then, but please make sure its factual and and not guessing based on only the wounds that were inflicted? and a sadist?? what a load of bulldust he killed his victims quickly very quickly hardly the actions of a sadist like Bundy who took pleasure out of killing his victims and watching them suffer. If your going to say there is ample evidence please provide it.

We've already been through this.

No one said Jack's motives were proved, just that there was very strong evidence.

If he was in such a hurry, why did he mutilate the victims at all?

The most common reason for mutilating a victim in the genital area is sadistic sexual desire. Even you can't come up with a better reason.

You still haven't answered my question, which is why he would do such a thing if it wasn't some sort of pathological sexual desire or need.

Everything comes down to guessing at some level; this is guessing based on the evidence. The wounds are evidence, and very strong evidence at that.

[Ben]

what a load of bulldust he killed his victims quickly very quickly hardly the actions of a sadist

You're an intolerably arrogant and impossibly ignorant hobbyist who obstinately refuses to conduct any background research into a topic in which you purport an interest. I didn't use the word "proof" at any point. I said there was a lot of evidence to indicate that the killer was probably sexually-motivated. Don't you dare start flinging "bulldust" at me. If you think sadism only refers to the pleasure derived from inflicting pain on living victims, then you simply haven't done your research. I don't want to see another aggressive, inflammatory post from you until you've enlightened yourself properly on the topic, and certainly no more accusations of "bulldust".