Why did Jack stop?

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.

[paul emmett]

I'm still WAYYYYY in the minority here, but I still think Jack stopped because in his mind he "found" what he needed. Whatever that might have been.

Hi, BlacKat. How are you? I hope all is well.

I certianly agree with a lot of what you say, which probably only puts you deeper into the minority. But between us minors, in your phrase "'found' what he needed," do you feel that it was a conscious quest or did he just kinda fall into it, as it were?

Paul

[Blackkat]

I'm still WAYYYYY in the minority here, but I still think Jack stopped because in his mind he "found" what he needed. Whatever that might have been. I think his crimes were violent, I think something in his past was the very thing that caused or helped along his behavior. (meaning - he used what happened to him as an excuse to kill perhaps? consciously or un)

I think it ended with MJK and I don't think he killed again. Any proof of that? No but it's my opinion. I still think Jack was getting progressive for a reason. He finally sated himself with MJK and that was that. Poof hes gone.

[paul emmett]

So now we're left with a delusional killer who has removed the object of his hatred, but his life isn't one bit better than it was. What is the most likely outcome now? In all probability he'll find someone else to blame for his problems, and direct his compulsions toward her. In other words, he has a longer than usual cooling off period, and then he starts killing again.

Certianly that is possible, but since we don't know WHY Jack killed, it is difficult to say whether his killings satisfied him or not. All I say that is we can't say for sure that he "isn't one bit better." Even with just our two "possible" scenarios, in yours JTR might well be frustrated when he can't elope with Barnett, but in mine he could, a la TAXI DRIVER, be better because he has gotten rid of the object of his hatred, and, a la Frank Sinatra, he's done it his way.

[Christine]

But most of us sane folks don't solve our problems that way. Say Jack had good, sane, reasons to dislike MJK, and he wanted to get rid of her. If you were in that situation, would you murder her? Or would you murder (and mutilate) four random women to divert suspicion? There has to be some other factor, some compulsion, or delusion to fuel that kind of behavior.

So say he's done this, and he's succeeded. Is his life likely to be any better? Probably not, because it almost certainly wasn't Kelly that caused his problems in the first place. To return to the facetious example I gave, would killing Kelly make Joe Barnett return Tumblety's love? No, because not only does Barnett find Tumblety creepy (and male, to boot) Tumblety now has to flee to America.

So now we're left with a delusional killer who has removed the object of his hatred, but his life isn't one bit better than it was. What is the most likely outcome now? In all probability he'll find someone else to blame for his problems, and direct his compulsions toward her. In other words, he has a longer than usual cooling off period, and then he starts killing again.

[paul emmett]

Although Jack may have had some sort of plan in his mind that successfully ended with the murder of Kelly, there's no good, rational reason for someone to act that way. To clarify: Jack might have thought that murdering five women (or four women) or performing certain acts would have summoned a demon, or cured impotence, or scared the prostitutes off the streets, but he was wrong.

There's no sane, logical plan that would culminate with Kelly, so if Jack had a goal, he failed to reach it.

Hi, Christine.

I agree with everything you said, except the last sentence here. All I had meant with my original brief question was that when a killer stops, after one or one hundred, one of the possible reasons for quitting has to be that at some level, conscious or unconscious, he has accomplished what he had set out to do.

But as for the sanity, or the lack thereof, of his "goal," that seems to be less clear. What if JTR had, for example, wanted to kill MJK, but didn't want the world to know that he wanted to kill HER. His desire to kill her might be as insane as we might feel all such desires are, but his plan would seem to me both logical and sane.

[Christine]

Why do we have to assume this?

Although Jack may have had some sort of plan in his mind that successfully ended with the murder of Kelly, there's no good, rational reason for someone to act that way. To clarify: Jack might have thought that murdering five women (or four women) or performing certain acts would have summoned a demon, or cured impotence, or scared the prostitutes off the streets, but he was wrong.

There's no sane, logical plan that would culminate with Kelly, so if Jack had a goal, he failed to reach it.

There are probably some exceptions. The obvious one would be that Kelly was "special," i.e., he knew her and had some particular reason to dislike her. But even this breaks down when you realize that the hatred of Kelly is not really due to Kelly's own failings, but to Jack's delusion and psychosis.

A specific example: say Jack was Tumblety, and he was madly in love with Joe Barnett and figured Kelly was the only thing keeping him from true happiness. So he kills Kelly, and now he and Joe can live happily ever after. Except it doesn't work, Joe dislikes him as much as ever, and he's still full of a compulsion to kill women.

[kensei]

Most serial killers we know of have stopped only because they got caught. We'll never know how many have been able to stop without ever being identified, or for what reasons. There is at least one example though of a killer who made himself stop for several years- Dennis Rader (BTK) was only caught when he decided to re-emerge and start sending messages to the police, and even then he didn't kill again. I think I recall hearing him say that since he was getting older he was concerned that one of his victims might manage to overpower him if he didn't stop.

As for Jack, there are so many theories- the torso killings were him, McKenzie and Coles were him, murders in France, or the U.S., or South America were all him, etc. etc.-- we'll just never know. I vaguely remember a purely speculative thread before the site crashed about what the maximum number of Jack's victims would be if all theories were correct. Wasn't it something like 60 or more?

[Lord Lucan]

A tricky question indeed. I have to go with the obvious choices, any of which could be possible. Died, ill health, moved, committed or perhaps there was some crazy thoughts running through his mind that his job was now complete (so back to normality).

[paul emmett]

If we assume that MJK was not the culmination of a campaign,the last act in some twisted plan, then why did Jack stop.

Why do we have to assume this?

[Dan Norder]

Before we can ask why he stopped we have to determine if he even did stop, and there's no good reason to think he actually did.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

Had he continued, he would have had his "trademarks" on his victims! Logically thinking, MJK's injuries wouldn't have been enough anymore for him, so he would have gone even further...

My guess is, that he was just a small piece of news on extra-pages. Telling about a dead victim of a minor accident. For example; run over by a horse-cart or something like that!

All the best
Jukka

[sdreid]

There are dozens of possibilities but scared straight by a near miss would be at the top of my list.

[truebluedub]

Since I accept that Coles and Mackenzie might have been Ripper victims I think it possible that the Ripper went on a lull. After that who knows.
Kind regards,
Chris Lowe

[Christine]

I have noticed how many of the "serious" suspects either moved away, went into an asylum, or committed suicide. Even Joe Barnett and possibly George Hutchison we can assume would have stopped because of his relationship to Mary Kelly.

Based on what's said in the The Macnaghten Memoranda and the Littlechild letter, I would postulate that the police knew--or thought they knew--who the Ripper was, but could not prove it. This would also go a long way towards explaining the police treatment of Barnett and especially Hutchinson. When this suspect went away, the police cut back on patrols and relaxed. The only problem is that they don't seem to have been in agreement as to which suspect this person was....