Why do you think Jack stopped?

[Barnaby]

Life in the East End was nasty, brutish, and short. So I find it quite plausible that JTR could have met his demise shortly after the Kelly murder in any number of ways. Instead of a random act of violence or illness, however, I like to think that he was purposefully "whacked" by crime elements within the city; that is, street justice prevailed.

[Rubyretro]

Maybe he lost his knife ?

[niko]

Why he stopped.

Hi everyone, I think he stopped because -

(1) Mission accomplished.

(2) He or they, thought the police were on them.

(3) Incarceration.


The Pinchin Street torso, to me has all the signiture of Jack the Ripper, this mutilation was commited a year after MJK',s mutilation, so did he or they really stop!! All the best, Agur.

niko

[Whitechurch]

Got caught and/or died.

I think he joined a 12 step program-RA

[Heinrich]

... I think it's also possible that The Ripper stopped because it was getting too hot. ...

It has been widely and incorrectly believed that once serial killers start killing, they cannot stop. The police interviewed Joseph Barnett for several hours after the Mary Kelly's murder. Then it all stopped. The heat had come too close for comfort.

[Trevor Marriott]

Serial killers never stop unless they are captured or dead. They do though take breaks sometimes for as long as 10 years.

Look at BTK, Rader was able to control his killing like a light switch. the intresting thing is that it seems they can"t really just turn off the actual killing but they substitute it with role playing and memories and other forms of new thrills like taunting the police and public with the fact that he is still around by sending letters etc.

The trick here is did JtR die before he could kill again or did he take a break and die during that break?

Or did he change the locations of his killing ground and continue to kill ?

[lynn cates]

start and stop

Hello Richard. There's a thought. One might, however, ask another question: Did "Jack" ever start?

Cheers.
LC

[Richard E. Nixon]

We'll never know why he stopped. The reasons already listed are all very probable. I think it's also possible that The Ripper stopped because it was getting too hot. Too many close calls with getting caught finally scared him into getting a degree of control over himself.

Is it also possible that maybe "his people" - his family, roommates, individuals who knew him, etc. - made it impossible for him to continue killing? Kind of like when an alcoholic's family doesn't let the addict out of their site, making it impossible to drink.

Just a thought.

[merlyn555]

Serial killers never stop unless they are captured or dead. They do though take breaks sometimes for as long as 10 years.

Look at BTK, Rader was able to control his killing like a light switch. the intresting thing is that it seems they can"t really just turn off the actual killing but they substitute it with role playing and memories and other forms of new thrills like taunting the police and public with the fact that he is still around by sending letters etc.

The trick here is did JtR die before he could kill again or did he take a break and die during that break?

[bolo]

Got caught and/or died.

[DVV]

Madame Errata

I don't think she was randomly chosen

...neither do I, and that can explain why

the mutilation is so vastly different

...and why he could have stopped.

[Errata]

Hello Madame Errata

yes, forensic evidence tells us she's a ripper victim. The way the killer gained access to the abdomen is almost a bis repetita of the Chapman case - Chapman being the "benchmark".
That said, all murders are different from a forensic point of view, so these differences wouldn't exclude Kelly more than any other canonical.

The BIG difference with Mary Kelly is that she's not a random victim. But that, I concede, is just my opinion.

Pace e salute.

ooh.. madame... I could get used to that.

See, for me the big difference is almost the same as yours. I don't think she was randomly chosen. But the extent of sexually oriented mutilation is so vastly different that it is hard for me to match her murder to the almost clinical mutilation of Chapman. But as with you, just my opinion.

[DVV]

Hello Madame Errata

yes, forensic evidence tells us she's a ripper victim. The way the killer gained access to the abdomen is almost a bis repetita of the Chapman case - Chapman being the "benchmark".
That said, all murders are different from a forensic point of view, so these differences wouldn't exclude Kelly more than any other canonical.

The BIG difference with Mary Kelly is that she's not a random victim. But that, I concede, is just my opinion.

Pace e salute.

[Errata]

Hi gentlemen

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

Well, to be frank, it is an opinion until the killer is positively identified. I will certainly stipulate that some of the forensic evidence is certainly consistent with the other murders, however there are also differences. Some of the differences seem to me to be quite significant. So for now I doubt. I'm willing to be proven wrong, however I would also require an explanation for the differences I see in her murder. And I have not yet seen a satisfactory explanation. For what it's worth.

Also, not to be picky, but if you included me in the salutation of "gentlemen" I am in fact of the female persuasion. While I thoroughly appreciate such a respectful moniker, a gender appropriate one in the future would be nice. Not your fault, just thought it bore mentioning.

[DVV]

Hi DVV,

Sorry. But isnt that what friends are for?

Best wishes.

No. Friends do exist to invite me more single malts.