Did The Ripper Die Shortly After His Last Kill?

[celee]

Hi,

Here in Daytona, we have a serial killer who seems to strike very random. Maybe he is killing else were, who knows. Without Motive who can tell why a serial killer stops.

Your friend, Brad

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

The 'cooling off period' yes but why? Jack explodes onto the scene then he vanishes. Why? I just can't envisage Jack going no, I won't murder any more.

Why not? As I said, other people have done it. Dennis Rader stopped and it was only because he was provoced in the media years afterwards that he started thinging about taking it up again (he was caught before he did that, though).
The thing is, we can't know why serial killers have long cooling off periods or why they stop, but to say that they definitely can't stop on their own is totally wrong and one of ther worst misconceptions there is.

I definitely believe Kelly was Jack's swansong. 2 serial murderers at work in the same area at the same time with similar MO's?

Well, I don't want to diverge the thread in this direction and I (along with some others) have several times explained the thought s and 'evidence' regarding this on other threads.
Let me just say that there most likely were other mutilating killers (possibly also serial killers) roaming the same area in the 1870s and 80s (the torso killings) and the fact that we also have two other serial killers close after the Ripper murders (Klosowski and Neil Cream) is proof of that it is perfectly possible for several serial killers can haunt the same area in a short time span, although they may not have the same modus operandi.

Secondly, there is no actual evidence of that the Kelly murder was the work of a serial killer. On the contrary, the gross mutilations on Kelly are not far from the most extreme cases of domestic homicides, where mutilations, facial destruction and butchery that are known and the injuries a result of the personal nature of the crime.
Kelly also had two men in her closest relations that may have had personal motives for the murder. The 600 fake Ripper letters, most of them probably penned by otherwise seemingly 'ordinary' people indiocates that the Ripper crimes influenced people at the time in a way we have difficult to relate to today and the authorites were also very much concerned about this.
The killer of Kelly also didn't really show much similarites with the Ripper. Kelly was simply butchered in a crude manner with no real sophistication or direction, her heart was taken and not the womb etc. If it was supposed to be a Ripper crime it was indeed a very bad copy.
The point is: don't be too sure of things. There is nothing 'definite' here.
The idea of Kelly as the Ripper's grand finale is most likely one of the worst myth ever surrounding the case.
But that is for another thread.

And even if Kelly was the work of the Ripper, we can't be sure of that it was his last one. There were other murders after this, although not of the same magnitude.
My own personal view is, however, that he for some reason stopped after Eddowes. Also note there were no murders in October.

All the best

[ianincleveland]

Im not entirely convinced Kelly was a JTR victim,same goes for Stride.but Eddowes,Chapman and Nicholls are for certain.There may be others in other places before or after these of course.If you think about Sutcliffe,though he sometimes killed within very short periods of time he could also go months before killing,and he wasnt locked up or in a foreign land.Ive wondered whether like Sutcliffe claimed JTR heard voices to tell him to go out and kill and obviously if these voices went away then he probably appeared quite normal.In fact its almost certain that outwardly JTR was a normal quiet inoffensive guy.But if he hearsd voices telling him to butcher women or perhaps particularly prostitutes and those vopices lay dormant after his last murder,be that Kelly or Eddowes,he never felt the need to kill again.

off topic i think sutcliffe lied about the voices and knew exactly what he was doing but thats another subject

[celee]

Hi Nothing to see,

Aright since you are being so nice I will stop joking around. It all depends on who your suspect is and the motive for the killings. For Example, if you believe Druitt was the Ripper and the killings were sexually motivated then of course he would not just be able to quit. Druitt drowned. Now say that your suspect was Tumblety, who was in his late 50s when the Ripper murders took place and he too was a sexual serial killer then I think it is possible for someone who is such an advanced age to curve his lust.

What if the Ripper was harvesting organs. Abberline suggest this in the press. If he was Harvesting Organs for himself or someone else he very well may have been able to stop when the police began to move in or he may have obtained all the organs he needed.

Without motive and a suspect, it is hard to say why the Ripper stoped.

Your friend, Brad

[Nothing to see]

Hey. This is so interesting speaking with people who are 'into' Jack and know what they're talking about.

The 'cooling off period' yes but why? Jack explodes onto the scene then he vanishes. Why? I just can't envisage Jack going no, I won't murder any more. I definitely believe Kelly was Jack's swansong. 2 serial murderers at work in the same area at the same time with similar MO's?

Jack couldn't have just given up. He was so into his jollies I just can't believe he'd go "I won't kill any more.'

Why don't you think Kelly was Jack's get? He'd been leading up to this since the start. IMO.

[celee]

Hi,

One thing I forgot to mention in my last post. Simply put, Jack the Ripper died in 1903.

Hi Glenn,

Hope you have been well.

Your friend, Brad

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi guys,

Unfortunately there are two problems with this whole line of questioning.

Firstly, we don't even know for sure which was Jack's last victim. Some people say he murdered ten, some say five and some say three. A number of people, myself included, hold serious doubts as far as Mary Kelly is concerned and hesitate to include her among the Ripper victims. I also believe he started with Nichols.
That would be interesting, because if true, then we have three murders intensely committed during a period of just one month.
But the point is, that the question asked in the subject line of this thread is nearly impossible to answer since we can't know when the Ripper murders actually did stop and with which victim.

Secondly, it is a misconception that serial killers can't stop on their own (ort at least take extremely long cooling off periods) - on the contrary, we have people like Dennis Rader (BTK Killer) who are proof of this.

All the best

[Nothing to see]

I have a problem with the idea that Jack suddenly grew old and retired.
I don't believe he started with Nicholls. I don't believe Tabram was one of Jack's gets either. He started with animal abuse, arson.

Jack didn't stop because he retired. Someone or something made him stop.

[celee]

Hi,

Simply put, Mary Jane was the Ripper's last victim, in London. He may have killed other women els were after 1888. However, Jack the Ripper started Killing well before 1888. The murders stoped because he simply got old and he was able to control his impulses.

Your friend, Brad

[Nothing to see]

You could be right but IMO I can't see Jack just stopping after Kelly. Not of his own volition. Jack was getting his jollies and I believe he would have continued if he could have. Why did he stop? As has been said previously and I agree, he died, he was imprisoned/committed, he emigrated. I'm not an expert by any stretch but I find it difficult to think that Jack would suddenly just go 'No, not doing that any more'. Let's face it, whoever Jack was, he was way out of the sanity stakes by the time he did Kelly.

I'm more interested in why he waited so long after Stride and Eddowes before he killed again. I don't think it was because he wouldn't, I think it was because he couldn't and that's why he butchered Kelly. Either he left the area for that time (but then I suppose he could have killed elsewhere) or something or someone happened in his life that stopped him from prowling.

I think Chava's idea has a lot of merit but from the replies it sounds like you'd have to be a full time researcher to find out the facts.

Personally, I think Jack died after Miller's Ct. I can't prove it but I think that if he was free to kill again, he would have.

[protohistorian]

I thought he might have emigrated as well--gone on to NY maybe. Of course there are the Nicaragua and Jamaican killings. But the problem is that unfortunately killers of this kind tend to do many things in a similar way. I can't believe that the man who killed Kelly stopped killing and didn't start again until 1889. Although I think this guy is extremely organized, I don't think he is necessarily extremely controlled. Either he left town immediately after the Kelly killing--and found himself shipboard for months--or something major prevented him from going out on his spree. I suspect strongly that what stopped him was extremely incapacitating illness or death. I think that's the only thing that would stop him.

Or with the Kelly killing he achieved his goal, or conversely, found he no longer recieved gratification from "rippings"

[Chava]

I thought he might have emigrated as well--gone on to NY maybe. Of course there are the Nicaragua and Jamaican killings. But the problem is that unfortunately killers of this kind tend to do many things in a similar way. I can't believe that the man who killed Kelly stopped killing and didn't start again until 1889. Although I think this guy is extremely organized, I don't think he is necessarily extremely controlled. Either he left town immediately after the Kelly killing--and found himself shipboard for months--or something major prevented him from going out on his spree. I suspect strongly that what stopped him was extremely incapacitating illness or death. I think that's the only thing that would stop him.

[Ashkenaz]

Although I am on the fence about this, for the sake of this discussion I am going to assume Mary Jane Kelly is a Ripper victim.

After the Ripper kills Nichols, he kills again very quickly. Within the week. His mutilations escalate. Then he doesn't kill again for 3 weeks, at which point he kills Stride, but appears to be interrupted. He then kills Eddowes. The level of violence perpetrated on her is an escalation from the violence done to Chapman. He then disappears for 6 weeks, after which he kills Kelly. Again the violence escalates. It's hard to look at 5 murders and claim a clear pattern, however he does look as if he kills twice within a short space of time. Disappears. Kills twice within a very short space of time. Disappears. Then kills once. I think that, if he were in a position to do so, he would kill again, very quickly, with (if it's possible!) even more violence. But he doesn't. He walks out of Millers Court and disappears.

I think it might be possible that he himself died within the week or two after that killing. Maybe even within the week. So I'm wondering if any of the archivists in the audience would feel like running a search for deaths with the following parameters:

- Lives in the East End. Whitechapel, Shoreditch, Aldgate, maybe Hoxton. I wouldn't go further afield than that.

- No younger than 25. I think he's been a while in the making, and I'd be surprised if he got his act together younger.

- No older than 45. Actually I think he's probably younger than that, but I'm going to the outside parameters of what I think is possible.

- If he's Jewish, either someone born in the East End or someone who was brought there very young. After the Leather Apron thing I doubt an East End whore would go anywhere with a Jewish immigrant who spoke with a pronounced accent or looked 'foreign'.

- Dead within 2 weeks of the murders. Or dead within three weeks after having been incapacitated within 2 weeks.

People died of all sorts of stuff then: virus, infection. There were no safety standards, so lots of work-related accidents and deaths. A nasty family history could fell Our Boy via a heart attack in his early 30s. However I doubt there would have been hundreds of men dying in that area with those credentials in that time frame. Anyone want to take this on? I'd do it myself but there is a limit how far I can get on a computer over in Canada!

Great idea Chava. I've always belied he died, was jailed or emigrated a short while after the murders. I dont think anyone who could kill five people in ten weeks would stop voluntarily

[aspallek]

Hi Chava

A sentence from Macnaghton's autobiography of 1914, little quoted....

I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people; that he absented himself from home at certain times and that he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888.....

Did he know or did he only 'thought he knew' or is he lying?

'His own people'? Shades of Anderson's comments much discussed here.

Suicide around Nov 10th 1888? A bit specific that don't you think?

This statement is an echo of Farquharson who claimed that this "son of a surgeon" committed suicide on the night of the last murder, indicating at least partial reliance upon Farquharson on the part of Macnaghten. Elsewhere Macnaghten displays proper knowledge of the timing of Druitt's demise, indicating that he was found drowned in the Thames on Dec. 31 after having been in the water upwards of a month.

[Natalie Severn]

Maybe that was just a "censored bit " of Dr Bond"s 10th November ,"Profile of the Ripper"?