Escalation: What would Jack do after Mary Kelly?

[MrTwibbs]

I'd imagine that serial killers.....and some of the stuff they do is absolutely unfathomable to the more reasonable among us....do not have a mental breakdown and do not kill themselves. I would discount these.

Leaving the following options.....

He was incarcerated for a different crime......

He moved abroad.....

He died.....

He was caught but for whatever reason it wasn't made public.....

The killings were politically motivated and the objective had been achieved.

I don't think it's an option to suggest he would have stopped killing.....my understanding is that serial killers need their fix and don't stop.

In my view.....he wasn't a career criminal.....nor involved in any political group.....butchering women was his thing.....and it would have been very difficult to keep his capture out of the public domain.

I'd go for he moved abroad.

Serial killers adapt to their personal circumstances and its possible due to old age, ill health he or she may have been forced to curb their "excesses"
Alternatively it is also possible if this person was suffering from some sort of brain disease, i.e.syphilis that his/her MO changed. A bit like how hand writing changes over time or if a person has suffered some illness.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Is it reasonable to assume that there is a definite escalation of violence and ferocity with each of the canonical victims, excluding Liz Stride (but interruption could have been the reason for this being an anomoly)?

If so, what do we think Jack could possibly have done after killing Mary Kelly? I can't see how he could possibly have done anything worse than that, and can't think of any murders since that could be comparable in atrociousness (though I don't doubt there could have been).

I can't see how any human mind could possibly remain intact after witnessing let alone carrying out such an atrocity, leaving me to believe the perpetrator must have either had a complete mental breakdown, or took his own life.

Anyone agree/disagree? Is it possible for someone to fade back into 'normal' life after committing such a crime? Any knowledge shared would be most appreciated.

I'd imagine that serial killers.....and some of the stuff they do is absolutely unfathomable to the more reasonable among us....do not have a mental breakdown and do not kill themselves. I would discount these.

Leaving the following options.....

He was incarcerated for a different crime......

He moved abroad.....

He died.....

He was caught but for whatever reason it wasn't made public.....

The killings were politically motivated and the objective had been achieved.

I don't think it's an option to suggest he would have stopped killing.....my understanding is that serial killers need their fix and don't stop.

In my view.....he wasn't a career criminal.....nor involved in any political group.....butchering women was his thing.....and it would have been very difficult to keep his capture out of the public domain.

I'd go for he moved abroad.

[MrTwibbs]

It's hard to believe the urge to kill would have faded though and that his appetite would be completely sated by the murders. If he did never kill again, but continued living a 'normal' life, would the fact that he had committed these atrocities and gotten away with it be satisfaction enough for him? It's tempting to come back to the theory that MJK was the ultimate target/prize/trophy, and that once she was dead there was no longer any need to go on. Hutchinson still seems a likely candidate to me.

were all the faces of the known 5 victims cut or mutilated in anyway?
if they were then it is very possibly JTR knew each of them as the cutting of the face indicates some connection or relationship with them.
Or at least thats what experts say

[MrTwibbs]

Yes I was just thinking that about Rader and him being able to stop for a few years. Serial killers you have to understand are able to compartmentalise those aspects of their life. Imagine two brains, one slightly independent from the other. The "darker" part only surfacing when certain conditions are met able to come out at when needed, but most of the time during normal life the person is far detatched from being a brutal murdererer. This is the "day and night" archetypal serial killer and not disimilar to Jekyll and Hyde.

As mentioned by someone it could be all down to MO and that the Ripper was able to brutalise and mutilate Kelly so badly due to this. Whereas previous murders not so and any murders after Kelly may have gone the same way. perhaps he or she was being more careful as well and realising he had to be quick in fear of discovery. this is how a serial killer adapts to their own circumstances and they evolve so to speak.

All of these are likely I think but then again he may well have shown mental instability even during his more coherent behaviour and only got to vent it fully after hours

I'm new to the forum so please go easy on me.

[Abby Normal]

Is it reasonable to assume that there is a definite escalation of violence and ferocity with each of the canonical victims, excluding Liz Stride (but interruption could have been the reason for this being an anomoly)?

If so, what do we think Jack could possibly have done after killing Mary Kelly? I can't see how he could possibly have done anything worse than that, and can't think of any murders since that could be comparable in atrociousness (though I don't doubt there could have been).

I can't see how any human mind could possibly remain intact after witnessing let alone carrying out such an atrocity, leaving me to believe the perpetrator must have either had a complete mental breakdown, or took his own life.

Anyone agree/disagree? Is it possible for someone to fade back into 'normal' life after committing such a crime? Any knowledge shared would be most appreciated.

Dennis Rader-BTK, Murdered an entire family as his first known murder and then continued with more murders with less "atrocity". he also quit without being caught but after many years re-engaged with police(which eventually lead to his capture) because a book was being written about BTK.

He was found to be a "normal" man with wife and kids and a leader of his church.

[Barnaby]

Even if we grant for the sake of argument that Jack was escalating in violence, I don't see how one can conclude that the Mary Kelly murder marks the absolute peak in savagery. Nor do I think that this act would lead to some mental breakdown for Jack. It is only horrific from most people's (our) perspective. For someone capable of inflicting this amount of damage on another human being, obviously there are many other things that he could have done. While there is no need to list possibilities, they are there. I suspect that Jack - had he not stopped for whatever reason - might have continued to experiment with victim staging for max shock value.

[Scorpio]

I dont believe leaving the area was a likely option for JTR. He was, i believe, socially,emotionally and quite probably economically limited to this small area of East London, just as unsophisticated, petty urban criminals are bound to urban neighbourhoods to this day.

[The Snapper]

DNA has been used more than once to pluck a perpetrator from anonymity. His ability to to present a normal front to the world may well have been a lifetime habit.

[Hamrammr]

It's hard to believe the urge to kill would have faded though and that his appetite would be completely sated by the murders. If he did never kill again, but continued living a 'normal' life, would the fact that he had committed these atrocities and gotten away with it be satisfaction enough for him? It's tempting to come back to the theory that MJK was the ultimate target/prize/trophy, and that once she was dead there was no longer any need to go on. Hutchinson still seems a likely candidate to me.

[The Snapper]

I think my take on this is that he simply got better at it. As for the idea that he simply stopped and faded into normal life I think he could certainly have given that appearance. To appear normal after deeds such as his would take a particular mindset but not a unique one.

[Lord-z]

Yes -I agree that the fact that there was an escalation in the mutilations, was due to the fact that Jack had more time and pivacy, rather than an escalation in his need to mutilate.

I dunno, Eddowes was cut up pretty bad, compared to Nichols and Chapman, and Jack only had a few minutes with her. Of course, it could be because he was feeling more sure of himself, at this point.

[Hamrammr]

Many thanks! All very intelligent and convincing replies. I hadn't considered the war crimes angle before. It's true a lot of sick people must have gotten away with truly appalling things during war and returned to society.

Is there any record of animal abuse cases at that time or before the murders? I'm guessing probably not.

[Rubyretro]

Yes -I agree that the fact that there was an escalation in the mutilations,
was due to the fact that Jack had more time and pivacy, rather than an escalation in his need to mutilate.

Anyone that knows me on Casebook will know that I have a favourite suspect and theory -Hutchinson and the fact that he was an ex-groom. After discussing with Garry Wroe, I accept totally that there is no proof that Hutchinson ever was a groom, I will put a lot more 'ifs' into my thinking
(Hutchinson is still my favourite suspect, 'ifs' aside).

Talking to an ex french legionnaire about war crimes and what makes a killer, I told him about my fears for my teenage son playing violent video games.
He contende that the violent killers had invariably started by horribly killing animals before graduating to humans. I think that it is very likely that Jack had already done a 'Kelly type crime' on animals before killing Polly.

[Uncle Jack]

Though esculation in the violence is a great belief amongst researchers, I do not think personally that we have esculation here. It is simply a case of time and oppurtunity. He could very well have inflicted facial mutilation to Chapman like he did Eddowes but was interupted. There is every chance that he would have done the same damage to Nichols as he did to Chapman. The only reason, in my opinion, that the violence to Kelly was because he had the time, the place and the oppurtunity, not an esculation.

[kensei]

Alice McKenzie, 1889. Frances Coles, 1891. Both possible Jack the Ripper murders after Mary Kelly, though less gruesome than hers'. Perhaps he forced himself to stop after Kelly, sated for a time by the extreme brutality, but over time the urge creeped back in and he did a couple more, basically starting over, until he finally died or was arrested for something else or whatever.