How Brown
01-14-2010, 09:39 PM
Thread devoted to the probability as to whether the Whitechapel Murderer was incarcerated after the last murder he committed, murders which are found in the files categorized as Whitechapel murder victims and as a result of the theoretical incarceration, his career came to a halt. Not in a mental institution, but prison or penal servitude in the colonies.
*** Does anyone consider it likely that he may have been incarcerated for another crime, even if not murder ?
*** Does anyone think he may have been incarcerated and died ?
In any event, does anyone believe that the crimes came to a halt before the files were closed because of an arrest for another crime ?
I understand how academic these questions appear. However, what is desired here is your opinion on whether a jail sentence above all other considerations, such as death, relocation, or a self imposed cessation of murderous behavior was more likely ?
It might be worth considering that murderers....serial murderers....are generally the diametrical opposites of what they were in their previous civilian lives. Few serial killers cause trouble in the joint and in a way, that they are not in an environment from which they could act out their mayhem without an immediate retribution, if not from inmates or prison authorities, they are usually considered low risk inmates. Bizarre considering that Peter Sutcliffe caused such a panic in the 1970's and he winds up being a veritable milquestoast in the slammer. He's not alone. Most are.
As a result, if the Whitechapel Murderer had been incarcerated and not institutionalized, he probably would have been a wallflower in a prison causing a limited amount of trouble. The odds seem to suggest he would have been as much had he been a psychopath such as the growing list of reprobates we have to examine appear to be.
However, would such a killer have not parlayed his "achievements" into something from which to further his notoriety ?
You tell us.
*** Does anyone consider it likely that he may have been incarcerated for another crime, even if not murder ?
*** Does anyone think he may have been incarcerated and died ?
In any event, does anyone believe that the crimes came to a halt before the files were closed because of an arrest for another crime ?
I understand how academic these questions appear. However, what is desired here is your opinion on whether a jail sentence above all other considerations, such as death, relocation, or a self imposed cessation of murderous behavior was more likely ?
It might be worth considering that murderers....serial murderers....are generally the diametrical opposites of what they were in their previous civilian lives. Few serial killers cause trouble in the joint and in a way, that they are not in an environment from which they could act out their mayhem without an immediate retribution, if not from inmates or prison authorities, they are usually considered low risk inmates. Bizarre considering that Peter Sutcliffe caused such a panic in the 1970's and he winds up being a veritable milquestoast in the slammer. He's not alone. Most are.
As a result, if the Whitechapel Murderer had been incarcerated and not institutionalized, he probably would have been a wallflower in a prison causing a limited amount of trouble. The odds seem to suggest he would have been as much had he been a psychopath such as the growing list of reprobates we have to examine appear to be.
However, would such a killer have not parlayed his "achievements" into something from which to further his notoriety ?
You tell us.