Did The Ripper Die Shortly After His Last Kill?

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Jack was not the type of man to quit, he enjoyed it to much.

BW

[Mort Belfry]

Given the scale of Kelly's murder I would say the Ripper would probably be able to hold off not killing for a longer period of time, masturbating over the Miller's Court scene for quite probably months as he had finally achieved his objective. This is probably why he also didn't take his favoured organs, uterus or kidney, as the prolonged memory of the night would be more tangible than a trophy in this case.

So I would be looking at deaths up to around March/April 1889.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

My fav theory is that he met the wrong working girl and she gave him what for with a sharp blade of her own!

That would've been poetic justice!

I was watching Whitechapel last night and there was a scene where someone visited MJK's grave and I thought: somewhere out there is a man's grave and no-one is none the wiser that he was Jack the Ripper. It's a weird thought to think that his remains are out there somewhere and no-one knows of their 'value'. He could be buried under literally anywhere.

[Nicola]

Hello,all.

JTR was a murderous freak who quite liked what he was doing. I don't believe for one moment he would have been able to control his hellish urges for any long amount of time. I used to entertain the idea that he might have,for lack of a better term,gorged himself with MJK. But he liked to kill. So I think he would've gotten up to more murder.

My fav theory is that he met the wrong working girl and she gave him what for with a sharp blade of her own!


Maybe the police knew exactly who he was but the evidence wasn't strong enough for an arrest. So they dropped a wee hint to the vigilantes,so they could do what the police legally couldn't.JTR also could have tried again,the woman raised the alarm,and he went down as just another victim of a WC street attack. If these scenarios didn't happen,he had to be imprisoned or died soon after. I'm no profiler,but I think a nut who operated at this level of violence and viciousness,doesn't appear to have any self control,like a BTK type.JTR committing suicide doesn't work for me,either. These cowardly types are quite fond of their miserable lives.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

I don't think we can rule out suicide: as problematic as the Druitt story is, the basic idea that the family figured it out and it ended in a suicide (or even "assisted" suicide) seems pretty plausible to me.

The 'assisted' suicide speculation seems more likely than Jack actually topping himself, and even that's far-fetched (no offence ;p).

The thing about Jack killing himself is that there's enough proof to suggest that he actually valued his life. He did not want to be caught. Look at all the people suspected of being the Ripper because of his secrecy, all the myths, he's even a Hollywood icon because of the mystery surrounding his identity. If he didn't value his life then he would've been caught either of his own volition or due to carelessness.

If one thing, this proves that he didn't have a narcissitic personality.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Depends what you're looking for, really. Personally, of the named suspects, I don't think we can do much better than an individual who moved into the heart of the district in August 1888, was reported to have ill-used the most brutally murdered victim in the series, who had a history of criminal activity, and who was ultimately committed to a lunatic asylum where he spent the rest of his days.

Not enough to stand up in court, but he's more plausible than any identified suspect I've heard about.

Then you've got a fair and valid point. Going by that, he is probably the most likeliest out of all the suspects, the only thing being is that I don't think the killer's identity is amongst that lot. So I think we'll have to agree to disagree on our views about Fleming being the Ripper.

[Ben]

Hi M&P,

There's nothing (that I'm aware of) that indicates that he was.

Depends what you're looking for, really. Personally, of the named suspects, I don't think we can do much better than an individual who moved into the heart of the district in August 1888, was reported to have ill-used the most brutally murdered victim in the series, who had a history of criminal activity, and who was ultimately committed to a lunatic asylum where he spent the rest of his days.

Not enough to stand up in court, but he's more plausible than any identified suspect I've heard about.

Then why do you think he killed the other victims?

Whoever JTR was, it's very unlikely that he had a tangible motive beyond the satisfaction he derived from killing and mutilating.

Best regards,
Ben

[celee]

Yes, Brad.
The article is very interesting because it clearly proves once and for all that Abberline didn't have a single clue of what he was talking about. None whatsoever.

That is what I meant by people should stop referring to that article and to Abberline's erronous conclusions. I didn't actually intended to single you out especially, Brad, because you are certainly not the only one who drags it up. So it was meant as a general request.
By all means, discuss Abberline's views in the article but do it critically and don't take his words as gospel just because it happens to be Abberline.

All the best

Okay, again you miss the point. I did not mention Abberline's theory because I was trying to endorse the idea. I was trying to use examples of different motives that could lead to different reason's why the Ripper quit.

Since you want to discuss it, I am a fun guy and will go along. There is alot to be learned from Abberline's interview.

1. We learned that all the theories involving Abberline knowing who Jack the Ripper was and all the theories that involved Abberline in an attempt to hide the truth from the puplic are dead in water. The Detective obviously had no idea who Jack the Ripper was.

2. We learned that Abberline did not suport Anderson and his eye witness. Obviously the eye witness did not convince Abberline that Kosminski was Jtr. This suggest that Anderson's eye witness was weak.

3. We learned that he did not agree with the evidence against Druitt or he was kept out of the loop involving Druitt.

4. We learned that Abberline thought Martha Tabram was a ripper victim.

5. We learned that Abberline believed the Ripper fled London to America.

Those are just five things off the top of my head that are important.

Abberline knew more about the Ripper murders then we do, right.

Your friend, Brad

[Mascara & Paranoia]

That has nothing whatsoever to do with "commonsense", and everything to do with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and your observation about killer instincts is a strange one. Before either Ridgway or Rader were identified or caught, there was nothing to suggest that either of them had any "killer instincts", and it was this outward normality that enabled them to remain uncaught for so long. Pre-capture they looked like pussycats alongside Fleming.

You know what, I hold my hands up. That's a fair point.

But it still doesn't convince me of Fleming's candidacy of being Mary's killer, let alone the Ripper. If she'd just had her throat cut like Stride or was stabbed similar to Tabram, then I'd have thought the same, but it's the extent of the mutilations that debunks him; that was a hell of a lot worse than what the Ripper had done previously, and I just don't think he was Joseph Fleming. There's nothing (that I'm aware of) that indicates that he was.

I know.

I don't think there was.

You're taking it Fleming was Jack the Ripper, right? Then why do you think he killed the other victims?

I think it would be a fine thing if people stopped referring the WM as a killer....that was the least interesting quality about him, and it was something he did to enable his goals. The man was a mutilator of very recently dead women....he made them dead because I suspect they wouldnt have let him do that while they were alive.

Now discuss whether a mutilator of very recently dead women would just stop on his own.

Cheers all...and no offense intended on Glenns point that sometimes even this kind of man stops on his own.

[protohistorian]

That has nothing whatsoever to do with "commonsense", and everything to do with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and your observation about killer instincts is a strange one. Before either Ridgway or Rader were identified or caught, there was nothing to suggest that either of them had any "killer instincts", and it was this outward normality that enabled them to remain uncaught for so long. Pre-capture they looked like pussycats alongside Fleming.



I know.

I don't think there was.

One point one, you never hear the nieghbor in a post arrest interview saying" Thank God you guys came, he's a nutjob and I expected a chainsaw through the wall all day everyday!" On point two, why with such a massive density of people would two killer pathologies be a stretch. If I had to guess their were likely hundreds that never were triggered to kill. Two active killers concurrently should be anticipated.

[Nothing to see]

Hi,

Actually, I was not refering to you when I made my less then gracious post. You did something very common, you focused in on certain componants and lost the total meaning of my post. If you take the time to read my post. You should be able to see that I was useing examples of suspects and motives to get my point across that there can be various reasons why the Ripper quit.

I was refering to Glenn. Who seems to agree with the general Idea of my previous post. However, instead of comming out an agreeing with me or even if he disagreed with me, he focuses in on a portion of my post and rips off. "I wish some people" He should know my name I sighn every post and if he read my post he should have relized I was not endorsing any organ harvest motive. I was just trying to point out that there could be many different motives for the killings and depending on the motive there could be many different reasons for the sudden stop or apparent stop of the killer.

I am very interested in any of your ideas and opinions. Thats how we learn. Perhapes I should have just let it go, but it was early in the morning and I was tired and it happens so often, people who just pick a post apart. Looking for any reason to say something negative. I usually am much more tolerant.

Your friend, Brad

It's OK. I appreicate your reply.

[Christine]

I'm gonna have to make a list of possibilities otherwise I'll forget.

Suicide - Jack doesn't seem like the suicidal type to me. At all. So if he did die, that's 99% not the way he perished.

Illness - This is a convenient excuse to explain away why he quit IMO. Having said that though, it could be a (albeit clichéd) motive for his killings in the first place. I'm not convinced.

Incarcerated - Probable. Of course if that was the case then it was for something else other than the Whitechapel murders, maybe even a 'normal' murder, but definitely not a big cover-up or conspiracy. That's ridiculous.

Those are the only reasons I can think of at the top of my head, other than dying under under circumstances other than suicide or suffering an illness. Maybe his bad karma caught up with him and he got killed in a street brawl or something? Who knows.

I can't find the effort to go really in-depth with this because there's nothing we can factually conclude other than speculation.

You're missing what I think is the most likely scenario, that his family or friends figured it out and put a stop to it privately, possibly by putting him into an asylum, chaining him to a bed, or possibly just by not letting him go out alone ever again. And I don't think we can rule out suicide: as problematic as the Druitt story is, the basic idea that the family figured it out and it ended in a suicide (or even "assisted" suicide) seems pretty plausible to me.

Even with the limitations of profiling, I tend to believe that anyone so profoundly disturbed was not a highly functional person, and that he had someone protecting him, someone who gave him a place to live, and wash, and a change of clothes. Everyone points to Dennis Rader, but Rader's known crimes were much further apart, carefully planned, extended affairs. I'm just not seeing that much self-control in Jack.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Again, not the place to discuss this but the Abberline interview is a

Yes, Brad.
The article is very interesting because it clearly proves once and for all that Abberline didn't have a single clue of what he was talking about. None whatsoever.

That is what I meant by people should stop referring to that article and to Abberline's erronous conclusions. I didn't actually intended to single you out especially, Brad, because you are certainly not the only one who drags it up. So it was meant as a general request.
By all means, discuss Abberline's views in the article but do it critically and don't take his words as gospel just because it happens to be Abberline.

All the best

[Ben]

Common sense tells me. From what I've read about him, there's nothing to indicate that he had killer instincts let alone capable of the extensive mutilations that Mary fell victim to.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with "commonsense", and everything to do with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and your observation about killer instincts is a strange one. Before either Ridgway or Rader were identified or caught, there was nothing to suggest that either of them had any "killer instincts", and it was this outward normality that enabled them to remain uncaught for so long. Pre-capture they looked like pussycats alongside Fleming.

To think that there was yet another murderer on the loose in Whitechapel at the exact same time period who was even worse than Jack the Ripper is a tad far-fetched

I know.

I don't think there was.