Escalation: What would Jack do after Mary Kelly?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I find myself at a loss as to how Kelly is rated so highly. He has one kill to his name, but then disappears for decades and finally surrenders himself to an asylum. Can he be shown to have been in Whitechapel at the relevant time? How does he address the theory that serial killers don't just stop. Where are the protests that are seen for the "gap" between Kelly and McKenzie. I'm not trying to be perverse. I just don't understand the popularity of Kelly.

Cheers, George

hi george
hes a murderer, of woman by knife, he was crafty and street smart as tje ripper surely was, he fits the general description, he was a police person of interest, he was local and in the area, and the murders commence with his escape from prison.

amd we know from serial killer history they do sometimes just stop.. rader, gsk, kemper and even turn themselves in.. kemper.

kelly was crazy all right, like a fox. hes just the type i think the ripper would be.

[Lewis C]

Hi Abby,

I find myself at a loss as to how Kelly is rated so highly. He has one kill to his name, but then disappears for decades and finally surrenders himself to an asylum. Can he be shown to have been in Whitechapel at the relevant time? How does he address the theory that serial killers don't just stop. Where are the protests that are seen for the "gap" between Kelly and McKenzie. I'm not trying to be perverse. I just don't understand the popularity of Kelly.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Some have theorized that Kelly didn't stop, that he may have committed some murders in the US after the Whitechapel murders. That's unproven, but can we really say for sure that that if he was the Ripper, he stopped after the Whitechapel murders?

I don't know what your point is on the gap between Kelly and McKenzie. McKenzie may or not have been a Ripper victim, and if she was a Ripper victim, the question of why there was a gap between her and MJK is there regardless of whom the Ripper was, unless we happen to know for a specific suspect something that would have stopped him during that period. IIRC, Kelly is thought to have left England before the McKenzie murder. If so, he couldn't have been the Ripper if McKenzie was a Ripper victim, but that's also true of Bury, Cohen, Druitt, Hyams, and Tumblety.

[Indian Harry]

I have to admit that even though I've read and seen crime scene photos of the victims of mentioned murderers, I've never actually seen anything as disturbing as Mary Jane Kelly case. In her murder mutilation is so horrific, destructive and disgusting that it's really hard to believe that the killer was not mentally ill in some capacity. Her body was almost completely destroyed with fury, lust and morbid curiousity that's unmatched

I totally agree. I've been reading True Crime since I was 12 years old and I had always thought the name Jack the Ripper was quaint and must certainly be an overstatement of some sort....then when I was 27 I started looking into the case and found the Mary Kelly photo. I was absolutely floored. The very thought that someone back in 1888 without any exposure to modern horror movies or media related to 20th century killers could independently, from their own twisted mind, carry out such an atrocious act disturbed me to my core. I had trouble sleeping that night. It was the last time I had that child like fear of the dark that kids get, for instance, after watching a scary movie.

[I1ariusz]

I totally agree. I've been reading True Crime since I was 12 years old and I had always thought the name Jack the Ripper was quaint and must certainly be an overstatement of some sort....then when I was 27 I started looking into the case and found the Mary Kelly photo. I was absolutely floored. The very thought that someone back in 1888 without any exposure to modern horror movies or media related to 20th century killers could independently, from their own twisted mind, carry out such an atrocious act disturbed me to my core. I had trouble sleeping that night. It was the last time I had that child like fear of the dark that kids get, for instance, after watching a scary movie.

Yes, it was like he was really trying to earn his "Jack the Ripper" title and you can't help to think that John McCarthy was right when he said: it was more work of a devil than that of a man.

[Indian Harry]

It was apparent to the police at the time that Bury was not the ripper, and the local press described him as "a tired, inconsequential, weak little man" and "Brainless and heartless"

Cheers, George

If anything, this demonstrates that the police and press of 1888 wouldn't be able to crack the case on people like Gary Ridgeway and Reginald Christie. Both were small unassuming men.

[DJA]

if anything, this demonstrates that the police and press of 1888 wouldn't be able to crack the case on people like gary ridgeway,henry sutton and reginald christie. Both were small unassuming men.

fify

[John Wheat]

If anything, this demonstrates that the police and press of 1888 wouldn't be able to crack the case on people like Gary Ridgeway and Reginald Christie. Both were small unassuming men.

Hi Indian Harry

Definitely.

Cheers John

[Tani]

I think many of the answers here are good, but I would like to touch on a few things that may have been missed.

Firstly, with reference to the idea of 'do serial killers stop/escalate' etc. I think we have to look at the macro aspect of this question and focus less on the idea of stopping/escalating and more on the idea of such a killer. Jack the Ripper would not have had a concept of 'serial killing' and ideas like those mentioned here, though they may have occurred to him, would not be in the same context. Jack would have no compare. His closest analogy, as mentioned here, would be soldiers, highwaymen, 'werewolves/vampires' (Mediaeval serial killers) and other ghouls. We have some witness evidence for Jack being a sailor or other naval man, which is likely the closest we can go. By and large though, Jack is unlikely to have seen himself as killing in any kind of order, with any meaning attached, especially in the circumstances; he would not have had the luxury of choosing time and place. His killing field was a very small area, populated by lower classes of people who started work early and finished late. JtR had not the degree of control as a Nilsen or a Bundy.

Secondly, he would not have had a concept of mental illness, PTSD, etc. that we have, so even were he mentally ill in any capacity, that would usually have been attributed either to syphilis or some kind of inferior constitution. Even were he mentally ill, had we been able to ask Jack, he himself is unlikely to have given this as an explanation. He also has no concept of psychopathy, and the times he lives in were not expecting the amount of empathy we are expected to show today. 'Escalating' after MJK might have looked different to someone in his culture, which has far stronger religious values, so simply desecrating a body in any fashion may have done for what he wanted it to do. We also don't know what Jack considered meaningful. He took organs such as a kidney, a womb, possibly a heart, but only one of these is exclusive to women, and another one considered most sacred (heart). Personally I believe Jack took what he came across first, while with MJK he had more choice.

We're very much in the dark, perhaps more than we realise, for example:

- Did Ripper take victims to his own home? if not, why not?

- Did Ripper want to display bodies in the street or hadn't he much choice? (The idea the bodies are posed is, imo, a misunderstanding; I think he opened the legs to kneel between them and/or grab organs easier [from the pubis area up]).

- Did Ripper discriminate re victims?

-Etc.

We see many killers now taking their victims home, and we can't ascertain whether Ripper did so. If he has a family he can't, nor if he lives in a doss house. But he could have had any number of hideaways useful to him.

We need to look at this from his 19th c. pov rather than our post Golden Age of Killers, FBI pov. Ideas like escalation, stopping etc. would not have occurred to Ripper in the same way if at all, imo. We're talking about someone who was likely born in the 1860s and most of the murderers we use for comparison happened almost 100 years later; I think it's pointless to compare these culturally, psychologically and religiously.

[Duran duren]

Well said Tani

[Indian Harry]

He also has no concept of psychopathy, and the times he lives in were not expecting the amount of empathy we are expected to show today. 'Escalating' after MJK might have looked different to someone in his culture, which has far stronger religious values, so simply desecrating a body in any fashion may have done for what he wanted it to do.

Excellent post Tani. I have to rebut one point though. Just because Jack the Ripper didn't have a concept of psychopathy wouldn't 'inoculate' him from the condition. I think drawing on modern developments in psychology to understand the Ripper is fair game... but I concede that we do have to make some allowances and accommodations for the time period he lived in.

In terms of escalation, some people think the Ripper totally lost his mind and stopped due to some kind of profound life altering breakdown.

I think a lessor version of this may have occurred. Instead of a total breakdown maybe he freaked himself out a bit and resolved not to ever take things quite so far.

But yeah, it's still baffling that we don't see Catherine Eddowes levels of mutilations in the months that follow.

[I1ariusz]

- Did Ripper want to display bodies in the street or hadn't he much choice? (The idea the bodies are posed is, imo, a misunderstanding; I think he opened the legs to kneel between them and/or grab organs easier [from the pubis area up]).

Hi Tani,

actually this can be explained. It may be like you're saying. But often times you're gonna see that serial killers are posing their victims, even unconciously. It often goes in hand with other ritualistic behaviours like we can see with Annie Chapman and her personal items ordered at the scene of the crime. Also they will do something to the body and it's gonna say something: e.g. covering or cutting up of the face can mean depersonalization (he doesn't want to see his victim as a person), at the same time - covering of entire body with leaves, blanket, or hiding it in some way can point to (if we can put it that way) somekind of remorse. In case of the Ripper it's more in a sense - after the mutilation he didn't do anything to cover his victims 'shame', he didn't do anything to hide what he had done, which would mean at least that he was thinking of them as a 'trash'. We could say it was because of time, but in case of MJK it's not gonna be this. But I would agree that he wasn't doing anything conciously.

Best,
M

[GBinOz]

- Did Ripper want to display bodies in the street or hadn't he much choice? (The idea the bodies are posed is, imo, a misunderstanding; I think he opened the legs to kneel between them and/or grab organs easier [from the pubis area up]).

Hi Tani,

Interesting post, but in the above statement you are at odds with the medical opinion that Jack knelt on the victims right side to inflict his injuries.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

I think many of the answers here are good, but I would like to touch on a few things that may have been missed.

Firstly, with reference to the idea of 'do serial killers stop/escalate' etc. I think we have to look at the macro aspect of this question and focus less on the idea of stopping/escalating and more on the idea of such a killer. Jack the Ripper would not have had a concept of 'serial killing' and ideas like those mentioned here, though they may have occurred to him, would not be in the same context. Jack would have no compare. His closest analogy, as mentioned here, would be soldiers, highwaymen, 'werewolves/vampires' (Mediaeval serial killers) and other ghouls. We have some witness evidence for Jack being a sailor or other naval man, which is likely the closest we can go. By and large though, Jack is unlikely to have seen himself as killing in any kind of order, with any meaning attached, especially in the circumstances; he would not have had the luxury of choosing time and place. His killing field was a very small area, populated by lower classes of people who started work early and finished late. JtR had not the degree of control as a Nilsen or a Bundy.

Secondly, he would not have had a concept of mental illness, PTSD, etc. that we have, so even were he mentally ill in any capacity, that would usually have been attributed either to syphilis or some kind of inferior constitution. Even were he mentally ill, had we been able to ask Jack, he himself is unlikely to have given this as an explanation. He also has no concept of psychopathy, and the times he lives in were not expecting the amount of empathy we are expected to show today. 'Escalating' after MJK might have looked different to someone in his culture, which has far stronger religious values, so simply desecrating a body in any fashion may have done for what he wanted it to do. We also don't know what Jack considered meaningful. He took organs such as a kidney, a womb, possibly a heart, but only one of these is exclusive to women, and another one considered most sacred (heart). Personally I believe Jack took what he came across first, while with MJK he had more choice.

We're very much in the dark, perhaps more than we realise, for example:

- Did Ripper take victims to his own home? if not, why not?

- Did Ripper want to display bodies in the street or hadn't he much choice? (The idea the bodies are posed is, imo, a misunderstanding; I think he opened the legs to kneel between them and/or grab organs easier [from the pubis area up]).

- Did Ripper discriminate re victims?

-Etc.

We see many killers now taking their victims home, and we can't ascertain whether Ripper did so. If he has a family he can't, nor if he lives in a doss house. But he could have had any number of hideaways useful to him.

We need to look at this from his 19th c. pov rather than our post Golden Age of Killers, FBI pov. Ideas like escalation, stopping etc. would not have occurred to Ripper in the same way if at all, imo. We're talking about someone who was likely born in the 1860s and most of the murderers we use for comparison happened almost 100 years later; I think it's pointless to compare these culturally, psychologically and religiously.

not sure i understand your point. one dosnt have to know about escalation or mental illness to exhibit them. they happen, even if they havent been named,understood or scientifically researched yet.for example, the ripper and society didnt understand and hadnt named signature, but he definitely had one.

he also most definitely displayed his victims. many killers will sometimes make a small attempt to hide or cover up their victims. the ripper left them in tje most exposed and gruesome position possible given tje circs.undoubtedly he was also motivated by shocking tje public, police, press with his displays.

and no, he didnt take what organs he came across first, tjeres no way you come across a kidney first when dissecting a body.its hard to find and get to. especially in the dark and under time pressure. or take two uteri by chance. or purposefully cut around the naval when gashing the midsection. he very probably had a bit of medical and or anatomy experience.and there is no evidence he took his victims home...all evidence is he left them where he killed them.

[GBinOz]

he also most definitely displayed his victims. many killers will sometimes make a small attempt to hide or cover up their victims. the ripper left them in tje most exposed and gruesome position possible given tje circs.undoubtedly he was also motivated by shocking tje public, police, press with his displays.

and no, he didnt take what organs he came across first, tjeres no way you come across a kidney first when dissecting a body.its hard to find and get to. especially in the dark and under time pressure. or take two uteri by chance. or purposefully cut around the naval when gashing the midsection. he very probably had a bit of medical and or anatomy experience.and there is no evidence he took his victims home...all evidence is he left them where he killed them.

Hi Abby,

Absolutely agree with the first paragraph above.

With regard to the second paragraph, I believe he had far more than a bit of medical and or anatomy experience. Reading the comments of Prosector, the medical experts in Trevor's video, and listening to the medical professional in my family, I think that he either had a lot of experience in dissecting rooms, OR, the highly skilled organ extractions were performed afterwards on a dissecting bench with adequate light and available time. JMO.

Cheers, George

[Tani]

Hi Tani,

Interesting post, but in the above statement you are at odds with the medical opinion that Jack knelt on the victims right side to inflict his injuries.

Cheers, George

That's also what I was getting at. I didn't phrase it so well.