|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through July 19, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Jack's fantasy? Why stop?:
Archive through July 19, 1999
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 07:09 am |        | Why could Jack have stopped at Kelly?
I am certain that Kelly was Jack's victim, probably the last. The type of savage ripping of the throat down to the vertebral column was the same as the others and the possible evidence that Kelly's throat was cut from the right, and not the left as by the others, is simply explained. We remember that Kelly lay on the right side of the bed against the wall. Jack had therefore to come in from her left and had to cut the throat accordingly.
The most obvious difference about Kelly's demise compared to the others is the degree of mutilation. They are alone together in a locked room. Jack can now, and not like the other killings, chop, cut and mutilate at leisure. Can he now live out his demonic desires to the full, destroying a female body to the maximal extent possible using a simple knife? (He could hardly have carried an axe around with him at that time.)
Could it be that after he had disembowelled and dismembered Kelly to the extent he did, there was no sexual part left on the body and his dreadful lust was quenched? After all, what lay there on the bed was now just a collection of meat and bones, with no sexual connection to the young woman it had been. Everything of sexual significance had been removed or mutilated.
Even the destruction of the mouth can be so explained. Oral sexual practice was also quite common, often to avoid pregnancy . The mouth had a vagina-like function and was therefore included in the mutilation.
Having completed this total gutting, Jack had exhausted his fantasy and found that the result was not the fulfilment expected. He stopped killing because even the complete and utter indulgence in his perverted lust did not give him satisfaction.
Comments?
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 09:32 am | | Hey, Bob
In the mind of the killer, if he was not satisfied with the fantasies he's been acting out he will continue. He will kill in the same manner again and again, changing only because of "improvements" learned by "experience", circumstances at the murder site, or because he is devolving...worsening his mutilations to achieve the satisfactions that previously were satisfied by something less. Look and Bundy and Dahmer. Gacy may have been on the same path.
The only word of caution about MY post is the information is based on caught serial killers who lived in roughly our timeframe and shared our own value systems. We cannot be so sure of these conditions in a different age or time period. A complete or total extrapolation of "modern" knowledge back onto the Victorian Age, specifically Whitechapel in 1888, may be very misleading.
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 10:29 am | | Hi Yaz,
The point here was, however, that Jack couldn't remove or mutilate any more sexual organs because there weren't any more left. He couldn't rip out more of a woman because he'd done it all with Kelly. If his fantasy involved the removal and destruction of more and more, it had to stop with Kelly for that reason.
Of course I am less qualified than many, including you, to put myself in 1888, but my idea was based on the logic that if Jack did auto-stop, which is unlikely but not impossible, then while he found something else to replace these desires. What that could be defies my imagination.
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 11:01 am | | Hey, Bob:
I know little about 1888. Someone else, on another topic a long time ago, made the point about FBI-type "profiling" not taking into consideration social, cultural, time period, and other factors. Their caution applies even more, I think, to another time period.
The point I was making is that no one knows why a serial killer stops if he was never caught. They assume from interviews with those captured that the only way THOSE killers will stop is unless they're caught or die. The others were never caught, so no one knows ANYTHING about them or their fate.
FBI and other criminal investigators are only guessing that all serial killers will continue to kill until they're caught or die because they have no evidence from the significant number who are noticed, are never caught, stop killing, and never seem to reappear. Empricial data on the number of serial killers in the U.S. and elsewhere is poor. It's all the poorer about the ones who get away.
Yaz |
Author: brycaustin
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 02:42 am | | Hi ya Bob: Your explanation of why Jack the Ripper ceased is as exceptable as any I've heard. Like others I am not an expert on serial killers, merely a guy captivated and intrigued by the whole ordeal of the whitechapel murders.
First off no one truly knows what goes through the demented minds of people like a Jack the Ripper, so we can only speculate why the killings stopped, just as we can only speculated as why they began...
Keep on trudging Bob and I am sure that out there somewhere lies the answer, I know from researching and studying this case that much evidence was tampered with and destroyed and much of the crime scenes were probably botched and disrupted by police officials ill equipped to handle such a crime.
But I am a firm believer that somewhere, there is something that points to who Jack the Ripper was. |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 03:09 am | | Hi Brycaustin,
Thanks for the flowers. It was an idea why Jack maybe stopped, but there are a lot of other good ideas from others.
Bob |
Author: Johnno
Sunday, 20 December 1998 - 06:58 am | | What we have above are some thought-provoking comments. If indeed it is true that serial killers continue to kill due to some driving force, be it lust, vengeance or whatever, there must be some point of conclusion, unless of course that the very act of killing and mutilating is satisfaction alone, a sense of which will continue for as long as the murder has opportunity and can get away with murder as it were (pardon the pun!)
Bob C. makes a valid point about Jack the Ripper having gone as far as he could with the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. Given that the ferocity of the crimes increased, there must have been some point of finality.
The cessation of the murders after that of Mary Jane Kelly does make one wonder exactly why the murders ceased. To me, the most obvious answers to the question may be a combination of one or more of the following possibilities:
1) Jack the Ripper achieved a climax and sense of satisfaction which could not be exceeded by further killing;
2) Mary Jane Kelly was the reason for the murders;
3) Jack the Ripper was confined to a mental or correctional institution of some description, most likely due to other circumstances;
4) Jack the Ripper moved away or passed away.
Re point 1, if this was the case, by what means could the killer have gained further satisfaction?
Re point 2, if Mary Jane Kelly was the reason for the murders, the Masonic and Barnett theories aside, I can see no reason for the murder of the four (or five, counting Martha Tabram) prior murders.
Re point 3, I find this quite plausible, if we discount Mary Jane Kelly being the reason for the murders. One author presented the possibility of confinement being a reason for cessation of the murders. (I cannot remember who; can anyone remind me?)
Re point 4, if Jack the Ripper moved away, it would seem plausible that similar if not identical murders would have taken place in the area of his re-location. Is anyone aware of any such murders having taken place elsewhere after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly? |
Author: Anthony Bradley
Thursday, 17 June 1999 - 12:01 pm | | | I can't really believe that someone who was able to carry out such evil acts of violence would just stop all of a sudden. I think we all agree that Jack the Ripper, whoever he was, was in some way insane. Now I'm certainly not an expert in insanity but I would think that in his own mind he probably thought that he could get away with his crimes forever, believing that he would never be caught. So, therefore, I think the reason that he stopped was, quite simply, he did get caught. But that brings us back to the old question of why was his identity kept a secret? |
Author: Villon
Thursday, 17 June 1999 - 05:35 pm | | Good point, Anthony: I find it easier to believe that Jack was stopped by force of circumstance rather than his own volition (this is my only significant reservation regarding Tumblety). But it doesn't follow that he must have been caught, at least not for the murders: he might have died, or been arrested on some lesser charge and packed off to prison without the police ever realising what they had their hands on. Immobilisation of some kind at the relevant time seems to be a pillar of the case aginst several suspects: Druitt, Kosminski, Ostrog, David Cohen, old uncle Jim Maybrick and all. I've nothing against conspiracy theories but I think cock-up theory works fine here.
Regards
Mike |
Author: Julian
Thursday, 17 June 1999 - 10:34 pm | | G'day everyone,
I'm gunna chuck in another idea, that Jack had finished his work (whatever that was) and simply buggered off.
We've gotta remember that the murders increased in ferocity with the final murder being Mary Jane Kelly who was literally carved to pieces. I think that Jack didn't think he could do 'better' than that and considered his 'work' completed.
My thoughts anyway.
Jules |
Author: D. Radka
Friday, 18 June 1999 - 01:43 pm | | Hey Jules,
Don't make it bad...
C'mon now. If he cut MJ into 1,000 pieces, he could always try for 2,000 with the next woman. Forward!
David |
Author: Julian
Sunday, 20 June 1999 - 07:57 pm | | G'day David,
Yeah mate, I've thought about that, But I think that after what he did to Mary Jane, he satisfied himself that that was good enough.
Jules |
Author: Joe
Thursday, 24 June 1999 - 10:32 am | | Jules/David
I don't reckon a guy like JTR could ever simply switch off from his perverse craving for murder.
For what it's worth??
Take care,
Joe |
Author: RLeen
Thursday, 24 June 1999 - 11:56 am | | Hello All,
I must apologise for coming late to this debate but one point, the notion of a psychological profile, grabbed my attention. Dr. Forbes Winslow, a specialist on insanity, actually produced such a profile which, if memory serves, had a lot of parallels with the personality of the 1970's Yorkshire Ripper. What does this prove, well forst of all maniacs are timeless, the machinations of the deviant mind then are probably the same as now. It also shows that there was some developed, though unproven, techniques being used.
With regard to why did he stop, I'm afraid I have to side with the idea that JTR would continue killing until caught or dying, (cradle to the grave?). I think it unlikely that he would suddenly find release in the last killing for the simple factor that anyone he subsequently saw who resembled Mary Jane Kelly would, to his mind, become Kelly and thus require to be killed again.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 24 June 1999 - 05:19 pm | | Hi All,
What if Jack, with fox-like cunning, was trying to get the blame for the ripper murders put on someone else, someone specific? If that someone became temporarily or permanently hors de combat, Jack would also have to curtail his activities for the frame-up to stand a chance of getting off the ground. Maybe, further down the road, when people firmly believed MJK to be the last victim, our Jack felt able to 'carry on ripping', even taking his evil trade across the pond for a couple more before collecting his retirement pension. Elizabeth Senior was said to be 73 when she was killed in New Jersey on 31st January 1892. Perhaps he felt THAT was the height of his murderous achievement, finding such an elderly bird still capable of selling her bod.
Any thoughts?
Love,
Caz |
Author: D. Radka
Thursday, 24 June 1999 - 05:45 pm | | Caz,
Do you mean Weedon did this?
Thanks!
David |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 25 June 1999 - 02:19 am | | Hi y'all.
RABBI: Excellent possibility - about JtR being compelled to kill Mary look-alikes.
I read a few new tidbits about Dr. Winslow tonight - Do you know if the police allowed him to view the bodies?
JULES: Jack wasn't working on a term paper. I don't envision him running his game plan through spell checker & saying - OKAY! I'm done. That's me best - give me my final grade & I'm off to set up a stall in the Orange Market ... eventually turning the biz over to me 10 grandkids. Ain't life swell. :^)
OBSESSION: Can't stop thinking about it ...
COMPULSION: Can't stop acting it out ...
It's ironic that a person on such a power trip - Actually has no control over their own brain. A serial killer is not driven to commit perfection - rather driven to commit murder, but the realization of the fantasy ALWAYS falls short of the high expected/ hoped for ... Within hours or days the addict vows next time I'll eat brownies instead of ice cream OR drink beer instead of wine OR mutilate the arms instead of just the face --- and that will make me feel "okay" inside ... and the next day it starts over and over ...
Geeze, where did all that come from? Never mind - don't answer that.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Caz
Friday, 25 June 1999 - 06:20 pm | | Hi David,
You're welcome dear.
I was thinking more of modern-day tv murder mysteries, like Cracker and such. If the wrong man is taken into custody, for example, the real killer's best bet is to lie low. If he kills again the other man is automatically assumed to be innocent and free to go.
The problem is when, as Janice points out, the killer is unable to stop himself, regardless of the risk and the perfect opportunity to let someone else carry the can.
So, assuming Jack was obsessive/compulsive, was he also clever and controlled enough to hold back when the occasion demanded?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Desdinova
Monday, 19 July 1999 - 01:05 pm | | I recognise the point that about trying to stop but can't, and I also think that the Ripper must have been a very clever person, even if he is insane.He clearly knew where to go and what to do
which makes me think it is an inside person,namely
the police doctor.Anyway, that's for a different topic.
Cya,
Desdinova |
Author: Jill
Monday, 19 July 1999 - 01:57 pm | | The funny thing about fantasy, is that reality never suffice. Every creative mind, be it a musician, a painter, a writer or a designer feels the need to capture what he fantasised. And every time he can enjoy his achievement for only that long, before another fantasy must be furfilled, it is COMPULSIVE.
I'm sure that Jack felt creative, although he was morbidly destructive. Maybe MJK WAS the masterpiece of his "blue period". But after that, he would have felt the urge to to try to experiment with more abstract work (change of MO). Picasso began with his more extreme cubisme when he was in his fifties, before that it was from very figurative to a mingle in between. In my humble opinion Jack wouldn't have stopped, he either would go on the same path or gradually go for a different approach.
But that's just it, there are no victims more horroble in the line of MJK and there is no transition neither. So far I only know of victims in Jack's MO, later in time and abroad in a bit milder MO (if you can call it that way), and then you are stuck with totaly other MO's.
Have to chew this board over again
Jill |
|
|
|
|
