The Ripper's MO....

[Sam Flynn]

Carried over from a "signature" thread, in the vain hope that we can keep MO and signature separate

the M.O. .... varies with regards to M.Kelly.

It could be argued that the MO varied with the other victims, too, Mal. For example, whilst both Nichols and Eddowes were killed at night on public thoroughfares (Buck's Row more so than Mitre Square), Annie Chapman was killed at daybreak in a private back yard.

Similarly, whilst we have reason to believe that Chapman and Eddowes were "sweet-talked" by their killer, we don't know as much about Nichols - who might been taken by surprise by her killer as she walked past him, for all we know.

[perrymason]

Carried over from a "signature" thread, in the vain hope that we can keep MO and signature separate It could be argued that the MO varied with the other victims, too, Mal. For example, whilst both Nichols and Eddowes were killed at night on public thoroughfares (Buck's Row more so than Mitre Square), Annie Chapman was killed at daybreak in a private back yard.

Similarly, whilst we have reason to believe that Chapman and Eddowes were "sweet-talked" by their killer, we don't know as much about Nichols - who might been taken by surprise by her killer as she walked past him, for all we know.

Hi Sam,

In point of fact Polly was picked up while outdoors soliciting...as was Annie likely, and probably Kate. You used daylight and public/private locations as a way to differentiate between these murders, when again, in point of fact, they all were killed outdoors in poorly lit venues....where anyone might find them. The 3 were all subdued and on the ground before a knife was used in any way, they all had their heads almost removed with the throat cuts, and all 3 had the focal interest for PM mutilations being their abdomens. Thats the Motis Operandi for those 3 of 5 alleged victims.

Liz is very possibly a miscategorized episode of street violence, and there is no "picked up while soliciting" that we can attach there either. Nothing with witnesses anyway. There is no need to discuss MO when a murder is choke, slice, drop....it doesnt get less sophisticated than that.

The MO that we can provide evidence for in the case of Mary Kelly is that he went to her room in a small court on his own while Mary was likely inside sleeping in her knickers, Blotchy must have left because Jack doesnt encounter him, he entered the room by being let in or doing so himself, he attacks her at the very beginning with his knife out slashing at her while she is on the bed awake or awakening as it happens,...and when she has had her throat cut, he does things like cut off a breast and place it under her head....he takes flesh off her right thigh bone to her right knee, and from the inside of her left thigh....he may have burned clothes, he slashes indiscriminately at her face...and after emptying her, he takes an organ that he has shown zero interest in till then,...but considering the personal nature of her dress, the location, her facial wounds and a locked room...the personal nature of a heart fits the nature of the crime. Its just doesnt fit Jack the Rippers nature or demonstrated preferences.

It would seem Jack the Rippers MO is only as flexible as his head count suggests...and with a Canonical Group that includes a mere murder and a free-for-all dissection party, no surprise that such leeway is extended.

I have no issue suggesting that Polly and Annie met the same lone killer, and that Kate may have as well. They are almost patterned murders.

Cheers Sam, all the best.

[Limehouse]

To my mind, the killer's MO varies only in terms of the circumstances and opportunities he is presented with. Where possible, he killed in dark streets, a little away from the crowds, and achieved as much mutilation as he could manage in the time, space and level of light afforded to him.

In the case of Chapman, it is possible that he was searching for a victim for a time, and she wa the one who presented herself to him at that time. It is true that with Chapman, he took a very great risk, as it was light or almost light and anyone could have looked out of a window in that building overlooking the yard and seen him at work. The murder of Kelly, I believe, differs only in that he had time and relative privacy to indulge himself. Had he the same time and space with his other victims, they may very well have ended up as Kelly did.

To summarise, we can't expect a killer to exactly replicate the cicumstances and methods with each killing if the opportunities do not present themselves.

[smezenen]

To summarise, we can't expect a killer to exactly replicate the cicumstances and methods with each killing if the opportunities do not present themselves.

My thoughts exactly. Why would he do it the exact same way everytime? Even given the exact same circumstances each time wouldnt he do things a little different? Wouldnt he get bored with the same old thing pretty fast? I dont think he changed much from one murder to another until he gets to Kelly, then he has time and privacy to explore.

[DarkPassenger]

My thoughts exactly. Why would he do it the exact same way everytime? Even given the exact same circumstances each time wouldnt he do things a little different? Wouldnt he get bored with the same old thing pretty fast? I dont think he changed much from one murder to another until he gets to Kelly, then he has time and privacy to explore.

You have to put the crimes, (considered as the outcome of the killer's actions, decisions and opportunities) in context. He's not a machine, he's a man. How would you do it? How would you adapt each time to the situation? People treat serial killers like machines driven by rigid internal forces and it makes my blood boil.

[Limehouse]

You have to put the crimes, (considered as the outcome of the killer's actions, decisions and opportunities) in context. He's not a machine, he's a man. How would you do it? How would you adapt each time to the situation? People treat serial killers like machines driven by rigid internal forces and it makes my blood boil.

Well, that's exactly the point I was making. He does adapt each time to the situation. It appears that where he has the time and opportunity, he achieves the most mutilation. With the exception of Stride, he seems to increase the amount of destruction he carries out on each woman, suggesting a growing confidence and an increased opportunity to do so. I think the killer's MO is fairly consistent, given the circumstances and the opportunities available.

[Sam Flynn]

You used daylight and public/private locations as a way to differentiate between these murders, when again, in point of fact, they all were killed outdoors in poorly lit venues...

It's OK to generalise, but let's look at the specifics here - because when one does the locations take on a less general character altogether. To keep this away from "Kelly-specific" territory, let's just focus on Polly, Annie and Kate: One was killed on an open, populous street; another in a secluded and thinly-populated square; yet another was killed behind a back-door in a back yard, accessed by walking through a private house.

This may tell us less about the killer's MO than it does about the circumstances and locations in which he happened to find himself before he killed. In other words, these locations weren't necessarily HIS choice at all, and - if not - then we cannot read too much of a "pattern" into the way HE behaved.

where anyone might find them.

I rather suspect that he was more concerned with not being found himself, than he was about whether, and by whom, the bodies were found. Let's not delude ourselves here - if the locations weren't the killer's choice, then "leaving the bodies where they might be found by anyone" might not have been a "preference" of his at all.

Certainly, any murderer compelled to kill on the streets - whether because that's where the easiest victims were to be had, or because the killer didn't have, or want to use, his own place - will, by default, leave their victims in places where they might easily be found. It's not as if the Ripper was going to take all that risk in the killing itself, and then incur more risk by carrying the bodies to hide them someplace else.

The 3 were all subdued and on the ground before a knife was used in any way, they all had their heads almost removed with the throat cuts, and all 3 had the focal interest for PM mutilations being their abdomens. Thats the Motis Operandi for those 3 of 5 alleged victims.

The mutilations are part of the signature, Mike. The MO was what the killer did before the victims' deaths.

[Malcolm X]

JTR is not a robot and the locations/times vary, Micheal is trying to cast the Ripper's M.O in concrete, it cant be done and this fixated approach makes it very hard to argue against, i'm beating my head against a brick wall.

you need to swing more in a breeze Mike, because reading your posts here on this thread is frustrating, you're not listening/ understanding what others say, your arguements for a Copycat killer with regards to Kelly need to be strengthened quite a lot before they're believable.......the same goes for``Lars`` too, because i've never read convincing arguements in support of a copycat.

with Stride you did a good job, but with Kelly poor, because you're portraying JTR as having far too much of a fixed M.O to win your arguement...Kelly is a recognised JTR victim the world over and for good reasons too.

you dont see this at all.... well, there's not a lot more i can say is there.

[Malcolm X]

JTR didn't give a damn where he left the bodies, if you dont understand why, then you're not understanding his mindset at all, same goes for the locations he killed at..... all of this is so obvious, realising this also explains why Stride may not be his victim and Kelly quite definitely yes!

[perrymason]

Hi all,

I wasnt suggesting that the mutilations were part of an MO intentionally Sam....that slipped in. Ive been fairly clear on what I perceive is the JtR signature until now so hopefully that wont be confused.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with assumptions that Jack changed MO all the time, and adapted on the spot to the new venues and immediate surroundings and circumstances. That he was unsure of what he really wanted so he did a random assortment of killings based on impulses and opportunity.

That being said, we are not talking about a professional tennis player adapting to clay court surfaces,....we are talking about a man being the target of a massive manhunt, for murders he is committing out in public. Anything he does wrong now can get him caught...the any slip of his hand, a scream getting out from a victim, blood trails, ...he cannot make mistakes he made early in his killing career anymore. Some might say that is where he did adapt...he moved from the front of houses to the backyard next kill. The Coroner at Pollys Inquest thought thats what transpired so he could complete his goals like he does with Annie...he may have found Bucks Row a poor choice for uterus extractions.....surprise, surprise.

Now that we have a picture of the situation the man they called Jack was in by late September......tell me why again I should expect this man to now change MO when any mistep puts him in jail.

He executed 3 women within the Comedy-anonical" Group, perhaps in consecutive sequence, almost identically. Every important aspect of those murders... from the acquisition to the "signature phase" mutilations... were modeled after the MO used on what is assumed to be his very first victim, Polly.

If Liz Stride was not a Ripper victim, Jacks likely victims 1 thru 3 are a strong indicator he liked his MO, he found it was very successful... having not even one close call among them that we know of,..it kept them quiet, it allowed him to swiftly move to subsequent Phases of his 3 phase kill style...(subdue without weapon-kill when compliant and on the ground-mutilate and take organs), ....the authorities had no leads, no clues and no suspects as of Oct 1....when he is really in hot water.

Why... in any reasonable rational argument... would we look for him to branch out in an entirely new MO for his last victim? Why would he change one thing?

In case you havent noticed.....hes winning this "funny little game" handily....he has all the chips. So now he decides he'd like to draw to an "inside" straight?

If it aint broke you dont fix it....and this guy was 100% successful in getting away with murder. There is no need to slip into unknown courts, pick a door, and hope you find a sleeping street whore in her underwear. There were plenty outdoors, (although awake and dressed)......where he found all the others. They had no homes. 26 year old Mary Kelly, the baby of the Canonical Group, did.

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

That being said, we are not talking about a professional tennis player adapting to clay court surfaces,....we are talking about a man being the target of a massive manhunt, for murders he is committing out in public. Anything he does wrong now can get him caught...the any slip of his hand, a scream getting out from a victim, blood trails, ...he cannot make mistakes he made early in his killing career anymore. Some might say that is where he did adapt...he moved from the front of houses to the backyard next kill.

Well-observed, Mike. So we have:

Well-populated open street -> Yard of house with 17 tenants -> Secluded sparsely-populated square

Seems that we shouldn't just look for "escalation" in the mutilations. Could it be that, after Polly Nichols, he learnt a lesson and moved off the beaten track a bit in subsequent forays - assuming, of course, that he had much influence over where he ends up.

Even if he were led by the women to each of these locations, it's feasible that the scope for damage inflicted correlated with how much more "off the beaten track" the venue was.

If it aint broke you dont fix it....and this guy was 100% successful in getting away with murder.

Possibly true, in the sense of "successful kills" - but what of the "kills" that never happened? If we consider Sarah Lewis's or Sarah Roney's stories of being accosted by weirdos - flowered up, or possibly bogus, as they were - isn't it possible that Jack's advances didn't always result in a successful kill? I'd be surprised if he really had a 100% success rate - in fact, very surprised indeed.

There is no need to slip into unknown courts, pick a door, and hope you find a sleeping street whore in her underwear.

Indeed not.

There were plenty outdoors.

... and once in a while one of those would have been lucky enough to have had rooms of their own, to which they'd take clients.

[FrankO]

... having not even one close call among them that we know of,..

Hi Mike,

But can we assume he hadn't had any close calls? I'm not sure.

In Nichols' case, blood was still oozing from Polly's throat wounds when PC Neil found her. Plus, her abdomen weren't completely opened like later victims. This supports the notion that the Ripper was disturbed, or at least that he hadn't gone long before Cross and Paul arrived at the scene. They may even have been the ones who made him flee. In Eddowes' case there's only a time frame of some 10 minutes, perhaps even less. Perhaps we don't actually know of one close call, but we certainly can't be sure that he didn't have any close calls. In fact, there are some indications that he did.

Why... in any reasonable rational argument... would we look for him to branch out in an entirely new MO for his last victim? Why would he change one thing?

Regardless of whether he had any close shaves out in the streets, there's absolutely no doubt he was pressed for time and, if he didn't want to get caught, he needed to keep a keen eye and ear on his surroundings too. In other words, while he was killing and mutilating outdoors, he couldn't completely focus on what actually drove him: the mutilations. And there's no doubt his driving force was particularly strong since he was willing to risk his neck for it staying on the crime scene doing his 'thing'.

Now suppose he did have a close shave in Eddowes' case. And let's not forget that, by October, there was a huge manhunt going on with the streets 'flooded' with police officers, members of vigilance committees and public watching out for him. Therefore, you might understand why - mutilations being his very driving force - he might have come up with the idea of trying to find a prostitute who had a place of her own, where he could follow his aching urge without much chance of being disturbed and so, where he was allowed to more fully focus on what drove him.

Either that, or he was one very lucky b*stard indeed!

All the best, Mike!
Frank

[perrymason]

Hi Frank, Sam, all,

You both raise the issue of possible missteps he may have made, whether failed attack attempts, abbreviated ones like Liz Stride... if a Ripper victim, or nights that were not successful ventures. I cant say thats impossible. We know men were making claims of all sorts relating to Jack, and that women who were alone with men outside at night thought they might be in the company of Jack. My point was, there is not one single incident outside the Canonical Group that was categorized or even suggested as a legitimate candidate for a "Jack Attack" label. It seems the authorities felt that when he went out to kill, he killed. I agree with them on that point.

And when he killed, he disappeared leaving no clues to his identity or motivations in the wake. Thats known as a "clean get-away", and that would make 4 for 4 of those before Mary Kelly, if he killed Liz Stride.

The idea that each venue as it becomes more secluded offers the killer a greater opportunity to participate in mutilations is a valid concept Sam, but I dont see that it plays out here. Because we differ on a key issue. I believe Jack the Ripper was a gender specific killer and mutilator, and the objectives in terms of mutilations or extractions were based on that premise. I believe the evidence shows that in 3 of 5 attributed murders, he was specifically interested in the abdomens and genitals of women, and the uterus in particular.

I dont believe that there could be any other way to describe Marys killer other than having a "surgical" fetish, based on what he did. He wanted to take her apart, and likely did so with curiosity. For example, lets see what a human leg looks like when its half denuded of flesh.

I agree that the killer in room 13 indulged himself, I just dont see the indulgence matching the Ripper demonstrated focal point interest.

If Mary was a Crime of Passion, and her killer in hatred or madness wanted to destroy her, he might have done so based on what the papers had been full of since late August. By cutting her up. Thing is, the guy in room 13 does not have any attachment that is shown towards the only organ Jack has taken twice before, despite having it excised and in his hands. He places it under her head instead.

To try and do what Jack does based on what was reported prior to November 9th only requires a man that doesnt mind blood or killing. To do what Jack did to Annie requires something more. A driver, an urge, a motivator, a Plan. A method. The clock is running when he kills like he does outdoors, and he wants his satisfaction. He does what is most important to him based on the exposure and available time, and in less than 8 minutes if Lawende saw Kate, he accomplishes a great deal.

Sadly we all know that men like Jack arent as rare as we would like to think, Torso Man tells us he was not the only multiple killer working in London at the time, let alone all of the UK and Europe. Men kill like Jack....with lots of blood, gory crime scenes, and frigid emotions. Jack did it outside, within a single square mile, and while all of London essentially was looking at lone men at night with squinted eyes.

I think thats why Jack is so mysterious...its not the acts, people have done worse...its not the numbers, we know of serial killers who have been guilty of dozens of kills, .....its not that they are prostitutes, we have all read and know that that lifestyle can be fatal even today......its the small spaces and the outdoor venues. If it doesnt shock, then my guess is Jack wasnt there.

Room 13 is shocking....no doubt, but does it shows us that Jack was there? How many everyday people got to see the women that were killed in the street? Quite a few. How many of them saw Mary Kelly dead?

Best regards mates.

[Sam Flynn]

You both raise the issue of possible missteps he may have made, whether failed attack attempts, abbreviated ones like Liz Stride... if a Ripper victim, or nights that were not successful ventures. I cant say thats impossible.

Well, mysterious he might have been, Mike - but I don't think he had "superpowers" somehow

Room 13 is shocking....no doubt, but does it shows us that Jack was there?

Alas, that's a "signature" question. I started this thread purposely to discuss what he did before he killed his victims (i.e. his MO), not what he left behind in terms of mutilated corpses.

[perrymason]

1. Well, mysterious he might have been, Mike - but I don't think he had "superpowers" somehow

2. Alas, that's a "signature" question. I started this thread purposely to discuss what he did before he killed his victims (i.e. his MO), not what he left behind in terms of mutilated corpses.

Hi Gareth,

On point 1, no superpowers, granted .... but he had some wits about him definitely. Im not the first one to call him "clever".

On 2. Fair. Then you can substitute the entire acquisition and attack as being differentiators. Based on what we can know.

We feel pretty sure about how Polly meets him, and what the sequence is....and with Annie, its again the same dynamic, as with Kate. Key points are that they were all standing when he meets them, they were all dressed, they were all outdoors, and they were all homeless, and they were probably trying to turn tricks.

It appears Mary may have been lying down when attacked, undressed, indoors, in a room in her own name, and she may have been asleep when he arrives. And she is very close to half the median age of the rest of the Group.

Cheers Sam.

All the best.