Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time gap

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Time gap

    Hi,

    If there is a link between the murders / cases in the two time periods of 1888 and 1889, from Nichols to the Pinchin Street case, and that link is a serial killer and the same one too, why do we see an historical time gap from December to May, when no murders were performed?

    What could have been the reason(s) for this gap, if we hypothesize that a serial killer is active from August to November 1888 and from June to September 1889?

    Are there any known hypotheses about this issue? Is there, for example, such an hypothesis for Lechmere or any other person, which would be explanatory for the time gap that we are observing?

    Kind regards, Pierre

  • #2
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    Hi,

    If there is a link between the murders / cases in the two time periods of 1888 and 1889, from Nichols to the Pinchin Street case, and that link is a serial killer and the same one too, why do we see an historical time gap from December to May, when no murders were performed?

    What could have been the reason(s) for this gap, if we hypothesize that a serial killer is active from August to November 1888 and from June to September 1889?

    Are there any known hypotheses about this issue? Is there, for example, such an hypothesis for Lechmere or any other person, which would be explanatory for the time gap that we are observing?

    Kind regards, Pierre
    Same reason as the gap in Oct '88 perhaps.

    Not that I accept that it was one killer.
    G U T

    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by GUT View Post
      Same reason as the gap in Oct '88 perhaps.

      Not that I accept that it was one killer.
      Hi GUT.

      I think I read somewhere that there was a fair amount of fog in October 1888. Is that what you're alluding to?
      "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
        Hi GUT.

        I think I read somewhere that there was a fair amount of fog in October 1888. Is that what you're alluding to?
        Hah I've got no real idea why he stopped in October.

        Or more accurately I've got about a hundred ideas but no proof to support them.
        G U T

        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

        Comment


        • #5
          Why would it need an explanation? Serial killers often take a few months off here and there.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
            Why would it need an explanation? Serial killers often take a few months off here and there.
            Like all of us they need a break.

            Maybe he was on holidays, even went for a cruise.
            G U T

            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

            Comment


            • #7
              [QUOTE=Pierre;381584)

              Are there any known hypotheses about this issue? Is there, for example, such an hypothesis for Lechmere or any other person, which would be explanatory for the time gap that we are observing?

              Kind regards, Pierre[/QUOTE]

              Several possible hypothesis (what is the plural of hypothesis ???):
              * fear of being caught due to much greater police presence after the double murders. This may explain why Kelly was indoors
              * JTR was not in London for the gap. Alternatively, JTR did not live in London but was visiting Lindon during months of the killings
              * he had people staying with him
              * he no longer had a motive (after Kelly) eg if his purpose was to humiliate Warren

              Craig

              Comment


              • #8
                I definitely think that the October gap may well have been because of fog, extra police presence and patrols organised by groups like the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. Of course, he also may have been ill, out of London, relatives getting suspicious etc. I don't think we're ever likely to know, but by the end of November his compulsion to kill again was definitely in motion once more.

                Comment


                • #9
                  We can suggest various possible hypotheses for the suggested gap between 1888 and 1889.
                  Of course this assumes that Mackenzie was a victim of the killer, which there is some support for, and that the Torso's were also the work of the same hand, this while discussed much, is not proven or accepted by many at present as fact.

                  Possible reasons:



                  1. The need to kill passed, and then returned.

                  This could apply if the killer was driven by strong inner urges. Such behaviour has been observed in other serial killers of the last 128 years.


                  2. The killer maintained a low profile after November.

                  This could apply if he had almost be caught, he may have believed he had been seen. The same idea could be applied for the gap in Oct 1888.


                  3. The killer left London and returned

                  This would suggest a degree of calculation and organisation, and appears to be the preferred hypothesis for Pierre.


                  4. The killer was incapacitated.

                  The killer may have had an accident or got ill, such has been suggested for the Oct 1888 gap.


                  5. The killer was temporarily detained either in a prison or a mental institution.

                  This could tie in with the statements of Cox and Sagar, who suggested the suspect they followed was placed in a private asylum, voluntary admissions were often of limited duration. however there is no evidence to support this at present.

                  Any of the above are possible. Some may suite the theories of some more than others, however one would also need to show a link to the cases in 1889.

                  regards

                  Steve

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
                    Why would it need an explanation? Serial killers often take a few months off here and there.
                    that is a very fair point

                    Steve

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The double event would surely have been enough to spook any killer who valued his continued freedom and control as much as he valued life itself.

                      Waking up to reality the day after he killed Eddowes, he may have realised what close calls he'd had in Dutfield's Yard and Mitre Square, leading to a longer cooling off period than if he'd only carried out one attack, in less perilous circumstances.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                        We can suggest various possible hypotheses for the suggested gap between 1888 and 1889.
                        Of course this assumes that Mackenzie was a victim of the killer, which there is some support for, and that the Torso's were also the work of the same hand, this while discussed much, is not proven or accepted by many at present as fact.

                        Possible reasons:



                        1. The need to kill passed, and then returned.

                        This could apply if the killer was driven by strong inner urges. Such behaviour has been observed in other serial killers of the last 128 years.


                        2. The killer maintained a low profile after November.

                        This could apply if he had almost be caught, he may have believed he had been seen. The same idea could be applied for the gap in Oct 1888.


                        3. The killer left London and returned

                        This would suggest a degree of calculation and organisation, and appears to be the preferred hypothesis for Pierre.


                        4. The killer was incapacitated.

                        The killer may have had an accident or got ill, such has been suggested for the Oct 1888 gap.


                        5. The killer was temporarily detained either in a prison or a mental institution.

                        This could tie in with the statements of Cox and Sagar, who suggested the suspect they followed was placed in a private asylum, voluntary admissions were often of limited duration. however there is no evidence to support this at present.

                        Any of the above are possible. Some may suite the theories of some more than others, however one would also need to show a link to the cases in 1889.

                        regards

                        Steve
                        I'd go for number five, except that he could have escaped from a private asylum. There were few restrictions on opening one except that a doctor had to be in attendance.

                        Best wishes
                        C4

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by caz View Post
                          The double event would surely have been enough to spook any killer who valued his continued freedom and control as much as he valued life itself.

                          Waking up to reality the day after he killed Eddowes, he may have realised what close calls he'd had in Dutfield's Yard and Mitre Square, leading to a longer cooling off period than if he'd only carried out one attack, in less perilous circumstances.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          Hi Caz

                          that makes perfect sense to me.

                          regards

                          Steve

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by caz View Post
                            The double event would surely have been enough to spook any killer who valued his continued freedom and control as much as he valued life itself.

                            Waking up to reality the day after he killed Eddowes, he may have realised what close calls he'd had in Dutfield's Yard and Mitre Square, leading to a longer cooling off period than if he'd only carried out one attack, in less perilous circumstances.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X

                            When it comes to oct88, i agree. It,s easy to read the double event as a part of the history after the fact, but you are right, caz. It,s impact was far reaching in how L8nd8n responded. Proof could be the fact that it,s the last street murder on record for ,jack the ripper,.

                            Why he didn,t resume again after the city regained some normalcy is more difficult to nail down.
                            there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                              When it comes to oct88, i agree. It,s easy to read the double event as a part of the history after the fact, but you are right, caz. It,s impact was far reaching in how L8nd8n responded. Proof could be the fact that it,s the last street murder on record for ,jack the ripper,.

                              Why he didn,t resume again after the city regained some normalcy is more difficult to nail down.
                              Robert

                              of course that is not a problem if he did not kill again after Kelly, while I see some similarities with Mackenzie, i have to say i am not at all convinced of the case for the torso killings.

                              Steve

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X