All Ripper profiling

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Not really so confusing Caz. Im sure that your study of serial killers has taught you that most often the impetus to continue to kill remains the same as it was for the first kill, in that the killer is seeking the same things from the subsequent kills. Its not about gaining new experiences, its about the familiar and desirable ones,..... to the killer.

Hi Michael,

I don't agree that it's anywhere close to being that black and white. The impetus to commit murder is the only obvious factor that is there from an individual's first kill to their last. But we don't need profilers to tell us that.

What we are not qualified to judge, when we don't know who the killer was in any of the Whitechapel cases, is what the killer was seeking and why, on any particular occasion; how closely this matched what he actually achieved; and whether he would have done things differently if he could be sure his victim, and all the circumstances, would be completely under his control - something that wasn't very likely considering the built-up area and the many potential witnesses. Most of the victims were stumbled across relatively quickly after the killer had left, making him quite lucky not to have been spotted leaving the scene. So we can only guess if he left when he was fully satisfied with what he had done, or was destined to feel frustrated and unfulfilled - even after Kelly.

It would seem that there is investigative opinion on record that the killer of both Polly and Annie likely had the same objective, again, venue being a hindrance to a successful first time out.

I'm pretty sure any study of serial killers would have told you that precious few, if any, have as their objective the harvesting of menopausal uteri. BUT - if this really had been the objective of the man who killed Nichols and Chapman, he would presumably have wanted more than a single pathetic specimen, which would have required more murders and turned him into your card carrying serial killer, if only circumstances had not conspired against him. The whole thing sounds absurd when you look at it that way - or is it only me who thinks so?

All the killers you dredge up studies of continued to kill to satisfy the same driver they first killed for....unless of course its for the more mundane reason of self preservation, as in killing a witness.

Yes, the driver is usually the urge to take human life, whether violently or not so violently. The way they choose to do it, and what they choose to do with the corpse, however, can vary between the same killer's crimes, and can vary dramatically from one killer to the next, as they tend to have their own agenda, rather than wanting to mimic someone else's style. And of course, because we don't know who killed Stride or why, it's quite possible that she witnessed something (the murder weapon, a careless word, a look in the eye - who knows?) that made him silence her quickly out of self preservation - ripper or not.

If Polly and Annies killer demonstrated that he had a specific target in mind,...women alone, weak and vulnerable,...

When we already know why he killed the first 2...?

Firstly, every Whitechapel victim was a woman alone, weakened by alcohol, fatigue, illness or having to find ways to make ends meet, and therefore vulnerable when her killer struck.

Secondly, less of the 'we' please. You may have convinced yourself that Nichols and Chapman were only killed for their uteri, but you are likely to be in a minority of one. If they were killed for the sheer hell of it; for the opportunity it gave the killer to add to his tally or experiment with his knife; and if he picked them because they were alone and vulnerable, that could apply to any or all of the other victims.

There was more suspected about this murder than a domestic Caz, see the Special Branch thread.

I think I'd rather chew off my own feet, thanks all the same. But does that thread answer my question and show me where the police believed Kelly's killer was deliberately trying to mimic the previous crimes - with an indoor murder, where uterus and kidneys were taken from the corpse but left at the scene?

What my intention was is to state that the murderer in room 13 did not demonstrate with any clarity what he intended as his overall objective. If it was murder, why mutilate, if it was mutilation, then why isnt that focus the same as the first 2 mutilations done post mortem? If he wanted her heart, why peel her thighs? If he wanted her uterus...as the 2nd murderer did, then why leave it under her head? If Kates killer wanted her kidney, then why cut her open from the front? Why bother cutting her face...surely a sensitive timing murder to say the least. There are cuts that occur in Kates murder and Marys that do not have anything to do with causing death or extracting organs.

You only have trouble with all this because you see a harvester of uteri for Nichols and Chapman, leaving you with a mish-mash of apparently different, confusing and hard to explain objectives for the rest. All could be explained reasonably enough by one man experimenting at whim on several different females, in different circumstances. And according to the surgeon who posted earlier this year, kidneys were not routinely, or exclusively extracted at all in 1888, so the killer would not have known to get at it from the back, but did more than a good job of it from the front - possibly as a result of observing the technique in a dissecting room.

I cant believe this needs to be repeated....the greatest difference between murder 1 and murder 2 is venue, its no surprise that the more private the venue the more severe the damage.

Yet it never ceases to confound you that the most severe damage of all was done to Kelly in the most private venue, while the least damage of all was done earliest in the evening to Stride on the premises of a club still full of people coming and going.

Are we meant to believe that the most vicious monster in Whitechapel that year waited until November to upstage the next most vicious - the monster of nearby Mitre Square, who turned up after a slightly less vicious monster had struck in nearby Hanbury St and Buck's Row, following on from another two monsters' vicious Bank Holiday attacks on Tabram and Smith, near to all the others and not much more than a stone's throw away from each other?

Or is it more reasonable to allow for one monster evolving as the circumstances and opportunities allowed, and being responsible for several, if not most or all of these extraordinarily rare, extraordinarily vicious attacks?

The bleedin obvious Caz is that all these murders were unsolved, which means the reason for them isnt known.

Quite so. And yet you continue to separate Nichols and Chapman from the rest on the grounds of a spurious theory concerning just that - the reason they were supposedly killed.

Fascinating..... if was interested in Shipman, or serial killers habits in general.....but I did note that you did seem to grasp the concept of a core motivator above....but I suspect you would have been happy to blame him for murders that didnt involve trophies of any kind too.

Well I doubt Shipman could have taken trophies from all the hundreds of victims attributed to him, or he would have featured in Obsessive Compulsive Hoarders years before he was caught - or the programme makers had even thought of the idea.

Time to face it Caz, all that you accuse me of is actually being done by you.....assuming the conclusion without all the facts, changing the killer profile anytime a new murder doesnt fit the existing one, ignoring the blatant evidence of a killer who doesnt mutilate his corpse,.....

I don't 'assume' anything much. But I do let the evidence do the talking, and what it screams at me is that in all likelihood several of these murders were committed by the same flawed human being, the same mind set. If I am being mightily deceived, it's the evidence that's doing it.

If you want to believe that a man who has mutilated a couple of times could never not mutilate on any other occasion, regardless of the circumstances, that's your choice. But there are enough examples of serial killers who had every chance to pounce on a certain victim but simply didn't feel like it at the time, to counter your 'fictional character' argument.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

there is insufficient evidence to show us that a serial killer was responsible for any of the unsolved murders that Fall. So why would anyone argue the validity of a Canonical Group of victims by one killer?

If you can point to anywhere else in the world where, in a very small area of land, and in a very narrow window of time, and within a certain time frame within that window, where several known prostitutes were killed by different and unconnected hands, and where all of them had their throats cut, you might have me thinking differently.

Cheers,

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

That doesn't mean that they aren't linked - only that the issue is incapable of proof one way or the other.

Thats the whole point Bridewell, there is insufficient evidence to show us that a serial killer was responsible for any of the unsolved murders that Fall. So why would anyone argue the validity of a Canonical Group of victims by one killer? Why start the investigation with an assumed outcome?

It would seem that those who feel the Canonical Group is representative of one killers work are'nt dissuaded by that fact though, and any other suggestions or "theories" about what may have happened are met with derision from them.

Im only suggesting what is possible based on the knowns. Murder isnt rare.....murders happen regularly, they did then, and they do now. The fact that these acts were committed with knives isnt a defining characteristic...for heavens sake the knife was one of the easiest weapons to get hold of,.... every dinner table, kitchen and workshop had them. Plenty of men carried them. Kate carried one. Whats is irregular about some of the deaths that Fall is the fact that some victims were mutilated as well, in public. So...pragmatically, they should be the only ones even considered to be by the same hand, and when assessing that possibility, some serious questions arise. Formally.

There is no evidence that all 5 were linked, so why assume it anyway?
There is evidence that some of the deaths were very similar, so why not segregate only those into a single killer group?

Liz Stride, for example, could have been killed by simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, there is no indication that a killer who sought mutilation post mortem met up with her.

So why do people assume it anyway?

Because the lure of this study, for some, is the darkness....... the pure evil and the ghost-like manner of the killer. For them, accepting any possible mundane murder motivations that would diminish that legend arent tolerated. And Im never less than amazed at how many people angrily defend the right to have their Phantom Menace.

For me, its unwrapping the mythology surrounding the crimes and looking at the remains... as they are.

Cheers

[Bridewell]

If you want to believe that this fictional character actually existed and that he did what is claimed by many of the contemporary investigators, then your investigation will be just as stalled as theirs was.

And as everybody else's has been because nobody has proved which murders were and weren't by the same hand. I know you are convinced that Stride's was a stand-alone murder but it's a moot point.

If your willing to concede the truth....that no 2 Canonical murders have any hard evidence that directly links one to another by the supposed killer, you'd see why I pursue my line of questioning.

In an era which preceded the use of forensic science in criminal investigation there never could be any hard evidence linking one to another though, could there? That doesn't mean that they aren't linked - only that the issue is incapable of proof one way or the other.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Caz,

In response to the points in bold;


You concede that human beings are often unpredictable. Dead right they are, not least the type who get off on extreme violence and risk their necks for it. Yet you argue in the next breath that when one human being kills more than once, he will behave predictably each time and the core reason, goal, motive for killing 'will continue to be the same' - citing just two murders, that of Nichols and Chapman, as your evidence?

Not really so confusing Caz. Im sure that your study of serial killers has taught you that most often the impetus to continue to kill remains the same as it was for the first kill, in that the killer is seeking the same things from the subsequent kills. Its not about gaining new experiences, its about the familiar and desirable ones,..... to the killer. The suggestion that the man who killed Polly was almost certainly the same man who next kills Annie isnt mine alone, its a historical medical opinion, and within the series of 5 deaths, these 2 are the ONLY ones that match in almost every aspect but location and ultimate damage done...likely as a result of the poor venue choice first time out. Victimology, Knife usage with respect to the throat cuts... and a penchant for post mortem abdominal mutilation are a few key commonalities.

Do you not see how hopelessly flawed and circular that argument is? If you could prove this killer only killed these two victims, you might have a point - about this killer only, ie he was predictable and his goal was the same for both (although one killer is one heck of a small sample from which to make such a giant leap about killers in general).

I believe its quite possible that this killer did kill only the first 2 women and the reason he stopped was because his freedom of movement was taken from him. It would seem that there is investigative opinion on record that the killer of both Polly and Annie likely had the same objective, again, venue being a hindrance to a successful first time out.

As for the idea that the impetus to kill doesnt change if a killer kills more than 2 people at random, ...do you have some contrary study that shows serial killers kill for different reasons within a "series"? All the killers you dredge up studies of continued to kill to satisfy the same driver they first killed for....unless of course its for the more mundane reason of self preservation, as in killing a witness. If Polly and Annies killer demonstrated that he had a specific target in mind,...women alone, weak and vulnerable,... a specific method of subduing the victim and cutting the throat,.... silently and with 2 very deep strokes....and that he was still interested in cutting into the body after dealing the death stroke...clearly evident,....then why on earth would I or anyone else assume he would merely cut someones throat once the next time he kills? 2 almost identical murders within 2 weeks....then he waits 3 plus weeks to just cut a womans throat once and leave her untouched?

When we already know why he killed the first 2...?

I thought the contemporary police merely went through the normal motions of investigating if this one could be domestic in nature, particularly as Kelly was murdered in her own bed. Could you direct me to where they stated a belief that the killer deliberately attempted to copy the earlier murders?

There was more suspected about this murder than a domestic Caz, see the Special Branch thread.

That's a flat contradiction. How can he seem to have no ultimate objective, while seeming to have ultimate destruction as his ultimate objective? Or are you defining 'main goal' and 'ultimate objective' differently? Kelly's face was mutilated, her womb and kidneys removed, and her heart apparently taken from the scene, while Eddowes's face was also mutilated, her womb and a kidney also removed, and these were taken from the scene. Chapman also had her womb removed and taken from the scene. Nichols had nothing removed. How can you conclude that the killer of Nichols and Chapman had the same ultimate objective, while the killer(s) of Eddowes and Kelly had different objectives or no objectives to speak of, and were therefore different human beings acting independently, but predictably? I find that quite extraordinary.

What my intention was is to state that the murderer in room 13 did not demonstrate with any clarity what he intended as his overall objective. If it was murder, why mutilate, if it was mutilation, then why isnt that focus the same as the first 2 mutilations done post mortem? If he wanted her heart, why peel her thighs? If he wanted her uterus...as the 2nd murderer did, then why leave it under her head? If Kates killer wanted her kidney, then why cut her open from the front? Why bother cutting her face...surely a sensitive timing murder to say the least. There are cuts that occur in Kates murder and Marys that do not have anything to do with causing death or extracting organs. There are few if any cuts made on Annie that were superfluous, and once again......I cant believe this needs to be repeated....the greatest difference between murder 1 and murder 2 is venue, its no surprise that the more private the venue the more severe the damage.


You can say it, but it's irrelevant when there clearly was an internal drive or desire - for whatever reason - to take female lives in Whitechapel in the second half of 1888 and to mutilate the corpses. These cases were nothing remotely like 'most murders', and the idea that they were committed for money, or passion, or power, or security would need some pretty powerful evidence before it should take preference over the bleedin' obvious.


The bleedin obvious Caz is that all these murders were unsolved, which means the reason for them isnt known. You guess 1 madman....thats fine,....nice guess. I guess a madman and other killers. But when you say that the killer sought to mutilate corpses, maybe you should look closer at what was done to the vast majority of the Unsolved Murder victims. Killers who did not seek mutilation co-existed with at least 2 that did,....1 being this Jack fellow, and one being the Torso maker.

GP Harold Shipman's ultimate objective in the case of his final victim would have appeared to be monetary gain, if we didn't know better from the fact that he wasn't hard up and had killed hundreds previously without trying to steal a penny from them. He did take jewellery from some, but gave this to his wife, claiming the pieces were from grateful patients. They probably served as trophies, by which he could relive his murders. In the last case, Shipman very stupidly forged a will in the victim's name using his own typewriter, leaving everything to himself and nothing to her daughter, who quite understandably kicked off. Nobody could have predicted such behaviour, which proved his undoing, but it was the same man, just being humanly unpredictable in his own ghastly way.

Fascinating..... if was interested in Shipman, or serial killers habits in general.....but I did note that you did seem to grasp the concept of a core motivator above....but I suspect you would have been happy to blame him for murders that didnt involve trophies of any kind too.

Im investigating unsolved murders that occurred in East London in 1888, youre investigating a serial killing spree....therefore, whom of us is jumping to a conclusion? I suggest murders shouldnt be included, you'd like to blame Jack for murders he wasnt even suspected of committing....so I ask you....which approach to investigating these crimes is based on the specifics of each individual case, and whose is based upon a mythical murderer?

Time to face it Caz, all that you accuse me of is actually being done by you.....assuming the conclusion without all the facts, changing the killer profile anytime a new murder doesnt fit the existing one, ignoring the blatant evidence of a killer who doesnt mutilate his corpse,.....

If you want to believe that this fictional character actually existed and that he did what is claimed by many of the contemporary investigators, then your investigation will be just as stalled as theirs was. If your willing to concede the truth....that no 2 Canonical murders have any hard evidence that directly links one to another by the supposed killer, youd see why I pursue my line of questioning.

Cheers

[caz]

...I have no issues with the idea that human beings often are unpredictable...

...I have said that if someone kills randomly and repetitively the core reason, goal, motive that they kill for will continue to be the same...

...The quintessential example of this can be found in the murders of Mary Ann and Annie...

Hi Michael,

You concede that human beings are often unpredictable. Dead right they are, not least the type who get off on extreme violence and risk their necks for it. Yet you argue in the next breath that when one human being kills more than once, he will behave predictably each time and the core reason, goal, motive for killing 'will continue to be the same' - citing just two murders, that of Nichols and Chapman, as your evidence?

Do you not see how hopelessly flawed and circular that argument is? If you could prove this killer only killed these two victims, you might have a point - about this killer only, ie he was predictable and his goal was the same for both (although one killer is one heck of a small sample from which to make such a giant leap about killers in general). If you are open to the possibility of this killer being responsible for three or more attacks (being a random and repetitive operator), your whole argument about a single goal and predictable behaviour is in danger of going tits up.

The contemporary police believed at one point that the murderer in room 13 attempted to conceal his motives by mimicking the murders of earlier women. I believe they may have been on to something there.

I thought the contemporary police merely went through the normal motions of investigating if this one could be domestic in nature, particularly as Kelly was murdered in her own bed. Could you direct me to where they stated a belief that the killer deliberately attempted to copy the earlier murders?

It may explain why that murderer seems to have no ultimate objective. It would appear that ultimate destruction was his main goal there.

That's a flat contradiction. How can he seem to have no ultimate objective, while seeming to have ultimate destruction as his ultimate objective? Or are you defining 'main goal' and 'ultimate objective' differently? Kelly's face was mutilated, her womb and kidneys removed, and her heart apparently taken from the scene, while Eddowes's face was also mutilated, her womb and a kidney also removed, and these were taken from the scene. Chapman also had her womb removed and taken from the scene. Nichols had nothing removed. How can you conclude that the killer of Nichols and Chapman had the same ultimate objective, while the killer(s) of Eddowes and Kelly had different objectives or no objectives to speak of, and were therefore different human beings acting independently, but predictably? I find that quite extraordinary.

There are many possible hidden motivations for murder, thats why its often the least expected individual who commits them. No-one can predict what will drive someone to kill.

And there you have it. That is why you simply cannot conclude what drove the killer or killers of the Whitechapel victims to do what they did.

But I can say that most murders by far are committed for reasons that have nothing to do with an internal drive or desire to take life or mutilate corpses. Most are committed for money, or passion, or power, or for security....etc.

You can say it, but it's irrelevant when there clearly was an internal drive or desire - for whatever reason - to take female lives in Whitechapel in the second half of 1888 and to mutilate the corpses. These cases were nothing remotely like 'most murders', and the idea that they were committed for money, or passion, or power, or security would need some pretty powerful evidence before it should take preference over the bleedin' obvious.

GP Harold Shipman's ultimate objective in the case of his final victim would have appeared to be monetary gain, if we didn't know better from the fact that he wasn't hard up and had killed hundreds previously without trying to steal a penny from them. He did take jewellery from some, but gave this to his wife, claiming the pieces were from grateful patients. They probably served as trophies, by which he could relive his murders. In the last case, Shipman very stupidly forged a will in the victim's name using his own typewriter, leaving everything to himself and nothing to her daughter, who quite understandably kicked off. Nobody could have predicted such behaviour, which proved his undoing, but it was the same man, just being humanly unpredictable in his own ghastly way.

Love,

Caz
X

[Barnaby]

Of course there can be value studying known serial killers similar in some ways to Jack in an effort to induce a pattern.

But one must be wary, even assuming the "Jack" of the canonical five really existed.

There exists a challenge known in science of external validity, or generality; here, across time. To what extent does something learned these days apply to events over a century ago?

Example: "Lust" serial killers generally kill those to whom they are sexually attracted. As a general rule, this sounds good to me. In our times. But what about 125 years ago, for a homosexual killer? To whom the opposite sex represents a symbol of his sexual deviance/inferiority?

By modern profiling standards, someone like Tumblety is not a viable suspect. But I believe that this is an unfortunate consequence of applying today's social norms to the past.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

I have to say that I see a lot of inconsistency in your approach to the case. 1. You seem to envision your killer as a robot who never varies in his actions as opposed to a human being who reacts in different ways as a result of different circumstances and the vagaries common in human behavior.

2. You also seem to have no problem accepting multiple killers who for some reason unknown to us suddenly appeared in Whitechapel with a penchant for cutting the throats of prostitutes and taking out their internal organs. I mean what are the odds on that? Yet, the idea that a killer could be scared off leaving no evidence of that taking place is something you refuse to consider even though it happens everyday in all sorts of crimes.

c.d.

c.d,

I think that you've portrayed my beliefs inaccurately, ... here are my positions related to the key points in bold above;

1. I have never said that absolute repetition should be a defining characteristic, I have no issues with the idea that human beings often are unpredictable and that circumstances can be the same. I have said that if someone kills randomly and repetitively the core reason, goal, motive that they kill for will continue to be the same. The quintessential example of this can be found in the murders of Mary Ann and Annie. Almost certainly by the same killer due to the particular manner of the approach, the throat cuts, and the post mortem mutilation goal. The Methodology and Signature match. Thats a key word here cd,.....match. We do have matches. Where do we see matching attack patterns, matching wound patterns and matching signature elements? Not in the Stride murder.

2. The contemporary police believed at one point that the murderer in room 13 attempted to conceal his motives by mimicking the murders of earlier women. I believe they may have been on to something there. It may explain why that murderer seems to have no ultimate objective. It would appear that ultimate destruction was his main goal there.

There are many possible hidden motivations for murder, thats why its often the least expected individual who commits them. No-one can predict what will drive someone to kill. But I can say that most murders by far are committed for reasons that have nothing to do with an internal drive or desire to take life or mutilate corpses. Most are committed for money, or passion, or power, or for security....etc.

Until you can eliminate all the more common motives why someone might get killed, they remain the most probable.

We can reasonably eliminate money as a motive in all the Canonical murders, they were hardly the population segment to try and get rich from. Can we eliminate passion from them all? We have 3 victims who are either single less than 2 weeks, or, somewhat distanced from their lovers, as it would appear with the "sleep together every night" couple Kate and John. Any possible Love Triangles? Can we eliminate murders to maintain secrets?

I hope you get my point here cd....before any jump to assumptions of serial killers, the most rare kind, why not look closely at the possibilities for other motives, particularly when the murder itself does not "match" other unsolved murders....some which do "match" each other.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

I have to say that I see a lot of inconsistency in your approach to the case. You seem to envision your killer as a robot who never varies in his actions as opposed to a human being who reacts in different ways as a result of different circumstances and the vagaries common in human behavior.

You also seem to have no problem accepting multiple killers who for some reason unknown to us suddenly appeared in Whitechapel with a penchant for cutting the throats of prostitutes and taking out their internal organs. I mean what are the odds on that? Yet, the idea that a killer could be scared off leaving no evidence of that taking place is something you refuse to consider even though it happens everyday in all sorts of crimes.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

I would say that being cognizant of the studies done on Modern Serial Killers who were caught and interviewed cannot impede the quest, surely any knowledge or insight into the mind of convicted murders would be important when studying other murderers, regardless of the era. But I would add that assuming one is viewing serial killings when studying the Ripper cases can and does impede the investigative process. The conclusion cannot precede a sound investigation,... but once soundly investigated using the known data, a conclusion can be reached....that there is insufficient data to assume these were serial killings.

In the same Unsolved Murder file there are some murders that clearly do not match the specific nature of 3 or 4 of the overall total,... 3 were murders during the Fall of Terror...and Alice McKenzie was the 4th.

The 4 murders that seem most indicative of one persons actions to me have common elements, repetitive and consistent, and are murders that all include the signature of post mortem abdominal and pelvic mutilation.

The series called the Canonical Group does not have that consistency, they all do not have the repetitive signature, and therefore I suggest that one must start with the assumption that the Ripper Series was done by at least 2 different killers, possibly as many as 3, and that only one could be categorized as a Serial Killer....random, and more than 2 victims.

Cheers

[robhouse]

Has anyone studied profiles of all Rippers - not just JTR ?Given they are a niche serial killer ?, i wonder if gathering all similarities would then fine tune JTR profile better?

Yes, they are called post-mortem mutilators or "lust murderers", and there has been some study of them. There was a book on lust murderers... I can't remember the title... and also an FBI article by Roy Hazelwood. I do think a study of them is very important for "fine tuning a JTR profile" as you say.

Rob H

[Errata]

Has anyone studied profiles of all Rippers - not just JTR ?Given they are a niche serial killer ?, i wonder if gathering all similarities would then fine tune JTR profile better?

I don't know that "Rippers" are a niche. Anyone who does post mortem mutilation with a knife, which would include the Manson family would count as "Rippers". Individual killers who are called Ripper by the press only have one thing necessarily in common. They were all called Ripper by the press.

[Steve S]

Yep..But profiling can only be based on the ones who were caught...And Jack wasn't...........

[OctavBotnar]

Has anyone studied profiles of all Rippers - not just JTR ?Given they are a niche serial killer ?, i wonder if gathering all similarities would then fine tune JTR profile better?