Why did Jack stop?

[FISHY1118]

He was Finished .

[John Wheat]

He was hung

[Scott Nelson]

Disappearing into History, Ripperologist no. 159 December 2017/January 2018

[The Rookie Detective]

Bump up for an old skool thread from the archives.


Interesting discussion



RD

[Flagg]

An interesting article.

http://www.txstate.edu/gii/jacktheripper.html

[Flagg]

Hello Flagg.

I agree that going abroad is a possibility, but it's not like there was a 1889 rash of murder-mutilations of homeless Australian prostitutes at roughly one month intervals, and in a very close area. At the very least he changed his MO dramatically. Given that the number of murder victims mutilated at all is quite small, and that the number mutilated in this characteristic way is tiny, either he stopped doing that, or he disposed of the bodies, which itself would be a major change as he seemingly wanted people to find the bodies and see them.

If we knew what his subsequent murders were like, it might give a clue into what he really got out of this. What do you think?

Hi Chris. Good point. Changing MO to avoid linkage to his earlier crimes makes sense. I'm going to have another look at similar crimes that took place after Kelly and go from related to ones that bear no relation.

Hello Flagg.

I agree that going abroad is a possibility, but it's not like there was a 1889 rash of murder-mutilations of homeless Australian prostitutes at roughly one month intervals, and in a very close area. At the very least he changed his MO dramatically. Given that the number of murder victims mutilated at all is quite small, and that the number mutilated in this characteristic way is tiny, either he stopped doing that, or he disposed of the bodies, which itself would be a major change as he seemingly wanted people to find the bodies and see them.

If we knew what his subsequent murders were like, it might give a clue into what he really got out of this. What do you think?

Hi Christine,

I would think he either does change his focus and methods,... he doesnt stop... but kills elesewhere, or he cant kill anymore.

The problem is the same no matter what is said about this issue.....you have to know the parameters. Bare minimum....a Start date, and a stop date. We have some educated guesses from contemporary investigators saying those dates are August 31st, 1888...and November 9th, 1888 respectively. If either or both are inaccurate, the output data as answers to this question will invariably be flawed.

So....to say the man was a sexual serial killer as a fact is all well and good....(not you Chris).....its merely unprovable unless you can be sure you have accurate input. And in this case, you cannot be sure at this point.

Best regards.

[Christine]

Hello Flagg.

I agree that going abroad is a possibility, but it's not like there was a 1889 rash of murder-mutilations of homeless Australian prostitutes at roughly one month intervals, and in a very close area. At the very least he changed his MO dramatically. Given that the number of murder victims mutilated at all is quite small, and that the number mutilated in this characteristic way is tiny, either he stopped doing that, or he disposed of the bodies, which itself would be a major change as he seemingly wanted people to find the bodies and see them.

If we knew what his subsequent murders were like, it might give a clue into what he really got out of this. What do you think?

[Flagg]

I don't think he stopped after Kelly. A serial killer usually continues to hunt and kill on the move. He leaves England and goes abroad because it's too hot in London is a possibility. There are periods of inactivity, but soon the need overrides any other and is the driving force.

[jc007]

It doesn't even sound like you're reading anyone else's posts if you think that's the only evidence anyone provided...

And, frankly, I think it's far more arrogant for someone off the street to jump in and try to claim that the experts on Jack the Ripper and the psychology of serial killers are wrong and to give nothing to back that conclusion up. I mean, what's next, telling us everyone at NASA is an idiot because you think it's impossible to believe that some machinery launched from Earth could have possibly landed on Mars successfully and be sending messages and pictures back?

Well Dan you keep putting words in my mouth if it makes you feel any better because is not helping your case. Neither is saying you have "given all this evidence" except there isn't a shred of it, oh except for finger pointing at criminals 100 years later and picking one similarity between the crimes and saying " gee he did one thing the same as Jack the Ripper so obviously these crimes are connected and both killers thought the exact same way" even though you have no idea who Jack the Ripper was nor do you know his motives, or what was going through his mind at time, but you can guess and incorrectly assume others are wrong when you don't know you are right yourself with your guesses, but you keep finger pointing it seems to beat logical thinking and using actual facts from the case.

[CraigInTwinCities]

Great post Craig,
You pretty much wrapped it all up in that post.

Its my understanding that Rader asked Police if they could trace a floppy disk if he sent it to them. Of course Police said no. He sent them the floopy and thats how they got him.

Seems like Rader was pretty much an imbecile.

Yes, that was his classic mistake, although they were already closing in due to videotape of a "message from BTK" drop made in some parking lot that had video camera surveillance. A Menards or something like that.

Anyway, the floppy disk sped up the capture quite a bit, but they might have caught him without it.

Yes, sadly, Rader was pretty darn stupid, all things considered.

In post-capture interviews with Landwehr, Rader asked him, "Why did you lie to me?" (About the computer floppies being traceable.)

Landwehr actually had to tell him, "Because you're a murderer and I was trying to catch you, Dennis."

[Mitch Rowe]

Great post Craig,
You pretty much wrapped it all up in that post.

Its my understanding that Rader asked Police if they could trace a floppy disk if he sent it to them. Of course Police said no. He sent them the floopy and thats how they got him.

Seems like Rader was pretty much an imbecile.

[Dan Norder]

Well Ben if you and others weren't being so arrogant to say there is ample evidence and strong evidence that Jack positively and definately was a sexual sadistic killer but only provide only one thing the fact that abdominal region was attacked as ample and strong evidence

It doesn't even sound like you're reading anyone else's posts if you think that's the only evidence anyone provided...

And, frankly, I think it's far more arrogant for someone off the street to jump in and try to claim that the experts on Jack the Ripper and the psychology of serial killers are wrong and to give nothing to back that conclusion up. I mean, what's next, telling us everyone at NASA is an idiot because you think it's impossible to believe that some machinery launched from Earth could have possibly landed on Mars successfully and be sending messages and pictures back?

[jc007]

Hi Craig, thanks for that rather long and detailed reply, now first things first, when i said he was "stalking" i did not mean he has been stalking his victims for any length of time other than on the nights in question. when he went out with his knife in hand searching for a victim you could say he was stalking, thats how i was refering to it. Also i wasn't meaning to suggest Jack was a George Clooney lookalike either just that he was at the right end of the spectrum for the ladies who went with him to think he was not a threat to them. And one last final thing i have never said that is not possible that Jack is a sexual serial killer it is most others who are of the opinion that its impossible that he wasn't one, all i have said that the injuries alone is not enough to conclude positively one way or the other, yes its enough to speculate but not enough to prove it defiately one way or the other and yes they may be crucial evidence that CSI investigators would find today but again we will never know.

[CraigInTwinCities]

JC,

A few points:

1) Again, your definition of sexually-motivated killer is too modern and too narrow. As I've said, Dr. Bond, who wrote the first profile of Jack and a contemporary one at that, categorized Jack in this way. His definition does not -- repeat, does not -- require Jack to be masturbating at the scene, or screwing a corpse or living victim, in order to fit the clinical definition. Instead, elements like attacking the victims sexual organs and choice of victim (sex trade workers) are sufficient for a killer like Jack to fit the definition. Also, he used the ploy of soliciting these sex trade workers (in the cases where we know something of the circumstances of a possible sighting of a victim meeting the potential killer) in order to get them into a situation where they become vulnerable to attack. Think about it: what ISN'T sexual about going up to a prostitute, asking for a hand-job at the least, and then slitting her throat when she's at her most vulnerable and proceeding once she's down to mutilate the breasts, buttocks, and vaginal area? This is more than enough to fit Dr. Bond's definition of sexually-motivated killer, circa 1888, and I'd argue that it's still not a bad definition of such. You want evidence? Read Dr. Bond's profile of Jack as I'm sure we have it somewhere in the archives; your argument is with him and about a 120-year gap between Jack and now.

2) As far as your assertion that you view Jack as a high-functioning person rather than a raving loon, I have no problem necessarily with that part of what you said. Where we part company is that in my own study of the crimes, the reports, and other comtemporary evidence, there is very little evidence that the Whitechapel Murders were the work of a stalker-type killer. Now, BTK is a perfect example of a stalker-type killer; he stalked women in the Wichita area for over three decades, even during periods in which he was not actively killing anyone. BTK pre-selected his victims and would stalk them for weeks, even months, before striking. There is certainly very little evidence of that sort at play in the Whitechapel murders, with the possible exception of Mary Jane Kelly's death. I say this because of the victimology; four of the "McNaughton Five" victims were killed wandering the streets late at night. Rather than being obsessively stalked, this would point to a murderer who was operating more along the lines of a "crime of opportunity" killer... someone who would strike when he found the right target at the right time under the right circumstances... not someone who targeted specific individuals. Mary Jane Kelly is the possible exception because, being killed in her flat, it is possible that she was selected, because the killer obviously struck at a time when she was home, rather than being located wandering the streets of Whitechapel. Yet even she could have been a crime of opportunity because many accounts of her final hours appear to set the scene of MJK meeting someone on the street and, rather than servicing him in a dark alley, offers to take him home to "transact business." So, in at minimum four out of five cases, the victimology simply does not support the stalker-type killer you are suggesting.

3) Others have reacted to our use of the phrase "Ted Bundy type, smooth, handsome and intelligent." I reacted more to the phrase "cool cunning." Both instances are basically the same sort of red flag for me, because we're assuming qualities on Jack's part without having one single clue about who he actually was. This gets into the classic mistakes common to the field, that Ken Landwehr addresses in the quote I shared. We can't get caught up in the "story" of Jack, the "legend" of what we expect a serial killer to be, or we'll be vastly misled and end up on a wild goose chase. Without a positive ID on Jack, we can't say he was handsome and intelligent anymore than we can say he was ugly and stupid. We just don't know.

4) Now, I know you're perhaps reacting to point 3 and saying, well, one must be intelligent to get away with such crimes. Unfortunately, this is NOT the case. Again, I'll quote Ken Landwehr, who offers this note of caution... again, his frame of referene is catching Dennis Rader/BTK:

After talking to Rader for hours at a time, the detectives concluded BTK was more lucky and stupid than smart...

And though Rader made mistakes, he was careful never to leave fingerprints, to always wear gloves, and wipe down vehicles. Above all, he kept his mouth shut...

"What happened happened," (Ken Landwehr) said. "The fact is, we never would have caught him had he never resurfaced. He'd gotten away with it; he'd gotten away with murder... We had put together, with the help of the best FBI experts, all those lists with thousands of names of potential suspects and he wasn't on most of them. When you pick out a hunting area as he did, and never leave any evidence behind, there's a good chance you're going to get away with it... He left no witnesses, or the witnesses he left, all they could really tell us was that BTK was 'a white male.'"

Once the cops caught Rader and saw example after example of how stupid he was, it embarrassed them.

(Wenzel, Potter, Kelly and Laviana, ibid, pp. 325-328.)

Popular culture, from books to movies, love to instill the idea in us that serial killers are these high-IQ criminal masterminds, but once many of these folks are caught, it proves out not to be the case. Rader is not the only serial killer who proved to be a low-IQ killer, though; Ottis Toole, Henry Lee Lucas and even John Wayne Gacy have been judged to be of below-average intelligence. Same goes for Son of Sam David Berkowitz.

It's a romantic image, really... the whole SILENCE OF THE LAMBS concept of a cool, calm, collected and highly intelligent serial killer far more savvy than the idiot cops who imprison him, but although there are occasional exceptions like Ted Bundy--who at least comes within throwing distance of that image--most of these killers are not Hannibal Lecters. They're Ottis Toole types.

5) Please note, I did not advance a specific theory here; I am instead muddying up the waters with some evidence and insights, because there's way too much on this thread being said like things in the case are rock-solid certain. They're not. And only when we realize that they're not can we gain enough distance to see all the possibilities and have a better chance at analyzing the case correctly. When we approach it with our minds already set on certain things or elements that we expect to find in a certain way, we blind ourselves to potential suspects who, for all we know, might be "the right guy" after all is said and done.

6) You seem awfully insistent that "no evidence" was left at Jack's scenes; while I'm not asserting the exact opposite, I am arguing that no one can be THAT certain of that. Granted, he left nothing that could be detected using the relavant CSI tech of 1888; all I have suggested is, he left nothing obvious, sure, but who knows how much evidence he left behind that might have been of some utility, if they'd had the CSI technology of 2008? We know that fingerprinting was too new at the time to be trusted by Scotland Yard, and that bit alone might have been a big help; while no visible semen was found, if they'd had black lights and luminol, who knows... they might have found semen, blood, or some other identifying bodily fluid from the killer at the scene... but we'll never know for sure. In the same way, if they'd had DNA technology, they might have been able to separate the blood of the victims from any possible blood left by Jack at the scene, latched on to a DNA profile, and started swabbing everyone in Whitechapel to see if they could find a match.

And there's tons of other modern CSI tech we have today that Scotland Yard did not; it's never as solid as TV and movies portray it, and certainly a lot slower than entertainment would suggest, but we're talking about real-world crime solving, here. And even with ALL that at his disposal, Ken Landwehr and his BTK Task Force very nearly missed catching Dennis Rader.

So the point is, you don't need a criminal mastermind to pull off these sorts of crimes. All it takes, as Landwehr says, is a bit of luck and being careful not to leave behind obvious clues. Jack would have had an even easier time than BTK... especially if he never ran off at the mouth about being Jack the Ripper. These crimes are incredibly hard to solve to begin with, even in 2008. In 1888, that would be even more true.