Why do you think Jack stopped?

[Steven_Rex]

Since this seems to be touched on in quite a few threads, I thought it might be worth starting one of its own (I can't find a dedicated one). Basically, I would be interested in hearing everyone's opinions on why the murders stopped (if, indeed, you believe that they did). I'll outline the major reasons that are usually posited, along with my own thoughts on their pros and cons, and would welcome all or any discussion on alternatives and opinions.

1. Suicide. I often see this suggested (primarily with regard to police suspect Montague Druitt killing himself shortly after the crimes). Personally, I find it most unlikely: the killer seemed happy enough to let his crimes escalate, which would suggest a lack of remorse. I'm also unfamiliar with any known cases of serial killers who have committed suicide BEFORE getting caught or suspected, but I'm happy to be corrected on this point. To play Devil's advocate, however, it is possible that a killer in 1888 might have been more likely to have been conflicted over his actions than one operating today; religion and church played, I would imagine, a more significant role in people's lives then, and the general lack of knowledge about psycopathy may well have led to the Ripper loathing himself because he didn't understand himself.

2. Death by some other means. Mortality was, of course, much higher in 1888 than today, and it is possible that the Ripper simply died of one of the many illnesses which would have been endemic in lower class Whitechapel. However, I do find it somewhat stretches credulity to believe that Jack conveniently dropped dead soon after committing his 'climactic' crime.

3. Conviction for some other crime. Possible, of course, but I tend to think that a canny operator like Jack would have been unlikely to have been caught for something else. Further, it would presumably have to have been something serious, as a minor offence would only have incapacitated him for a short time (after which we might reasonably expect him to have resumed ripping), whilst only a serious crime (another murder) would have sent him to the gallows. The problem there is that a controlled killer like the Ripper would, in my opinion, have been unlikely to have committed a murder in a slapdash and 'unfamiliar' manner which might have led to his arrest.

4. Moving away from the area. This seems fairly popular and plausible a theory. People, for example, suggest a trip to America might have been possible, with the Carrie Brown murder cited as evidence that the Ripper continued his work on the other side of the Atlantic. However, I think that we can also question why there was never another 'series' of murders matching the Ripper killings in another fixed location. Was he perhaps simply afraid to start up again in an unfamiliar setting?

5. He simply stopped. It is not unknown for serial killers to stop either for good or for varying lengths of time. As Mary Kelly was such an 'extreme' kill, it might be argued that the Ripper felt gratified enough to stop killing, having achieved his ultimate thrill. My problem with the notion of a break or a full stop, however, is the fact that the canonical victims were all killed within such a short time frame. I just find it hard to accept that the Ripper murders sprung up in August 1888 (and with such a level of savagery) only for the killer to have tired and/or achieved his ultimate goal within a few short months. Were they more spread out (over years rather than months) I could understand their 'drying up', but Jack seemed to take to his task with alacrity, and it's therefore hard to envision him considering his work 'complete' only months after beginning.

6. He didn't stop, but changed MO. This, I think, is quite possible (within reason). If one accepts that Jack MIGHT have exhausted the 'ripping' method during the Kelly murder, I find it entirely possible that he sought some other means of satisfaction. If he didn't stop altogether in 1888 (for whatever reason) then I believe he could well have changed his method, and moved onto something akin to the Elizabeth Jackson murder. However, I'm afraid that I can't quite see him moving on to poison or another such variant method - his pleasure seems to derive from mutilation, and I would tentatively suggest that any future crimes with Jackson-type mutilations should be examined if one believes that he didn't actually stop killing in 1888.

Anyway, I look forward to all and every personal opinion or theory about when/why/how/if Jack stopped killing after Mary Kelly!

[sdreid]

Hi Steven:

There was a thread, maybe on the old precrash boards, where we had a list of, I think, more than a dozen possible reasons.

My own contribution was - Self castration probably due to some sort of religious mania, that is, he thought that was the only way he could control his compulsions. It was what the murderer Clarence V. H. Richeson did to himself so that does happen.

I'm saying that was it; just adding it as a possibility.

[merlyn555]

Why Did He Stop?

The school of thought used to be that a true serial killer can not stop, that the inner need and desire is too overpowering and consuming to allow him to just quit.

The problem with this theory is that it does not take into account the basic rule that seperates serial killers for other killers. Research proves that the serial killer "acts from a conscious perspective" (Holmes & De Burger, 1988, p.98). in layman’s terms, he decides to kill.

If one decides to kill then they are expressing "free will". If they can decide to kill they can decide to stop (this applies only to the actual killing for the rest of the cycle will continue unabaited). When a serial killer that has already killed decides to stop killing he stops only the actual phsyical act of murder all the other things, the stalking, the prowling the playing out of scenarios in his mind continue. This is clearly evident in the case of BTK who had periods of years when there was no killing but he did not stop the fantasy play or the planning and stalking of victims. When captured he admitted that he had his next victim all picked out he just had not decided when he was going to do it.

So now there are three reasons a serial killer stops;

1. He is captured
2. He dies either by his own hand or natural causes
3. He decides to stop killing

Chris

[The Grave Maurice]

I've always assumed that JtR, most probably, died from natural causes. Interesting to see the other possibilities laid out so clearly, though.

[Errata]

I think he got mugged while prowling for another victim and ended up with his throat cut in an alley and stripped of everything but his socks.

Because I am a fan of irony.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
It all depends on his motive for the murders, if it was simply a case of perverted sexual gratification, then I personally cannot see him stopping of his own accord, if his sexual arousement depended upon this act.
If however he had another motive[ not involving the sexual act] such as revenge, or a hatred of women in general, based on his previous encounters, possibly induced by veneral desease, or even a fear of the fair sex, mayby he had been scorned by his lack of manhood etc..then he could have ceased activities once he felt his revenge was complete.
We have a possibility also that he refrained from killing after Eddowes, because of the time difference leading up to Kelly in Millers court, if one takes the line that she was a copycat /overkill attempt.
I feel that it is a great posibility that Mjk was despatched by someone who had been scorned by her, either sexually, or she had left a intimate relationship with, even possibly run off with some personal belongings.
We have several suspects there...which include Barnett, Fleming, a unknown Joe. the mysterious Lawrence, and if Fiona Kendal lane, is correct, even possibly a ex client who allegedly appeared at Millers court to redeem a stolen watch?
Why Jack ceased is open to some intresting debate, and I would harbour a guess that revenge was the motive, but its hard to place that theory with all the victims if they were the result of one killer.
Regards Richard.

[JtRMordke]

This has been something tugging at me for a while too so thank you for making a thread for this!

I have another possibility...

Being of the opinion that Jack could have had some sort of mental disorder, such as schizophrenia perhaps combined with being of psychopathic nature, there is a high possibility that despite the mania inside giving him a burning desire to kill more, it was the schizophrenia that burnt him out, thus reducing him to a wreck that was incapable of committing the murders and a shadow of his former self. Not so common now, since we have drugs to treat it, but if you went back say twenty years and visited a home for sufferers, it would be a very different place. Maybe Jack received an early burn out after the MJK murder as the fulfilment of his fantasies drove him to the limits of his illness and he was incarcerated to an asylum?

[sdreid]

My own contribution was - Self castration probably due to some sort of religious mania, that is, he thought that was the only way he could control his compulsions. It was what the murderer Clarence V. H. Richeson did to himself so that does happen.

I'm saying that was it; just adding it as a possibility.

That last sentence was supposed to say - I'm not saying .....

I just noticed that.

[merlyn555]

[QUOTE=richardnunweek;173935]Hi.
It all depends on his motive for the murders,

This all depends on whether JtR was a serial killer or not!

If Jack was just a sociopathic or psychotic killer then yes the motive is important. If you decide that Jack is neither of these or fits into the serial killer folder then motive does not count.

There was a list made up by Radford University that claims to be a collection of common characteristics that are shared by most of the serial killers in the United States. After years of working with these people I disagree that a list can be made that is so specific. I am not an expert in any of the fields I have been talking about or even have any degrees to my name, in fact I barely graduated high school, but personal experiences and observations over a thirty year period count for something.

The only true commonalities that all serial killers share are these;
1. The inability to love or understand the concept of love.
2. The inability to feel and express emotions in a normal manner.
3. A complete lack of conscience and guilt.
4. There is no external motivation to kill.

For a serial killer there is no basic motivation behind their crimes they simply fill a need, a yearning, it is an emotional fulfillment for the killer.

Chris

[TomTomKent]

Addressing the issue of "changing M.O." I think we need to note two things:
1) The methodology is evolving through the known canonical killings, if we see them as a continuing series.
2) It was probably not an obtuse change, for example from Ripping to lacing gin with arsnic or something, but a development along a trend.
3) This leaves the frightening possibility that he simply learned to hide the bodies.

Myself, I lean towards the idea that his madness may have led to his ability to act in public diminishing over time as his anti social tendancies became more apparent. It is a trend that is apparent in a number of suspects, though I tend to think of Jack more as a nameless person we will never recognise. He probably ended his days in a mental hospital being ignored when he shouted that he was Jack the Ripper.

[Phil H]

I would suggest looking at why he might have stopped AFTER Eddowes and excluding Stride.

I don't say rule out all other options, but simply open a new perspective.

Would that bring Timothy Donovan back into the frame - he died didn't he before MJK was murdered?

Also look again at the "later" murders, especially the Castle Alley killing. Did he cease then re-emerge?

Phil

[Errata]

I would suggest looking at why he might have stopped AFTER Eddowes and excluding Stride.

Phil

I have long been of the opinion that Eddowes is the key, and Kelly was killed by someone else.


Given the nature of the facial mutilations not present in the previous killings, is it possible that Jack got "scared straight" after Eddowes? That she bore an uncanny resemblance to someone who Jack did not want to kill, or watch him kill, and the mutilations were meant to wipe out that resemblance? That the experience weirded him out so badly that he stopped? Or caused him to resolve his demons? Or drove him to suicide or madness?? I play with that scenario a lot.

[DVV]

Hi gentlemen

Mary has long been proven a ripper victim. This isn't an opinion.

[Hatchett]

Hi DVV,

How was that actually proven?

Best wishes.

[DVV]

Hi Hatchett

if you remember the thread "Definitely canonical" some two years ago I think (among MJK threads). It was about forensic evidences.

Cheers