The Ripper's Signature........

[Malcolm X]

Hi folks,


So if he didnt kill the 2 other women, who did.....right?
There may be a story on file that explains in a very logical manner why Liz appears to be a victim of street crime, and in the case of Mary Kelly, I cannot imagine a more attractive opportunity for someone who has committed a murder of passion to alter the impression of that act by replicating acts done by someone who is known to be at large.

Sure, he cut out Marys uterus...just like he did with Annie, and partially with Kate, and he may even have wanted Pollys by the physical evidence there....but the man who takes the uterus out of Mary doesnt seem to "connect" with the action or the organ, in the way the Ripper until that point quite obviously did. He puts it under her head....along with a breast.

Jack to me anyway was a man bent on killing women so he could cut into them, and take things from their midsections. I dont see too much evidence of a self-indulgent Jack beyond his indulgence in the activity itself until victim number 5 is added.

Best regards

hi Mike

yes i knew you were thinking that......uuum.......i'm going to have to repeat myself and i aplogise for this... the overindulgence is because he's safe indoors/loads of time etc, but not so on the street, Eddowes could've been the same as Kelly if she was killed indoors too, i have no problem with this at all.

as for a Copycat/crime of passion, why not just kill her...unless the killer was Joe Barnett of course....then yes at her home, he would've had to disguise it, even so; copying the ripper is over the top, because all Barnett really needs is an Alibi that holds water.....

this copycat is also too close to the Ripper, he knows too much about him, and why would a copycat mutilate her legs/pelvis region so bad, why not just copy Eddowes and simply gut the victim, this copycat is one sick crazed individual in a trance of some kind, he's heavyweight evil and an experienced devil-may care killer already..... he's JTR.

as for taking away the heart and not an organ from the abdoman, well what, i love eating steak; but this evening i fancy Cottage Pie.

Kelly reflects a Ripper murder:-

1......head almost severed
2......face mutilations
3......no clues left behind
4......an organ taken away
5......similar time of death
6......same devil may care personality
7......body left to bleed out first
8......no other mutilator in 1888 London
9......similar seriously disturbed mind.

it differs from JTR:_
1....killed indoors
2....different ``attack`` M.O
3....organ taken from the Thorax
4....massive mutilations
5....victim too young
6....large gap in time from Eddowes

none of these differences are major/ or cant be explained easily

regards Mal

Hi folks,

I do see the point you're making smezenen....this analogy method seems to be catching on ....and using a form of "hunter" in your scenario is appropriate. To better explain my resistance in this area, and to also answer Malcolms question, heres what Im considering.

I think we have evidence that the killer referred to as "Jack" was not the type of serial killer who we might expect to deviate from methodology on occasion. I think there are indications, if the assumed methodology that was used on his first attributed victim is indeed what we still see present with his 4th victim,....that this killer was specific, repetitive, and using a chosen phased approach to his killings. I believe the evidence supports that conjecture, the only "blip" in that data would be Liz...with victims 1 thru 4,..and we have good reasons to suspect she was not in fact a Ripper victim based on the evidence available and the wounds inflicted.

If Im correct, its possible that the streak that should be attributed to a single killer called Jack was 5 weeks in total length, with 3 victims almost identically chosen, defeated, murdered and mutilated. That would radically change the perceptions of the killer, it would greatly diminish pattern theories by decreasing the sample size almost in half, it would shed light on new interpretations on certain curious elements within the murders that would be excused from the Canon, and it would define the killer as primarily an Organized offender.

So if he didnt kill the 2 other women, who did.....right?
There may be a story on file that explains in a very logical manner why Liz appears to be a victim of street crime, and in the case of Mary Kelly, I cannot imagine a more attractive opportunity for someone who has committed a murder of passion to alter the impression of that act by replicating acts done by someone who is known to be at large.

Sure, he cut out Marys uterus...just like he did with Annie, and partially with Kate, and he may even have wanted Pollys by the physical evidence there....but the man who takes the uterus out of Mary doesnt seem to "connect" with the action or the organ, in the way the Ripper until that point quite obviously did. He puts it under her head....along with a breast.

Jack to me anyway was a man bent on killing women so he could cut into them, and take things from their midsections. I dont see too much evidence of a self-indulgent Jack beyond his indulgence in the activity itself until victim number 5 is added.

Best regards

[Malcolm X]

.... and the killer in room 13 made many, many cuts that served no purpose in terms of removing clutter or obstructions, or extracting organs.

I dont say that Mary cannot be a Jack victim, just that clearly hers is a different style murder than the C4 that preceded her.

Best regards my friend.

i cant understand why you think this, because Eddowes had loads of cuts that served no purpose either...Kelly's murder is the next stage on from Eddowes, this ``evolution`` is explained by more time available and being safe indoors. the M.O is virtually identical; considering that he disturbed her!
Eddowes face mutilations reflect the same crazed mind/ toying with his knife.

i dont know where your theory is taking you Michael...perhaps you could explain what you have in mind, because considering everything that i've said, in addition; we have no other mutilator present in Whitechapel circa 1888..

the other murders were street kills, this is indoors.....the changes are due to this, this is the same killer... very similar M.O/Signature

this isn't a Stride murder or a Tabram, the Kelly murder is far easier to define...it's classic JTR.

[smezenen]

Mike,
let me try one of those analogies:

Im a pretty fair fisherman, its one of my favorite things to do.

Sometimes I go trout fishing,
first-I use my previouse experience to search to river bank for that perfect spot that holds the big fish.
Second-I bait my hook with a fat juicy worm.
Third-I cast it in just up river and let it drift into that eddy.

Other times I go Bass fishing,
First- I get in the boat and turn on the fish finder.
second- I tie on a good lure.
third- I cast past where the fish finder says they are and then crank it back.

different fish, different methods of fishing, differnt equiptment, different, approach, same fisherman

different environment, different age, different method of attack, different level of mutilation. same Jack.

Hi Mike,

...just like I can't imagine that cutting Eddowes' nose aided the removal of the kidney.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

Thats fair enough David, but I dont think you mean to debate who has more superfluous wounds. I could have mentioned Marys face in my comments as well.

Im less troubled by Kate's murder showing some new moves than I am by Mary's murder,... with a change in victim profile..(a woman young enough to be any former victims child), a new venue, a new approach, initial attack using the knife like with Liz Stride or Martha Tabram, ...(not subduing the victim first, like in Polly, Annies and Kates death),... mutilations that are not aiding any organ extraction or removal, and a crime scene that prohibited access to the body by being a locked room without a key, lack of interest in any abdominal organs to take, even though excised already....

It would seem that serial killers may change their "stripes" occasionally, but it appears to me that the changes made by Jack.. if killing in this manner after killing Polly, Annie and Kate..... was tantamount to a species change, not just superficial stripes.

The man that killed Polly clearly wanted to open her abdomen as part of his drive to kill in the first place, the man that killed Annie was thought to have killed her and mutilated her specifically to obtain the abdominal organ he takes away complete, and the man who killed Kate followed the exact same procedure with those previous 3 "Ripper" kills, and again takes a complete organ out through the womans abdomen. All three were picked up in the same manner it seems, killed in the same manner, mutilated in the same fashion and for the same purpose,.... and the killer in room 13 made many, many cuts that served no purpose in terms of removing clutter or obstructions, or extracting organs.

I dont say that Mary cannot be a Jack victim, just that clearly hers is a different style murder than the C4 that preceded her.

Best regards my friend.

[DVV]

I cant imagine a bony right thigh aided that extraction much.

Hi Mike,

...just like I can't imagine that cutting Eddowes' nose aided the removal of the kidney.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Malcolm X]

a different environment would alter your mindset and also your methods, but this murder is very much like the Ripper...cut throat/face mutilations/similar time of night.....its far more excessive because he's indoors and has more time....it really is as simple as this.

the signatutre isn't missing, he removed organs from the abdoman because that's the only area that he could mutilate, in the short time available while out on the street...indoors, far more time, so he mutilated her totally and then thought, ``i've a whole body to choose an organ from... now which organ``.

this murder is the Ripper through and through....just far more hideous because he's indoors and has loads of time...he's also safe indoors, therefore his mind will wander more into a trance/ he'll be switched off.

And for me Sam,... new environments and activities might well signal a new monsters introduction, because I see a fairly consistent behavior greatly modified in the 5th of the series, if by the same killer.

Im not unaware that peoples habits can be like trees in strong wind, Its that I also know some obsessed or disturbed people will remain inflexible in their attitudes and behaviors regardless of the obstacles or dangers. Captain Bligh came to mind.

Did our killer make conscious changes based on the opportunity he discovers that night? Well, I have doubts if he was our man that he would be looking to find a street whore working in Millers Court itself after 3am, but supposing he stumbles on the opportunity, would he take as great a risk as he did when he made his first kill and now change...at the height of the searching for him.... how he goes about his work?

It seems to me if he got anything out of his experiences killing in public, confidence in his approach would be one of them. Does he step outside the box this time? Does he need to at this point in time, 5 weeks after the last murder. From Polly through Kate took only 5 weeks. He has now been quiet as long as he first terrorized. He has surprise back in his arsenal.

If nothing changed but the organ he takes in room 13, to one that is abdominally based, I would have to say she is a probable. Its the missing signature...the possessing of abdominal organs. The very reason to kill them in the first place. Cutting them out and playing with them sticking them under limbs or her head doesnt count. Not if he leaves them behind as if they held no lingering fascination for him at all. Which by taking the organs previously, we would assume he has...a lingering fascination. Beyond the murder itself.

Best regards Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Bravo, ....that was good.

Cheers, Mike - as was yours.

I guess it all boils down to "style" in some form or another doesnt it Sam? I wouldnt characterize the style exhibited in the murders of Polly, Annie and Kate as "slash and grab" myself

I would - but that wasn't quite the point of my analogy. It was all about how circumstances might dictate the style and open up different opportunities.

Have another analogy, Mike.

You're a "smash-and-grab" jewellery thief. Your style is to make small holes shop windows, so that you can quickly steal and run away with the 9-carat gold necklaces laid out at the front of the displays. Up till now, you've only targeted the jewellers on the high-street, and because of that you have to act quickly for fear of being seen.

One evening, however, you find a jeweller's shop recessed into a shopping arcade down a back-street. Now, because of the situation you find yourself in, you find that you're better placed to make a bigger hole in the window unobserved. In fact, you quickly notice that you can not only do that, but you can also smash open the glass case behind the window where some 24-carat gold Rolexes are kept.

Are you going to bother with the 9-carat gold stuff?

Bravo, ....that was good.

I guess it all boils down to "style" in some form or another doesnt it Sam? I wouldnt characterize the style exhibited in the murders of Polly, Annie and Kate as "slash and grab" myself, neither did the person who did Annie's autopsy for one. And in terms of signature, from almost dawn light to virtually none in Mitre Square, the man accesses and extracts organs without having to de-engineer the corpse.

I would say skill with knife and understanding of anatomy was shown in the wounds made on Pollys corpse, based primarily on the throat cut, on Annie's for sure...based on the cleanliness of the uterus extraction, on Kates....for taking her kidney out through her front in the dark, and to a lesser degree in room 13. I say lesser degree in room 13 despite the clever flap method because there are indications the killer of Annie in particular, killed her and mutilated her to obtain the very organ he took with him. If room 13's killer wanted to obtain Marys heart....he sure took the long way home.

The murder in room 13 shows the woman was essentially hollowed indiscriminately. If for a heart, slight overkill. I cant imagine a bony right thigh aided that extraction much.

Best regards as always Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Rather than dueling 2 at once ..Im no Aragorn, I have an analogy that I think explains my position.

The supermarket that you use has all the foods in the same places every week. The same foods as you enter the store, the same ones on shelves as you co through the cashiers...

Have another analogy, Mike.

You're a "smash-and-grab" jewellery thief. Your style is to make small holes shop windows, so that you can quickly steal and run away with the 9-carat gold necklaces laid out at the front of the displays. Up till now, you've only targeted the jewellers on the high-street, and because of that you have to act quickly for fear of being seen.

One evening, however, you find a jeweller's shop recessed into a shopping arcade down a back-street. Now, because of the situation you find yourself in, you find that you're better placed to make a bigger hole in the window unobserved. In fact, you quickly notice that you can not only do that, but you can also smash open the glass case behind the window where some 24-carat gold Rolexes are kept.

Are you going to bother with the 9-carat gold stuff?

great analogy
but it doesnt apply unless you change the part about where the basket is left. in order to fit this situation the basket would have to be left at an outside market instead of the the inside market i usualy shop at. the point im trying to make is that the environment changed he wasnt in his same store he was somewhere different. thats going to effect the way he completes his task.

Perhaps the fact that this is a new "store" should be factored in as well smezenen, I agree, ....but maybe then might this not be a new shopper at this new "store"? Would we see venue changes and alterations to previous patterns because this was all new to him, or because this new killer chose different venues and patterns to Jacks. I dont imagine that this was a situation which caused and in fact demanded new actions or sequences from the killer of Polly, Annie and Kate at least,...I imagine that this is an unlikely position to find that same killer in.. to begin with.

I dont see the mutilations in room 13 as being indicative of the same killer, nor do I see the circumstances of that night fitting the killer of the C3 I mention a lot. I do see the scene intentionally presented as one though. As best one who lacked the knowledge of the motives behind the actions could do.

Best regards.

[smezenen]

great analogy
but it doesnt apply unless you change the part about where the basket is left. in order to fit this situation the basket would have to be left at an outside market instead of the the inside market i usualy shop at. the point im trying to make is that the environment changed he wasnt in his same store he was somewhere different. thats going to effect the way he completes his task.

Rather than dueling 2 at once ..Im no Aragorn, I have an analogy that I think explains my position.

The supermarket that you use has all the foods in the same places every week. The same foods as you enter the store, the same ones on shelves as you co through the cashiers. Each week you shop for basically the same items. The checkout cashiers all know you and what you buy...youre a regular. Hell....its a story, so lets say your a great tipper...they all remember you.

One day they find a basket at the counter left by someone, and it has everything that you usually have in your basket, but the things that are on the shelves in the first aisle you normally use are on the top of the basket, the things by the cashiers, the ones that are usually the last items in the basket, are on the bottom.

Do they know that this is your basket based on that evidence? The items are generally the same as what you buy each week, but they are not in the basket according to the logical repetitive manner in which you are known to shop. You enter and leave by the same respective doors each week.

Isnt order an essential part of behaviors? What people do when, how they do it, why they do it. Its the only way to detect patterns...by identifying order.

When Jack the Rippers order is so clearly demonstrated in Mary Ann's, Annie's and Kate's murders, why should we automatically conclude when faced with a shopping basket randomly filled that both shoppers are the same.

My best regards

[smezenen]

Mike,
I agree with your logic. but I think that we have to take into account the fact that his environment changed. She is already laying down the others where not, she may have been asleep the others where not, doesnt really mater if she is or not he is put off his schedual, he cant get behind her to choke her so he has to do it from the front this time. Choking from the front takes longer she has oppertunity to fight back, he cant quit now or she will turn him in so he has to go all the way, he goes for the knife early. or maybe he diecides to use the knife first this time becouse he cant get behind her, but even then he still has to hold her down and try to quiet her, in other words subdue her (phase 1) he still cuts her throat (phase 2) he still mutilates (phase 3).