Do serial killers just stop?

[sdreid]

I've always thought that many uncaught serial killers went unapprehended precisely because they did quit before police could get the goods on them.

[Barnaby]

Have there been any psychological comparisons between serial killers who can suspend their activities for long periods of time and those who cannot? At first blush, I would argue that the latter may be more likely to suffer from a debilitating mental disorder such as schizophrenia. On the other hand, Ted Bundy never really stopped unless he was incarcerated, yet he only had an antisocial personality disorder.

[Cuervo]

Well, Ted Bundy didn´t have an antisocial personality disorder (that diagnose only takes into account the behavioural signs), Ted Bundy was a psychopath (a diagnose which take into account the emotional part of the individual as well).
I don´t think serial killers "decide" when to start killing or when to "stop", it is not a question of getting up in the morning and say "well, I´m going to kill today". Most of serial killers say they don ´t know why they do it and why in that manner. They say they have the need, they have the fantasies and one day they do it, but more in deep they can´t give an explanation.
Some of killers as Ryder who stopped may have found something else that occupies their fantasies and needs, and of course, age is a factor to be highligthed (I agree with Errata). Serial rapist stop raping with age.
All serial killers have cooling periods, sometimes they are of a day, and sometimes of years (even within the same individual), you never know when a stopping period is the end of just a long cooling period.
They may be stopped even for other crimes different to the killing.

[Errata]

The thing is, I don't really buy the idea that a serial killer will stop because the cops are getting too close. These are not people with a functioning risk/reward calculator. I would buy that they move or change their routine when the cops are close, but I think they only stop when the risk outweighs the reward whatever that may be, or when the reward is no longer worth the risk.(age impotence, etc.)

[Jdombrowski89]

Hi,
I remember posting this years ago but I gather that a lot of posts have been lost since then (?)
Is it possible that Jack just stopped killing? There is acceptance that he either died or was incarcerated after Mary Kelly, but I recall reading a book (the name of which I can't recall now but I think it was from 1988) that said that Jack could have stopped killing. We have at least another case of a killer stopping, or lying dormant for a long time- the BTK killer. And there was a long gap between the last and penultimate victims of Fred and Rose West (though there may be more that we know nothing about so far).
Is it possible that Jack has sated his desires and had burnt out his murderous desires?

Best wishes

Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com

Paul,

There are numerous serial killers who could not only prolong their sick notions, but also just stop. Examples like Dennis Rader, Gary Ridgway, etc. But then you have some such as Bundy (Who I believe would never have stopped or taken long breaks had he not been caught).

Regards,
Justin

[sdreid]

I've always thought that many uncaught serial killers went unapprehended precisely because they did quit before police could get the goods on them.

Newton's The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers lists maybe 400 uncaught serial killers who've been inactive more than ten years. Can there really be that many who died or were incarcerated for other crimes? A few may have been caught since the release but I don't think many.

[Jdombrowski89]

The thing is, I don't really buy the idea that a serial killer will stop because the cops are getting too close. These are not people with a functioning risk/reward calculator. I would buy that they move or change their routine when the cops are close, but I think they only stop when the risk outweighs the reward whatever that may be, or when the reward is no longer worth the risk.(age impotence, etc.)

If a Serial Killer does not want to get caught, and the police are close, it's more than likely that they can/will stop because the trail gets too hot, therefore I would be more inclined to believe that in this situation, a serial killer could in fact stop. In a situation like this the risk could be not only being caught, put to death, but losing trophies and personal memories and recollections of the crimes committed. Serial Killer's thrive off of memory and personal belongings and unfortunately something small as a button could get someone's "rocks" off for the rest of their life, if the police ever came to close. Depending on the person, if the serial killer does NOT want to get caught, and the police are close by, by all means he would use every method possible to conceal himself, even stop.

Regards,
Justin

[Errata]

If a Serial Killer does not want to get caught, and the police are close, it's more than likely that they can/will stop because the trail gets too hot, therefore I would be more inclined to believe that in this situation, a serial killer could in fact stop. In a situation like this the risk could be not only being caught, put to death, but losing trophies and personal memories and recollections of the crimes committed. Serial Killer's thrive off of memory and personal belongings and unfortunately something small as a button could get someone's "rocks" off for the rest of their life, if the police ever came to close. Depending on the person, if the serial killer does NOT want to get caught, and the police are close by, by all means he would use every method possible to conceal himself, even stop.

Regards,
Justin

And while that makes sense, and I can buy that a killer will stop for a time, I don't think any externally applied pressure can make a serial killer quit. I think that essentially it has to not be fun anymore, so they take their ball and go home. I think that serial killers tend to not react well to people telling them what to do, or people pressuring them.

[Hatchett]

Hi Errata,

I think you are right. Jack the Ripper went on killing although the might of two police forces were against him in an area that was relatively very small. Because of the times and the localities of the murders the risk of getting caught was always high and increased murder by murder.

Not only that but the frequency of the murders does actually point to a compulsion that is out of control.

I do not think he could have stopped even if he wanted to.

Self preservation I do not think ever entered his head. I think he believed that he was on a higher plain than anyone else.

Best wishes.

[Jdombrowski89]

And while that makes sense, and I can buy that a killer will stop for a time, I don't think any externally applied pressure can make a serial killer quit. I think that essentially it has to not be fun anymore, so they take their ball and go home. I think that serial killers tend to not react well to people telling them what to do, or people pressuring them.

Well of course it's nothing that we can sit here and imagine for ourselves, but I would be willing to argue that, let's say that IF pressure....enough of it that is, is applied into an area where someone like JTR is operating...If this mans drive and control are beyond his reach, he's going to be someone like Ted Bundy. Maniacal and psychotic until he gets caught. For someone like that there is no cure...these are, I think the more easier of the types of Serial Killers to apprehend because they get sloppy overtime. JTR, however, is different...

We have H.H. Holmes. Now this is not proving my point, but a mere "sub plot". Overtime his activities and those whom disappeared at his "castle" in Chicago attracted attention. This of course, drove him to stop his excercises in that vicinity...instead, what Holmes did was kidnap the three children of Benjamin Pietzel, and murder them. Of course this shows that he did not keep killing. But think of the man's "compulsion". Holmes' drive was clearly off the charts and something that, like Bundy, kept him killing. This was another individual who was not going to stop until he was caught. We can agree that this is an example of someone who clearly moved and continued doing the same thing.

But consider if the killer has a more organized control or drive to commit murders...let's consider that if there is a killer with a lesser drive. He's not as crazy about it like our boys Ted and H.H., So what is the reward if he kills if the police are getting closer? What are the risks? In this situation someone like this (Obviously not JTR) is going to probably just say "piss on it" and stop. Do we have difinitive situations where this is documented? No, but does this mean it's not possible? Absolutely not. Serial Killer's are the most fascinating topic in the realm of criminal profiles because of this. Not only are any two identical, but there is always one that exhibits different traits,etc of others.

Now I'm not a major "proponent" of the "stopping because of police within range" theory. So it's nothing I was battling, per se. The option itself however, is clearly specific. When I had questioned criminals as a County Detective Intern, this was something I heard come up often, actually. That these bank robbers, convicted rapists could stop had they known the police were hot on their trails. While some exhibited that lust in which would render them constant offenders, others were meticulous and specific by saying "Yeah, I've done alot of jobs where I have so much money saved up, I wouldn't have to worry. I could just quit"

So let's take the occasional bank robber. After sometime, if he's made quite a bit of dough from his jobs, he's gotten proficient at what he does and how he does it. But there's also that aspect in which he knows that if maybe, just maybe a police officer gets too hot on his trail and figures something out, he can get his passport, high-tail it to Mexico and live happily for the rest of his life. Now of course when we're drawing parallels here, it would be hard and rather dumb to say that Bank Robbers and Serial Killers are the same. Wouldn't it? One steals cash, the other damages a victims life and their body. Mentally and physically. But here's one thing to consider....

What is the DRIVE and compulsion of those individuals? Could JTR have been a family man who came home one day, after MK and said "You know, I haven't spent time growing up with my children, being there for them" and stop? I would be willing to say it's possible. The compulsion would still be there....the urge would still be there. But it doesn't mean that the supposed individual's psyche wouldn't be able to be overcome with the moral values that would lead him to stop/continue. Then again alllll of this depends on the said individual.

Just my two cents for the issue I proposed, in all reality.

I personally think The Ripper was either incarcerated shortly after the MK crime, or that he contracted a form of disease (Tuberculosis, etc) that would've killed him shortly afterwards While The Ripper's murders show steadily increasing MO and killing style, in no ways would it point into the direction of someone who, the only way you would be able to stop the murders, is by catching them. Jack the Ripper was simply someone more bolder, in control, and simply not stupid. He had control of what he was doing, and how he did it. And if the police had begun to stumble onto who this was, or what he was doing, I doubt this killer would've been stupid enough to continue his escapades in the realm of a serial killer. So therefore after such an indicident, either died, was imprisoned/placed in an asylum, or simply, stopped.


Hatchett,

You had mentioned that "Not only that but the frequency of the murders does actually point to a compulsion that is out of control." & "I do not think he could have stopped even if he wanted to."

I just have a couple comments about these two statements and such. In looking at the Ripper murders to say that The Ripper was someone who had a compulsion that was out of control, and something that he could not have stopped even if he wanted to, is much really something that doesn't add up. The murders themselves tell you about the individual who commited the crimes. Looking at his method of operation and murder also is completely different from which you are stating. Looking at the Ripper murders, JTR exhibited plenty of organized and dis-organized traits that are common in a serial killer. One of the traits that JTR "excelled" in, was surely having control of each and every situation in which a woman was murdered, as well as the crime scene itself. You pointed to that the frequency of the murders points to a compulsion that is out of control. If we are talking about a compulsion, a rather domineering rate of mutilation, etc on the body each time then of course it is getting out of control, BUT, he is firmly in grasp of the sitation about him. He's not sloppy. He doesn't slip up, none of the victims are able to utter a word (The Mary Kelly situation with Murder is something not definitively proven so I'm going to count her as well as being completely caught by surprise)

This is an individual who neither attracts unwanted attention to himself, nor does he show any visible and alarming signs to those women he comes across. So this is someone who not only is going into these murders with a compulsion that drives his mutilations and how he disembowels these women, but under pressure he is successful in doing one thing....one of the most important thing to serial killers. Escaping. Had his compulsion been out of control, he would've had less breaks inbetween the murders, and you would've probably begun to experience some form of tacky or "poor" work done by him. Meaning he would've become sloppy. The fact that there are such spaces in between the murders over 4 months that yeilded 4 nights/early mornings in which murders were committed (The double event of course is counted as one) its a far cry from someone like H.H. Holmes, Ted Bundy, Henry Lee Lucas, Gary Leon Ridgway, and John Wayne Gacy. Now when it comes to a compulsion that is out of control, those individuals listed had compulsions that were out of control, and it ultimately got each of them caught because they could not keep it under control.

JTR was completely different. And just the fact that he committed only 5 known murders, possibly 6 including Tabram, shows that he had the control and power to stop, and halt his murders if he wished, continuing onwards to commence if he had the chance to do so.


Regards,
Justin

[Hatchett]

Hi Justine,

It was the frequency I was pointing out as showing a compulsion that was out of control. That Jack the Ripper was in control of the murders is a brave statement.

Certainly there was a certain amount of cunning. But largely I think it was a case of opportunism. The victim would have led him to the place of their execution. The control he had was in strangling them first. The rest I would put forward was impulsive, and at times reckless. He could have been caught many times he was so reckless. And if you look at the murderers his recklessness increases.

I do not think we are looking for a master brain here, or for someone who is in control of many things.

Best wishes.

[Jdombrowski89]

Hi Justine,

It was the frequency I was pointing out as showing a compulsion that was out of control. That Jack the Ripper was in control of the murders is a brave statement.

Certainly there was a certain amount of cunning. But largely I think it was a case of opportunism. The victim would have led him to the place of their execution. The control he had was in strangling them first. The rest I would put forward was impulsive, and at times reckless. He could have been caught many times he was so reckless. And if you look at the murderers his recklessness increases.

I do not think we are looking for a master brain here, or for someone who is in control of many things.

Best wishes.

Hatchett,

I appreciate your views, and I am glad that we are able to discuss/debate them . Of course not everything all of us "Ripperologists" will talk about will jive on the same page, but atleast if the atmosphere is clear and there's a good debate, nothing bettering for the investigating mind to do so. So I applaude not only your point of view, but your take on things, as it is what makes us all unique.

I actually do agree with you on some points. Was the killer reckless? Absolutely. But he was extremely lucky. The case in point? The Double Event. But that separate rant, and my views are something I'll save for a different time. And when you were pointing out the frequency in terms of showing that the compulsion was out of control, that also is something to an extent we both agree on.

And to say Jack the Ripper was in control is indeed a brave statement, if I may say so. But in terms of Jack and the "control" he possessed over his victims, his control with his victims was not just with strangling his victims, but in fact by meeting them. By getting their attention, and by "stalking" out his prey he was experiencing an enormous rush of adrenaline....By engaging in a conversation, not only was he calm and collected (As apparenty he never attracted attention to himself) but he was in control from the minute he was able to successfully gather the prostitute's attention, and a safe state of mind. There was nothing that red-flagged these women that they were about to be led to their doom, and it must've been a certain "charm" about him in which he was able to lead these women into these situations.

Jack the Ripper also didn't partially-strangle all the women. In the case of Tabram it's most likely she was partially-strangled. Nichols and Chapman of course exhibit the signs and stages of partial asphyxia (a.k.a. swollen/ protruding tounge, lack of arterial spray, muscles, etc) With Stride, Eddowes, 7 Kelly you have signs of defensive wounds. This is also signs of a man who is not only changing his M.O., but his methods of how he does about killing the women. I would also think that if The Ripper partially strangled Stride or Eddowes, and defensively "attacked" the other victim of the double event in the same blitz-style attack, only not focusing on partial-strangulation, that it would lead to a more suspicious account of who exactly was killed by who, even though in some situations serial killers will switch this up.

And the victims led the Ripper to the locations. But did he? If the premise of money for a "knee trembler" or any of the exotic sexual favors of the day were exchanged for money (Note my sarcasm by the phrase "exotic" ) then I would be inclined to think that it's possible the killer could have taken them to a sight or two he was familiar with. If you have someone who makes a prostitute feel comfortable, safe, and willing and no feared...it would be just as easy to make the suggestion. These women were always in need of the financial gain, and of course they would do anything to have it. Even keep prostituting at the height of the murders, knowing they too could be next.

He could've been caught being reckless I agree, with the case of Annie Chapman. The crime itself does not appear of a typical Ripper murder, but something more mythical and enigmatic. Something of this particular crime, as well as each of the other ones, is different because it's the latest crime scene...the most populated before the Stride killing. So it would be interesting to see what the insight was into the killer's mind, when he decided to murder someone at 5:30am, knowing well that people would be rising for market soon.

He was cunning and vicious, indeed, but for the Ripper to murder Mary Kelly..inside No. 13 not only shows that he had felt comfortable in that setting, but one thing we all have to think about is the knowledge of that broken window. Many people knew about it yes, but for the Ripper to just walk up, see a window in a random court, and looking in ASSUMING a lone woman was inside, entering and then killing her? That's just plain stupid. The Kelly murder clearly shows that either JTR knew MK, or was a client brought home.(I'm merely stating objections from several friends at work who I've talked to) Was Jack the Ripper a brainiac? No. But he wasn't stupid, either. He made reckless mistakes, but at each crime scene evidence clearly shows that this was the work of an organized serial killer, who not only had his actions in control (as to not attracting attention, escaping,etc) but he knew what he was doing and how he was going to do it.

Finally although you say you don't believe we are looking for someone in control, then who are we looking for? If this individual did not have control, the women would've become defensive immediately, attracting attention. He would've definately gotten caught (I spoke to a Statistician who said his chances of getting away with the Eddowes's murder was 1:62,000,000,000. Impressive, wouldn't you say? And this individual clearly shows that he did maintain a firm grasp of the situation and that he had it under control. Because someone who murders two women in one night, the latter crime commited in the span of 15 minutes, within walking distance of two reversed Constable beats, and a 1:62,000,000,000 odd would lead me as a former small time investigator, Criminal profiler to think that this man was in "control of all things". Serial Killer's crave control, it's what they do and why they do it. Jack the Ripper is another example of those who exuberated control.

All the best, my friend

Best Wishes,
Justin

[Errata]

From the way I have seen it explained by any number of serial killers, I'm not 100% convinced it isn't somehow related to obsessive compulsive disorder. Now, a mob hitman is technically a serial killer, but thats not the kind we talk about. Every serial killer interview I have read talks about a pressure building up, some inner tension that killing relieves, and evidently only killing relieves. Now I have OCD and that sounds terribly familiar. I get no joy out of spinning the dial of my dryer three full times before turning it on, but it is the only way to release the sudden and urgent tension standing in front of the dryer creates. Counting lights in those sidewalk arrow signs does not make me a good driver. And I can't say something bad will happen if I don't do it, but I will tell you what is absolutely guaranteed to make me stop the car, get out and count them. If someone tells me that I can't because we're in a hurry, or its stupid, etc. Rage, and then nothing can stop me. I don't even have the option of not doing it. The idea that I can't do it makes it 10 times worse.

Which is how I picture it for serial killers. They may not be able to get out and kill, but I imagine they are incredibly irritable and shaky until they can kill again.

[FrankO]

But largely I think it was a case of opportunism. The victim would have led him to the place of their execution. The control he had was in strangling them first. The rest I would put forward was impulsive, and at times reckless.

Hi Hatchett,

I agree that the Ripper was much more of an opportunist than a planner, but, like Justin, I also think his control went further than just the strangling (or whatever he did to render his victims unconscious). Like Justin wrote, the Ripper was enough in control of himself to not give himself away until it was too late for his victims. That way, he also controlled his victims and the situation. Furthermore, he cut his victims’ throats in such a way that he wouldn’t get all bespattered with blood. And he must have worked very quickly. Both gave him some control over the desired outcome of not getting caught.

He could have been caught many times he was so reckless. And if you look at the murderers his recklessness increases.

I agree that he was reckless, and therefore lucky that he wasn’t caught. However, I don’t think it was sheer luck that – at least 3 times - kept him from being buckled. I believe he paid enough attention to his surroundings while ‘on the job’ so that he could leave the scene when someone approached. In this regard it’s interesting to note that PC Neil heard PC Thain pass Brady Street at the east end of Buck’s Row, some 130 yards away. It isn’t hard to imagine that the Ripper heard Charles Cross enter Buck’s Row from Brady Street too and then fled, and that he paid enough attention to his surroundings in the other cases too, helping him not to get caught.

All the best,
Frank

[Steven_Rex]

With regards to opportunism, I would question how much the murders could be considered totally 'opportunistic' if the perpetrator happened to be walking the street with adequate 'ripping' implements, possibly material for cleaning himself or some kind of spare clothing to hide any blood spatters.

So while I think he may have been opportunistic to a degree, I think the concrete fact that he went cruising the streets with a knife indicates that he at least entertained the possibility that he might be lucky enough to fulfill his fantasies on any given night. He may have been somewhere in between actively trolling for victims and taking advantage of opportunities as they presented themselves; he took the precaution of going out equipped, hoping for a chance to kill, but played it by ear once on the streets...