Why weren't there any killings in October 1888?

[cappuccina]

...LOL Michael...

...actually Moishe was "furry"!!

He advertised his businesss by walking around wearing the most wild clothing pieces he designed and made out of fur. One of his signature items was a Greek fisherman's cap, made out of fur, and he and his wife had matching fur vests!

Seriously, though, if JtR were associated with the fur business in any way, he would have had no time in October, and would have been using his knives for business!

[caz]

Hi Caz!

You write:
"I think we tend to underestimate the effect on Jack, physically and mentally, of the double event night, plus all that happened in the area as a direct result - and in the media - in the immediate aftermath. Even if he was never in Berner Street and dropped the apron by pure chance near the Juwes message and didn’t send any letters or bodily bits through the post, he’d arguably had his most adrenaline-fuelled night of the year thus far, followed by a humungous hangover period. "

I do not agree, least of all IF Liz was not one of his victims. If that was the case, I think it would all have been pretty much business as usual…

Hi Fisherman,

I merely offered physical and mental fatigue as a potential factor in the October gap between murders. You can hardly disagree with it as a possibility unless you have some evidence that Jack was as fit as a fiddle in the wake of Mitre Square, with no health issues that could have hampered him had he ventured out on the prowl again too soon. You can't argue that it would all have been ‘pretty much business as usual’ for him because it wasn’t, was it? For whatever reasons, if Jack was capable of striking during October he was presumably unwilling; if he was willing he must have been unable.

How can you disagree that the double event night could have left him hors de combat for a few weeks? On the most basic level, he could have tripped and sprained an ankle after depositing the apron piece! He was not Superman - he was a very naughty boy.

Love,

Caz
X

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Caz!

I have been thinking so far, that he would have been almost caught and that's why "the blank october", so to say...

But your theory is possible, if he was almost caught in the case of Liz and "replaced" her with CE. Meaning a contemporary psychologic collapse for october.

All the best
Jukka

[Sam Flynn]

For whatever reasons, if Jack was capable of striking during October he was presumably unwilling; if he was willing he must have been unable...

...he may just have been unlucky, Caz. Unlucky from his perspective, of course.

[DVV]

Avoid disagreeing with it in general terms, DVV - for this is how it works. Of course there will be limiting surrounding factors playing a role, and we don´t know how they looked in Jack´s case, just as we don´t know what he himself would consider limiting factors.
But the gerneal picture tells us that once a erial killer gets started, the credible thing to expect is not a lowering rate of victims - it is the exact opposite. If we put it otherwise, we can say that the kick a killer gets from murdering lasts longer in the beginning, but as he gets more and more accustomed to murdering, that kick will not last as long as it did from the outset.
The same applies, by the way, in many cases when it comes to the amount of violence inflicted on the victims. Some killers need more and more violence, resulting in that progression we so often see.

The best, DVV!

Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,
If you read my post, you will see that I don't disagree with "it" in general terms.
Very simply, the number of the murders attributed to Jack, the gaps between the murders, the dates, are something we can call facts without taking a great risk.
Jack did not kill more and more - for whatever reasons, but he did not.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:

"For whatever reasons, if Jack was capable of striking during October he was presumably unwilling; if he was willing he must have been unable.
How can you disagree that the double event night could have left him hors de combat for a few weeks?"

Caz, just for you I will play along and pretend that there was ever a double event. If so, I have no trouble disagreeing with Jack being sick or fatigue or something, for I really don´t think there is any call for believing that he was!

The part of your post that appeals very much to my way of thinking is when you write that if he was willing he must have been unable. With that I do agree. With the rest - no. We are dealing with a man whose urges drive him further and further at each strike, a man who clearly has NOT had anywhere near enough after killing Stride and Eddowes that night (ugh, not following my conviction is hard, but like I said, Caz, for you I will play along), as clearly shown in Millers Court.

If I am correct, what we should expect is instead a man who feels increasingly strong as he moves along, a man who is casting his fears aside and who is beginning to feel stronger and stronger, closing in on invincibility.
He would not have felt sick and fatigue, Caz. Like a man who has had a large supper, he may have felt full some time after each killing, but that period would be more credible to grow shorter as he went along, not longer.

DVV writes:

"Jack did not kill more and more - for whatever reasons, but he did not", touching on the same subject.
Correct, DVV, as far as we know. But to my mind, there must have been a reason for the slowing down of business. The increasing numbers of policemen on the streets has been suggested, but I am not at all sure that he cared very much about them. My gut feeling is that there were other limiting factors involved, be that his job (if he had one), his family (if he had one) or something else.
Mind you, we do have the example of Peter Kürten, who did not settle only for killing - he resorted to burning down houses, tormenting animals and such things too. Maybe Jack also diluted the killing business with other criminal pastimes, thus being able to accept the prolonged periods inbetween the murders?

The best,

Fisherman

[perrymason]

...he may just have been unlucky, Caz. Unlucky from his perspective, of course.

Sam,

I feel safe saying that there are a few reports of failed attacks, throughout that Fall....but most are of a man much like Packers, and Mrs Mortimer,... for the bag. Toffs. Meaning..some press influenced accounts.

Isnt the notion an uppercruster was doing this a stretch? Surely the local knowledge factor... for streets and lanes, meant someone familiar with local routing....and a Toff would standout like a man wearing astrakan would anytime of night or day round there.

If "Jack" was available in October, but chose not to kill...that might even explain the severity of Mary, pent up rage....but I dont think a man who attacks and semi-guts a woman in the street, is very good at making thoughtful, conscious choices. For 5 weeks?

I believe the cycle and that amount of time hint at his unavailability to kill whores in Whitechapel in October, and since I think he is reckless, .....it was out of his control somehow.

For the Toff suspect....maybe attending a dying relative abroad?

Best regards.

[caz]

...he may just have been unlucky, Caz. Unlucky from his perspective, of course.

Hi Sam,

Indeed he may.

'Unlucky' would equal 'unable' in the context of my observation to Fisherman that something made it anything but 'business as usual' during October. As I said, for whatever reasons Jack ceased trading, so any plausible explanation can be considered.

Hi Fisherman,

You don’t need to ‘play along’ with me, since you will not find me claiming for the purpose of this discussion that Jack killed both women on double event night, or that he must have dropped from the strain of it all. I’m quite satisfied that he could just as easily have sustained some kind of injury, or caught some bug, or merely overdid things and scared himself, any of which could have put him out of the game during October, whether he murdered one or two. (Or how about none, for those who have expressed doubts about Kate? Maybe he fainted with shock and hit his head on hearing about a brace of victims bagged by others in his absence. )

So in your opinion then, and with no evidence whatsoever, you think we can safely rule out the possibility of our man doing himself a bit of a mischief as a result of his Mitre Square exploits?

If so I think I'll leave you to it. Let me know when you have narrowed down the options to one.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi Caz!

If you are to wait until I have narrowed the options down to one, you will never hear from me again. But then again, maybe that was your purpose?

Anyways, I realy don´t believe you are onto something with that theory of yours involving a Ripper that finds each strike more tiresome, taking the breath out of him. History tells us that this is not a very viable option, Caz, simple as that. Where are the examples we are going to need to believe in you? Which serial killers were known to grow more and more tired along the road, slowing down the speed as a result of their being worn out? It justdoesn´t happen that way, Caz! The fact that we have what seems to be a slowing speed in the Rippers´proceedings, will owe to external factors, beyond his control, in all probability.

There are a few possibilities that the reason for slowing down may lie within him, but they are precious few compared to the other way around.
He may have been taken ill.
He may have gotten injured.
These possibilities are there, sure enough. But any illness would not be one brought about by his straining himself, if my guess is right. And in both cases, the same applies: We have not two murders, we have four murder nights. And just as the distance in time between Chapman and Eddowes was larger than that between Nichols and Chapman, the same applies in the Chapman-Eddowes-Kelly comparison. Did he get sick twice? Did he injur himself twice? Seems very far-fetched to me.
There is another possibility, though, that I would much favour over the already suggested ones: Maybe he had second thoughts about what he was doing? Social and/or religious norms may have been something he found very hard to cast aside, perhaps blaming and ounishing himself after the strikes. In such a case, we would get a picture where he succeded to refrain from killing longer and longer periods - but where the result was so much more horrifying after the delays. Such a scenario would be a credible one as far as I´m concerned. It would also provide us with a killer that had grown up anxious to live by society´snorms, probably producing a man that would not stand out very much in society - which tallies very well with the fact that he was incredibly hard to find.

All the best, Caz!

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I feel safe saying that there are a few reports of failed attacks, throughout that Fall....

The papers couldn't cover everything, Mike. In addition, of course, his being "unlucky" also includes the scenario in which he didn't get even as far as a failed attack. I feel equally safe in saying that Jack wasn't invincible to the point of finding a potential victim every time he felt like it.

[Sam Flynn]

'Unlucky' would equal 'unable' in the context of my observation to Fisherman that something made it anything but 'business as usual' during October. As I said, for whatever reasons Jack ceased trading, so any plausible explanation can be considered.

Indeed so, Caz. To extend your "ceased trading" analogy, I'd add that he might well have experienced periods of "slow trade", too.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Sam!

Do you find the following pattern plausible;

Since the murders had made the ladies of the streets more cautious, Jack couldn't use his MO anymore. Or he thought so...

Thus, he was wondering, how to continue. Til early Nobember...?!

All the best
Jukka

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jukka,

Do you find the following pattern plausible;

Since the murders had made the ladies of the streets more cautious, Jack couldn't use his MO anymore.

It's quite plausible that this may have had a part to play in his "gap month" - but I bet it wasn't the only factor, and I bet it wasn't for want of trying.

[CraigInTwinCities]

None of the murders took place in October, and what I want to know is why?

Wait, I know this one...

To get to the other side! (ba-dum-dum!)

[FrankO]

To my eye though, he has filled his Sept/Oct quotient with two kills on Sept 30th...making it two kills within the same 10 day period two months running. He just spaced them differently within that 10 days.

Why not on Oct 30 or 31st....who knows, but I really wouldnt have expected one until then anyway. I think the only kill missing, judging by the fact that he is a day late with Mary Kelly.... in terms of his usual 10 days, end of previous/before the 9th of the next......is one in very late Oct or perhaps the first or second day of November.

Hi Michael,

I have my doubts about the Ripper working according to any schedule like the one you’re suggesting. Although he took some precautions not to get caught, he strikes me as an opportunist rather than a planner. As far as I’m concerned, I’d rather believe that the gaps between the murders were caused by the Ripper getting more and more ‘cautious’ rather than more and more bold, and that the mutilations only got more severe each time because he needed to restrain himself longer each time.

Maybe because he was disturbed in Nichols’ case and therefore couldn’t take any organs, he was very eager to strike again and didn’t wait too long before he actually did. And maybe he did that in near daylight because he wanted to see what he was doing. After all, there’s little doubt that his driving force were the mutilations. Maybe after Chapman he realised he had been very lucky that he wasn’t caught, so he switched back to the darkness of night and was able to wait for 3 weeks. Maybe after Eddowes things got too hot for him out in the streets, so he was able to wait for nearly 6 weeks this time until the circumstances in the streets had become more favourable again, or until he’d found a victim he could kill indoors. Killing indoors would also mean he would have more time with a victim as well as being able to focus more on what drove him, instead of needing to pay constant attention to his surroundings as well.

Obviously, this is pure speculation, but I prefer this view to the one involving whatever schedule of his own making.

All the best,
Frank