On concealment.

[Scorpio]

No real effort was made by the killer of Tabram,Nicholls,Chapman,Stride, Eddowes, or Kelly. By concealment, i mean purposeful interaction with the body post-mortem. Tabram, Chapman and Kelly were found removed directly from public gaze;but this was a result of the particulars of homicide scene, which we cannot be certain the killer was at liberty to choose.
Modern detectives would no doubt consider this informative. Was the killer a disorganised type as described by Profiler Robert Ressler: a low functioning type who would not consider the pro's and cons of concealment. However, many serial killers do conceal their victims; this is partly an attempt to increase their chances of safely evacuating the area before anyone is alerted. Such rational and constructive behaviour would be considered under the banner of MO; but our killer's behaviour might have a rationale of their own: reducing the time spent at the crime scene, which, considering the busy London Streets,seems reasonable.
Finally, there is the question of ' signature '. Signature refers to killers internal motivation beyond the merely pratical:all sadistic acts might be considered signature. Was the need to make the crime scenes acessable part of the signature?. ' look at this ' or ' see what i did ' might explain this emotional need. The notorious Peter Kurten, who considered JtR something of a hero and exemplar, had the compulsion to display his crimes.
Anymore ideas on the subject of concealment?.

[ChrisGeorge]

No real effort was made by the killer of Tabram,Nicholls,Chapman,Stride, Eddowes, or Kelly. By concealment, i mean purposeful interaction with the body post-mortem. Tabram, Chapman and Kelly were found removed directly from public gaze;but this was a result of the particulars of homicide scene, which we cannot be certain the killer was at liberty to choose.
Modern detectives would no doubt consider this informative. Was the killer a disorganised type as described by Profiler Robert Ressler: a low functioning type who would not consider the pro's and cons of concealment. However, many serial killers do conceal their victims; this is partly an attempt to increase their chances of safely evacuating the area before anyone is alerted. Such rational and constructive behaviour would be considered under the banner of MO; but our killer's behaviour might have a rationale of their own: reducing the time spent at the crime scene, which, considering the busy London Streets,seems reasonable.
Finally, there is the question of ' signature '. Signature refers to killers internal motivation beyond the merely pratical:all sadistic acts might be considered signature. Was the need to make the crime scenes acessable part of the signature?. ' look at this ' or ' see what i did ' might explain this emotional need. The notorious Peter Kurten, who considered JtR something of a hero and exemplar, had the compulsion to display his crimes.
Anymore ideas on the subject of concealment?.

Hello Scorpio

You are correct that there was no overt attempt at concealment in the canonical Ripper murders or in the Tabram murder. This serves as quite a contrast with the torso murders that took place at the same time (e.g., the Whitehall crime and the Pinchin Street torso), in which the bodies where disarticulated to prevent identification. It might be argued though that since the Nichols killing took place at the entranceway to a yard and the Stride killing inside a gateway, that neither of these took place exactly on the open street, and the killer was seeking some cover even if he did not attempt to hide the body in any way.

All the best

Chris

[lynn cates]

two more

Hello Scorpio, Chris. I think there was no concealment with McKenzie and Coles?

Cheers.
LC

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Scorpio, Chris. I think there was no concealment with McKenzie and Coles?

Cheers.
LC

True, Lynn. Another reason to think that McKenzie and Coles were just regular knife murders unlike the Ripper crimes.

[Scorpio]

Hello Scorpio

You are correct that there was no overt attempt at concealment in the canonical Ripper murders or in the Tabram murder. This serves as quite a contrast with the torso murders that took place at the same time (e.g., the Whitehall crime and the Pinchin Street torso), in which the bodies where disarticulated to prevent identification. It might be argued though that since the Nichols killing took place at the entranceway to a yard and the Stride killing inside a gateway, that neither of these took place exactly on the open street, and the killer was seeking some cover even if he did not attempt to hide the body in any way.

All the best

Chris

Perhaps a line needs to be drawn between the needs associated with commiting an act and the net result of that act; That is the difference between MO and signature. But your right, the fact that JtR left the bodies at the location they were killed
does muddy the waters.

[Rubyretro]

I think that the killer was continually learning and adapting to his needs.

Where could you go from MJK ?

Maybe the Torso murders ?

[Bridewell]

I think that the killer was continually learning and adapting to his needs.

Where could you go from MJK ?

Maybe the Torso murders ?

Now you are getting controversial. They overlapped, did they not, so it would require a killer operating simultaneously with two different modus operandi. Not impossible, but unlikely, I would have thought.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Hello Scorpio, Chris. I think there was no concealment with McKenzie and Coles?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Fair enough but Coles' killer was interrupted, and were there not carts (including that of a distillery, I believe) near where McKenzie was found?

Regards, Bridewell.

[FrankO]

Hi Scorpio,

One might look at it this way. The fact that the Ripper murdered at least 3 times in a fairly short time under highly risky circumstances seems to suggest a rather impulsive killer who wasn’t able to restrain himself for long. That he risked his very life staying on the crime scene for some time mutilating his victims’ bodies the way he did tells us that those mutilations were of the utmost importance to him.

When you look at it that way, it’s not too difficult to see that mutilating his victims’ bodies as long as he could before he felt forced to leave may very well have been more important than losing precious time trying to conceal them.

All the best,
Frank

[Versa]

Im not sure that trying to pigeon hole a serial killer ever helped anyone...

Circumstances change and so do MO's

A serial killer might PREFER one method of disposal over another but that doesn't mean to say that the disposal of a body rules out a person from the inquiry...

You can look at many serial killers and while their preference might lead them to disperse of a body in a particular manner it certainly doesnt mean you can rule them out of other murders just because there is a difference in the disposal method.

[caz]

One thing the killer must have been aware of was that wasting any time at the scene could easily have proved fatal for him. Everything he did, therefore, he did for a reason, even if none of it appears rational to us. He didn't consider it a waste of his limited time with Eddowes, for example, to nick her eyelids, slice off her nose or remove half of her apron. But active concealment of any of the bodies does not seem to have been a concern for him, so he didn't waste time trying. This would make sense if he felt safe in the knowledge that the locations themselves could not connect him in any way to his victims. Concealment and/or disposal tends to be for killers who could otherwise be connected to the victim and the place of death. It didn't matter to our man that he left them where he had killed them, or that they could be discovered within seconds of his departure. That tends to reinforce the message of stranger killings by someone who was able to vanish into the night with little fear of being found nearby or fingered later.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Funny, but what's really come out of this thread is the idea that JTR DID in fact conceal himself enough to do what he did. The bodies were just left where they were killed and mutilated, but he apparently did conceal himself enough to take the few chances that he did to procure organs and do a little work on the features of Eddowes. If we (I at least) look at such things in that regard, the murder of Kelly seems such an obvious realization of the killer's desires that I can't see Kelly being anyone else's. This might be the first time I've actually gone down that path. Wow.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

I agree with Caz in the broad strokes.

I think that also the killer could easily 'conceal' himself in the usual street scene near the killings because he was someone very normal seeming and even known to local residents.

I think that he didn't take any time more than was necessary to do what he wanted to do -he was able to stop himself when it became dangerous (so not out of control), and the minute that he stepped back into the crowd , he was effectively concealed.

[Bridewell]

And, provided he killed during the hours of darkness, bloodstains would go unnoticed under the feeble street lighting of the time.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Scorpio]

Obviously the killer would try to conceal the perpetration of their crimes; but what about after the act?. What about post homicidal behaviour?;what can we infer about that?, i wonder.