Why do you think Jack stopped?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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!