Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why No Murders In 1890??

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Uncle Jack
    started a topic Why No Murders In 1890??

    Why No Murders In 1890??

    So lets hear your theories about this one.... this is mostly for those who believe that Jack killed beyond the C5..... If, and I do state IF, Jack did kill beyond Mary Jane Kelly and continued to murder, why was there no murders that took place in 1890?? .....Or was there some murders or attacks in 1890 that went unnoticed that could have been overlooked? Were there any stabbings/knife attacks etc in 1890?? Or... could he have been away from London or been ill or even had a "rest" similar to BTK etc..?

    Best regards

    Adam
    Last edited by Uncle Jack; 10-23-2008, 07:08 PM.

  • Uncle Jack
    replied
    I think it is foolish to think that the later murders of Mylett, McKenzie, Pinchin Street, Coles and Woolfe, all of whom (except Mylett) were killed in Whitechapel, are not connected just bacause they were not identical to the '88 series. I also think this concerning murders in London outside the East End such as Elizabeth Jackson and Whitehall.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by evilina View Post
    If we do assume that Jack killed after 1888 (which I don't really think I agree with) then one would assume that a break was caused by a lack of freedom. One that comes to mind is that he was jailed for an unrelated crime for a short period.
    Why do you think he didnt kill anymore after 1888. ?

    People keep writing this but it is a fact that there were other murders afterwards all of a very similar nature, all unsolved. Foolhardy to dismiss them outright.

    Everyone is entitled to their opinions but opinions dont solver murder cases

    Leave a comment:


  • DVV
    replied
    My take is that his urges died away after Miller's Court.
    Not as Macnaghten interpreted it ("awful glut", ie: he couldn't do more than that, so...), but because Mary was the motive.

    Amitiés,
    David

    Leave a comment:


  • Gman992
    replied
    Either he was in jail--caught for doing something else, died-natural or other means, or "reformed"--which is highly doubtful

    Leave a comment:


  • Pettifogger
    replied
    I've never been able to convince myself that JtR wasn't fighting against time in these killings.

    If you accept merely the August to November 1888 murders and nothing beyond, it still is a fight against time. He was working on some kind of time table for these murders. Not the time spent in the execution of the crimes at the locations themselves but against the calender in his mind. A very distorted vision of time & dates.

    Leave a comment:


  • evilina
    replied
    Murders in 1890??

    If we do assume that Jack killed after 1888 (which I don't really think I agree with) then one would assume that a break was caused by a lack of freedom. One that comes to mind is that he was jailed for an unrelated crime for a short period.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pablito
    replied
    its possible that he wasn't in the country and then came back...
    like George Chapman

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    There were no murders in 1890 as Jack the Ripper didn't murder after 1889 and not in London after 1888.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pettifogger
    replied
    I've always thought...

    timing was essential to JtR.

    1890 wasn't the right time to kill for him. 1888 was perfect by his calender. July 1889 fit the bill. Apparently so did February 1891.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nothing to see
    replied
    Your guess is as good as anyone else's. I think Jack did five then either died or was jailed or institionalised. If he went OS he'd have started again. I don't think Jack killed any other than those in the canon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Normy
    replied
    If jack only did the C5 do you think it's possible he did them in a short period of time because he knew he didn't have a long period of time to commit the murders?
    I mean that he might have known his days were numbered for some reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • Uncle Jack
    replied
    The whole 1890 gap is still a mystery to me. If Jack killed McKenzie and Coles, then there is a 19 month gap. Even if you believe that he killed the Pinchin Street victim, that is still a 17 month gap. Maybe he did suffer an illness for a certain length of time. Im surprised the press never attributed anything to the Ripper during this year.

    Leave a comment:


  • Uncle Jack
    replied
    It is strange how there are no murders at all in Whitechapel when it was such a violent place in general. I was certain that there would be at least some sort of unsolved stabbing case. Very odd but not uncommon I suppose.

    Leave a comment:


  • KatBradshaw
    replied
    Again Mmmmmmmmm


    One things that has always interested me about this is the idea of the gaps. Yes Sutcliffe had gaps but his attacks were more spaced out anyway. Jack's were so close together that I wonder what would have caused such a large gap!!!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X