The Ripper's MO....

[FrankO]

The cutting wounds are, when you think about it, a by-product of the signature - which, in Jack's case, had something to do with the removal of internal organs. If this "signature" did not exist, then there'd have been no need for him to have cut the bodies in the way he did... unless he decided to suck the organs out with a straw. The wounds are logically linked to his signature, therefore.

Hi Gareth,

I think you're making the same sort of mistake here as good Dr Phillips, who tried to make sense of what happened to Nichols and Chapman. When we normal people think about it, we might come to the conclusion that the cutting can only have been a by-product, a means to an end. But we know Jack wasn't normal, we don't know what went on inside his head. And as we don't know his motives, we can't say the cutting was just a by-product.

When I think about it, I'm not sure if the removal of internal organs was what exclusively drove/satisfied the Ripper and that he wouldn't have cut if he wouldn't have been interested in extracting internal organs. The fact that he only cut Nichols without taking anything, that the only cuts that are officially documented in her case do not even seem to suggest that he wanted to take any organ at all, that he took part of Chapman's belly wall and that he cut Eddowes' inner thighs and face, might suggest that the cutting wasn't merely a means to an end. As far as I'm concerned, the ripping may well have been some very twisted demonstration of curiousity for the female body.

All the best,
Frank

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Frank, Smez... etc.

I understand what you're saying, but imagine a sequence/hierarchy that goes something like this (NB: this isn't meant to be definitive or complete, just an illustration):



... we start to get on firmer ground about halfway down the gradient, and it's those elements that become more significant in terms of what we can really say about the killer. It's these elements (whether one calls them "signature" or not) about which we can be more objective and specific.

It's the "blue-sky" bits from halfway up the gradient - and I might have added more, e.g. the killer's alleged motive, the alleged significance of Bank Holidays - that are more speculative, and more aligned to the way in which he operated before he strutted his stuff with the knife.

It's these elements which I think are best discussed separately from the "signature" threads, because we're most certainly on more subjective ground. It's these that play more in the area of MO, at least as I see it. Whether that conforms to a dictionary definition or not - and I apologise if it doesn't - is not such a big deal in my view. After all, it's not as if "MO" is a Kantian "thing-in-itself".

[smezenen]

if he can reach the door latch via the broken window,

but the important point is:- cut sheets, defensive wounds and the scream
now nobody has come up with a decent explanation of this...

because we need to know why he attacked her with a knife first....lets try and focus on this.

because the above still tells me, she saw him attacking at range ( 4 to 5ft away)

because there's a closed curtain, or a coat thrown over the window ( i cant remember which right now) .....speculation yes, but that's all we've got!

How did he know about the broken window? how did he know he could reach the door latch from he window? if it was dark as you say then he probably owuld not have just seen it as he was walking by so that leaves us once again to he staked the place out. TO RISKY someone would have seen him.

He had to be at close range to cut the sheets and make the defensive wounds. there is no way he can cut the sheets from 4 or 5 feet away so this does not prove she seen him at range.

Yes I did give a perfectly plausable explanation: if he is choking her from the front instead of behind (his usual) then he may have underestimated the streangh and time needed to incapasitate her, she would also be able to hit back this time and possibly break the choke hold, thats when he went for the knife. I see no evidenc that he has modified his MO to attack with the knife first. weather he was already in the room or he sneeks in like you say there is nothing to say he didnt try to choke first.

[smezenen]

The cutting wounds are, when you think about it, a by-product of the signature -

and by definition this is completly backwords signature would be the byproduct of the cutting wounds if and only if those cuts where not made for the main purpose. in other words if the cuts where only made to leave his mark. Or as an after thought.

abdominal mutilation is MO not signature if he removes an organ. he made the cuts to get to that organ.
facial mutilation is signature becouse it serves no purpose to his main goal of removeing an organ

not every killer has a signature and not every killer with a signature leaves it every time. Please look at the definition of signature in a criminalogy text or even look it up online. the bigest problem we are having on 2 threads is people dont understand the differnce between signature and MO

[perrymason]

Hi Gareth,

I think you're making the same sort of mistake here as good Dr Phillips, who tried to make sense of what happened to Nichols and Chapman. When we normal people think about it, we might come to the conclusion that the cutting can only have been a by-product, a means to an end. But we know Jack wasn't normal, we don't know what went on inside his head. And as we don't know his motives, we can't say the cutting was just a by-product.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Id like to address the above If I may.

The idea that Polly's wounds were made specifically to obtain internal organs and the failure to do so drove him into a backyard for the next kill was Wynne Baxter's, at Polly's Inquest. Using the cumulative data that he had access to since Polly's and Annie's murders.

In his summation;

"This is a matter of some importance when we come to consider what possible motive there can be for all this ferocity. Robbery is out of the question; and there is nothing to suggest jealousy; there could not have been any quarrel, or it would have been heard. I suggest to you as a possibility that these two women may have been murdered by the same man with the same object, and that in the case of Nicholl's the wretch was disturbed before he had accomplished his object, and having failed in the open street he tries again, within a week of his failure, in a more secluded place."

I think the above is a very good guess myself, and its not something only a medical practitioner could grasp. Its a logical answer based on the evidence and surgical opinion.

Is it the correct one? Dont know...but if so.....its an indicator that we do see a partial signature present in the very first murder, incomplete due to privacy that is very brief.

But this is about his Methodology, not his motives for killing or his specific eccentricities while doing so.

I disagree with the premise raised that any specific cutting he does Postmortem belongs in the MO category. Were looking at the murder itself with MO...not the aftermath or the reasons for killing.

In terms of strict MO....once again, ....only Polly, Annie and Kate were killed in almost the exact same formulaic manner. Anyone who suggests differently isnt well versed in the details of those murders. We do not care at this time what he did after he kills them...its not what this thread is about.

So, Thats 3 of 5 being almost identical murders. That tells me that the ONLY way its Jack that kills Liz and Mary is if he changes his MO on each of those two murders. Thats well within "possible", sure.....but is it probable and logical when we can see clearly he kills 3 of the alleged Group in the same way? From the first to the 4th?

Best regards Frank, all.

[Malcolm X]

How did he know about the broken window? how did he know he could reach the door latch from he window? if it was dark as you say then he probably owuld not have just seen it as he was walking by so that leaves us once again to he staked the place out. TO RISKY someone would have seen him.

He had to be at close range to cut the sheets and make the defensive wounds. there is no way he can cut the sheets from 4 or 5 feet away so this does not prove she seen him at range.

Yes I did give a perfectly plausable explanation: if he is choking her from the front instead of behind (his usual) then he may have underestimated the streangh and time needed to incapasitate her, she would also be able to hit back this time and possibly break the choke hold, thats when he went for the knife. I see no evidenc that he has modified his MO to attack with the knife first. weather he was already in the room or he sneeks in like you say there is nothing to say he didnt try to choke first.

you cant miss the broken window, especially if he was lurking around millers court earlier in, when her light was still on, plus the wall lamp would've still been on too, he might've walked down there for a quick look and retreated back to dorset st.

if the Ripper was Hutch, then yes indeed he was seen. .... we're talking about stuff here that's already been discussed in much detail on Hutch threads....i'm not repeating my theories on Hutch here again.

seeing her at range first, your logic baffles me, of course he didn't attack her from 4 to 5 feet away, he moved in at high speed from being seen at that range and then attacked...knife already in hand, i would've thought this was fairly obvious..... how often do i have to keep saying this.

strangling her first as you suggest, failing and going for his knife, means that one of his hands would've been away from his victim...i think MARY would've screamed and fought back far more, because one hand holding a victim as young as her, wouldn't have been enough to subdue a crazed woman fighting for her life, she'd be bashing him around the head, clawing at his face, screaming at him....he'd certainly get seriously ruffled up and the neighbours would definitely hear all of this...because if this had happened, he'd need to get out of her room pretty fast, he's blown it. but no, we hear a semi muffled shout of ``oh murder`` only....

again, i see no reason why he didn't break in, and i see no reason why Blotchy should attack MARY with a knife first

[Malcolm X]

and by definition this is completly backwords signature would be the byproduct of the cutting wounds if and only if those cuts where not made for the main purpose. in other words if the cuts where only made to leave his mark. Or as an after thought.

abdominal mutilation is MO not signature if he removes an organ. he made the cuts to get to that organ.
facial mutilation is signature becouse it serves no purpose to his main goal of removeing an organ

not every killer has a signature and not every killer with a signature leaves it every time. Please look at the definition of signature in a criminalogy text or even look it up online. the bigest problem we are having on 2 threads is people dont understand the differnce between signature and MO

yes Smezenen you're right, we actually agree on something , whatever the case, this is almost definitely JTR..

Sig is :-
posing the body
graffiti/notes/letters left behind
something inserted into the body
a mark/symbol left on the body

it is Signing your handywork, something that's unique to you and that's why it's called ``your signature``

[perrymason]

Mal consider this.....

Using only trusted evidence, its within the realm of possibility that Mary met her killer;

-While she was in bed with him
-When she answers a door knock
-When he breaks in via the unlocked door
-When he breaks in via the window/latch method
-When he enters her room as expected
-If she takes a stroll out for clients we dont know about
-If she brings one back we dont know about
-If he was invited to come to her room

You might think the window pane-latch method would be easily understood by a loitering killer at 3am, but with that courtyard full of coppers later that morning, and full daylight, it seems no-one understood it would save them from forcing the door open. We know Barnett knew of it, and McCarthy.

And in the range of possibilities above, its clear she may have been located and attacked in a completely different manner from the priors....including hiding under the cover of a lover of hers.

As an aside.......Hutchinson, despite recent attempts to make him some kind of viable Ripper candidate, was a witness who the police felt made up a story. There is no evidence that anyone of the authorities felt he should then be suspect in the crimes based on his story...there is no record of that determination by the authorities. George Hutchinson was not a suspect, and it appears he never was considered as such until recently.

Its good to remember that Blotchy Face is the only known suspect for the murder in room 13, based almost entirely on the fact we dont know if he leaves while Mary is still alive.

Cheers Mal.

[Malcolm X]

Mike is following a logic that can only be explained by a progressing M.O.............this ``word`` M.O is a total bastard, it's the wrong word to use here, it's a switch in tactics due to a different kill environment and any killer can adapt do this quite easily.

but this Kelly murder is odd indeed, because something seriously went wrong and to attempt to break in via the window ( although quite believable and many members here believe this is possible) it is still........very foolhardy!

i understand fully, members on this thread doubting this, but you need to explain to me :-
cut sheets, defensive wounds and a scream and as yet i haven't read a really good explanation, that wouldn't cause MARY TO SCREAM FAR MORE

to me it's an attack that she saw comming from range, she put up a brief struggle and that's it....no attempt to strangle first

[perrymason]

I think both you and smezenen better keep in mind that Mary was attacked while resisting,...with the knife. There is no evidence she was subdued first....and evidence that does suggest she was not.

Thats unlike Polly, Annie and Kate....as Ive said a million times here. That is not the same MO.

If he changed his approach and kill.... like the fact he changes from outdoors to indoors, awake to asleep victims, standing to laying in bed, unconscious victims to conscious ones fighting him off....then it fits with Jacks kills.

If Jack wasnt Mr Potatoe head and configured his style each night based on whims and circumstances that forced his hand....then Mary might well be a Ripper victim.

But that would be because he was all over the place with his MO......which is arguably countered by the fact that 60% of his victims list were consistent with MO.

Marys attack and murder show no similarity with any other Canonical murder if she was found by her killer where she lay in bed.

Best regards Mal

[Malcolm X]

Mal consider this.....

Using only trusted evidence, its within the realm of possibility that Mary met her killer;

-While she was in bed with him
-When she answers a door knock
-When he breaks in via the unlocked door
-When he breaks in via the window/latch method
-When he enters her room as expected
-If she takes a stroll out for clients we dont know about
-If she brings one back we dont know about
-If he was invited to come to her room

You might think the window pane-latch method would be easily understood by a loitering killer at 3am, but with that courtyard full of coppers later that morning, and full daylight, it seems no-one understood it would save them from forcing the door open. We know Barnett knew of it, and McCarthy.

And in the range of possibilities above, its clear she may have been located and attacked in a completely different manner from the priors....including hiding under the cover of a lover of hers.

As an aside.......Hutchinson, despite recent attempts to make him some kind of viable Ripper candidate, was a witness who the police felt made up a story. There is no evidence that anyone of the authorities felt he should then be suspect in the crimes based on his story...there is no record of that determination by the authorities. George Hutchinson was not a suspect, and it appears he never was considered as such until recently.

Its good to remember that Blotchy Face is the only known suspect for the murder in room 13, based almost entirely on the fact we dont know if he leaves while Mary is still alive.

Cheers Mal.

oh no, i'm not saying Hutch definitely killed her, i'm suspicious of Blotchy too, but the best person to achieve a break in at 4am is definitely Hutch. because for the Ripper to break in at 4am, he has to stalk outside exactly as Hutch did..... there is no other way to safely and successfully break in

in addition, it looks like MARY saw a knifeman attacking her while she was already in bed...but Blotchy could've easily strangled her many times over, during those 4 hours...this is odd!

i am focused on this only..........why did JTR suddenly attack her with a knife

[Ben]

As an aside.......Hutchinson, despite recent attempts to make him some kind of viable Ripper candidate

Please don't be ridiculous, Mike.

He is a viable ripper candidate. Whatever else you may think about his role in the Kelly murder investigation, "viable" he most emphatically is.

was a witness who the police felt made up a story

Which wouldn't preclude him from being a viable suspect, since other killers have come forward with made-up "witness" stories.

There is no evidence that anyone of the authorities felt he should then be suspect in the crimes based on his story

Which isn't a problem either, since the authorities in question had no experience of serial crime. If they never entertained even the possibility of his guilt, that's something to take up with the spectre of Abberline and his colleagues. It certainly isn't a point against his candidacy. Not that we know for certain that they never considered him a suspect.

But let's get back on topic.

Unless people fancy having a Hutchinson suspect debate in the wrong thread.

[Malcolm X]

I think both you and smezenen better keep in mind that Mary was attacked while resisting,...with the knife. There is no evidence she was subdued first....and evidence that does suggest she was not.


Best regards Mal

yea ' yea' yea' yea'..............i've been saying this for the last 4 years Mike, it's Smezenen that diagrees.............oh flipping heck, i think i'll shoot myself

[Malcolm X]

Please don't be ridiculous, Mike.

thank God you're here Ben, i'm about to go flipping crazy!

it's not Mike that's the problem... it's not answering my question that tells me they cant!!!!

why did JTR suddenly attack Mary with a knife first...because there's no need for Blotchy to do so, he could've strangled her easily ?

i'm not after a quick answer, i'm after a detailed/ long thought out reply, something that'll make me think ``yea' he's got a good point``, i'm not being Awkward or troublesome etc, it's a deadly important question.

[perrymason]

why did JTR suddenly attack Mary with a knife first...because there's no need for Blotchy to do so, he could've strangled her easily ?

I think the answer may be like the one you would get when asked when is evidence that is unlike other evidence the same kind of evidence? My answer would be hardly ever. And its good that you point out Blotchy, if allowed to stay when the room gets dark and quiet, wouldnt need a frontal assault with a knife, and risk any noise. We cant know if or how much noise that attack made because its very likely all the court residents were inside and asleep when it happens.

To Ben, although I realized my remarks would disparage your recent thinking Ben, it was not a slight directed at you personally. You were sort of accepted collateral damage, knowing that at least you would know I respect your opinions before I made the remark. Its just that I dont think the premise has any "legs" found in evidence,... but it does make an interesting story.

Best regards all.