Does the M.O. rule anyone out?

[miakaal4]

I have been looking at the Modus op of the ripper and to be quite honest was unable to get to sleep until I have finished my mental express train journey through all the murders.
My thinking was about;
A. How or why the style of the mutilations got progressively worse.
B. What was the real motive behind the murders?
C. Were some of the mutilations a cover for something else?
D. Would any of the above rule out any of the main suspects?
(Cath Eddows has been left out because of the unfinished aspect of the murder.)

Please let me explain. The first accepted murder, Nicols was different from the next. Okay there were similarities, but she was not "exhibited" like the others were. In fact the mutilations to her abdomen were unnoticed until after the body had been moved to the morgue.
What does all this say about her killer? That he planned to kill, someone, not necessarily her but definately a prostitute. He had planned how he would do it; strangle until dead or senseless then cut the throat from the opposite side keeping well clear of blood splatter. This requires clear thought, not madness. But the killing was not what he wanted, it was just the means to an end. If not, why did he not just go after the strangle or throat cut? No he wanted a female body to "work" on. I think he was almost certainly having sexual problems, using the knife as his penis perhaps. But I do not think it was a rage against her as a woman, or against womanhood, because he never goes for the breasts, MJK was an all over job.

Lucjan Staniak, the Polish Red Spider killer, also used sharp objects to attack the lower abdomen. But that was it, he did not mutilate the face or remove organs, because he had achieved what he wanted and he didn't care who knew why he did it. So what if our killer needed the body to allow him to achieve satisfaction, albeit with a knife, but then felt embarrassed by what he had done? Covered his tracks by ripping, then covered it all up with her clothes? This was at the height of Victorian prudery.

The next murder was very much in the same way except this time he takes the uterus and leaves her in a less dignified way. This makes me think that after the first murder, he thought about what else he could have done. Also there is more outrage at the horror of the injuries than the motives for them. So during the second kill, he takes more time and poses her body to cause maximum shock. Why he took the organ/s are unclear, but if the "Dear Boss" letters were sent by him, the explanation was to increase the shock, (cannibalism) but again divert attention from his real motive which was sexual satisfaction.

The forth murder was even more graphic, and again could prove that the killer was still thinking and planning. Perhaps even fantasizing about what he would do next time. With Stride his plans are thwarted but his desires are still raging. Eddows was severely damaged, but this time he took the opportunity to cut her face. Was his fantasy changing? After he had done all that damage to her in near pitch dark with the police everywhere he spends precious minutes cutting her face and ears? Was he still trying to divert attention from his real motive?

Mary Kelly was (possibly) heard to cry "murder" in the early hours. Now how could she do that while being strangled, or after having her throat cut?
Is it not possible that for the first time he was able to attack the lower abdomen while she was still very much alive and aware? Getting the same thrill that Staniak needed many years later? The mutilations afterwards could be argued to be non sexually motivated as they were all over the body. this could be said about the previous murders too, because why would he open the whole abdomen and not just the lower part? How does a kidney relate to sex? And if he were just a mad ripper, would he cut open the belly, but carefully cut around the navel?
I feel that his M.O. could be saying that he was a planner, he was sexually inept in some way, he was clever, he did not look like a threat, he was shy in his "real" life. I think the mutilations were made after he had sex with the knife, and could be to cover that fact. If this isn't all just me thinking skewered it could rule out some of the more unstable suspects?

[Fleetwood Mac]

My interpretation would be that the murders were simply wanton vandalism as opposed to anything remotely approaching deliberation.

That's why I wouldn't rule out Cutbush and actually think his jobbings add to his candidacy rather than detract from it. More wanton vandalism.

[Cogidubnus]

The first accepted murder, Nicols was different from the next. Okay there were similarities, but she was not "exhibited" like the others were.

Hi Miakaal

It's not my intention here to divert this thread onto yet another Cross/Lechmere thread, but in Bucks Row, the witness Paul did pull down the dress, presumably in an attempt to make the victim (of whom he appeared unsure whether dead or alive) appear more decent, and may in doing so have disturbed the way she lay.

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

Welcome to Casebook, Miakaal.

How does a kidney relate to sex?

Why does it have to? I would as soon ask, 'What is the significance of a kidney in the mind of the killer?'

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil H]

The progression of violence, and any similarities between the crimes, is entirely subjective and depends on an assumption that all the murders are by one hand.

There is, of course, one basic similarity, and includes Smith, tabram, Mckenzie, Coles, Pinchen St torso et al - the were all KNIFE CRIMES. None of the woman were killed using firearms, poison, etc. All the victims were female.

But what id you assume something like this:

a) Nichols, Chapman Eddowes killed by one man - some progression. Then add on McKenzie as a final attempt by a wekened "Jack";

b) Stride - killed on impulse by Kidney - no mutilation, none intended;

c) MJK a separate killer for personal motives - seeking to emulate details of Eddowes' killer as read in the press;

BUT one could also suggest that Eddowes was also killed by a separate hand (Fenian-related) again seeking to emulate "Jack" and going further. There are features of the Eddowes killing that suggest a different hand/motivation (for example some of the facial mutilations.

I used to look at a progression myself - something like:

He stabs woman - he kills a woman (Nichols) and tries to mutilate her but is interrupted or bottles out - with Chapman he does all he had fantasised about since Nichols - in Mitre Square he goes even further (after being frustrated by interruption over Stride) - finally with MJK he has all the time in the world.

But I found the sequence did not work for me. Somehow the way Eddowes was abused is different from, not an extension of what he did to Chpaman, and Stride is not in a Ripper-friendly place. Finally, the MJK killing is just "different" the more I look on it - the motivation, the rage seems to come from some place else. So I have dropped the sequential/progressive explanation.

Phil H

[miakaal4]

Well let me go a bit further...

Thanks for the comments, every time I come into the Casebook I learn something. What I am trying to do here is reduce the number of suspects, by finding ways to rule them out completely, and then concentrate on those who are left. The best way to do this of course would be by finding an unshakable alibi, another might be found somewhere in the M.O.
Tumblety was in police custody when MJK was killed. So unless, as was suggested above, her murder is not Jack, then he cannot be the killer.
Druitt, manic depressive mummys boy, half his family committed suicide, possible homosexual, and therefore would not perhaps fit the sexual impotence motivation I mentioned above. And anyway, why would he want to murder women?
Kominski, too mad, dirty and disorganised.
George Chapman. Completely wrong M.O. from method to type of woman. A non starter for me.
Stephenson, some sort of macabre Walter Mitty into black magic and seeming to say anything he could to make himself look strange and darkhearted.
Ostrog, wrong M.O. no action after '88, why? Still going in '94 apparently, but not harmful. MacNaughton said he was cruel to women, says who? And again I believe too unorganised to fit the bill.

Surely JtR was an organised/disorganised killer. he went out prepared, knowing what he wanted to do, the type of victim and the methods he would use both to kill and escape. The disorganised half comes in when he picks his victim, seemingly at random, (Eddows definately) and has to adapt his actions to the place of the killings.
This randomness makes the murders all the more difficult to solve of course, and not one person alive today could say for sure that all five of the victims were killed by the same person. However if they were then the guys I mention above, for me are not suspects. So who does this leave?

[Phil H]

Druitt, manic depressive mummys boy - conjectural, I think.

possible homosexual - on what do you base that statement? His departure from the school - that could be for many reasons, so again conjectural?

and therefore would not perhaps fit the sexual impotence motivation I mentioned above.

So you are excluding "suspects" on the grounds of whether or not they fit your theory? Hardly objective.

Kominski, too mad, dirty and disorganised. possibly later, but in 1888?

Ostrog, wrong M.O. no action after '88, why? Still going in '94 apparently, but not harmful. MacNaughton said he was cruel to women, says who? And again I believe too unorganised to fit the bill.

It might help if you did your research - Ostrog was subsequently found by the Met Police to have been in custody in France at the relevant times. I think it is now safe to say that he is dismissed as a suspect.

Phil H

[Michael W Richards]

I have been looking at the Modus op of the ripper and to be quite honest was unable to get to sleep until I have finished my mental express train journey through all the murders.
My thinking was about;
1. A. How or why the style of the mutilations got progressively worse.
2. B. What was the real motive behind the murders?
3. C. Were some of the mutilations a cover for something else?
D. Would any of the above rule out any of the main suspects?
(Cath Eddows has been left out because of the unfinished aspect of the murder.)

4.The first accepted murder, Nicols was different from the next. Okay there were similarities, but she was not "exhibited" like the others were.

5. But the killing was not what he wanted, it was just the means to an end. If not, why did he not just go after the strangle or throat cut? No he wanted a female body to "work" on.

6. Lucjan Staniak, the Polish Red Spider killer, also used sharp objects to attack the lower abdomen. But that was it, he did not mutilate the face or remove organs, because he had achieved what he wanted and he didn't care who knew why he did it.

7. The next murder was very much in the same way except this time he takes the uterus and leaves her in a less dignified way. This makes me think that after the first murder, he thought about what else he could have done. Also there is more outrage at the horror of the injuries than the motives for them. So during the second kill, he takes more time and poses her body to cause maximum shock. Why he took the organ/s are unclear,

8....but if the "Dear Boss" letters were sent by him, ...

9. Eddows was severely damaged, but this time he took the opportunity to cut her face. Was his fantasy changing? After he had done all that damage to her in near pitch dark with the police everywhere he spends precious minutes cutting her face and ears? Was he still trying to divert attention from his real motive?

10. Mary Kelly was (possibly) heard to cry "murder" in the early hours. Now how could she do that while being strangled, or after having her throat cut?
I

Hi Miakaal...,

I think its important that you start with a sustainable baseline of data. Some kind of formula applied to real data is interesting but you make some leaps in the above.

1. If one man committed the first 2 murders and another committed the last 2, then there is only progression from 1 to 2 and again, only from 4 to 5..There is not consistent escalation.

2. The real motive is the answer, and as they sit at the moment, the motives for all 5 are assumed but unknown. They may not all be the same motives.

3. Perhaps, perhaps even to conceal a murder in an unknown killers list.

4. Im assuming by first accepted and the comparison you mean to compare her with Martha's murder?

5. I think that is a likely motive for some victims.

6. Until you know for certain that you have a serial killer to study, its pointless to compare serial killer traits or habits.

7. There does seem to be escalation from Polly to Annie, and thats likely because the same man killed both and the second venue offered more private mutilations. I think thats what he learned from Bucks Row.

8. He didnt.

9. Was the fantasy changing or was this a new killer with a new objective?

10. Sarah Lewis and Elizabeth Prater both heard a female cry of "murder" at around 3:45am, Sarah, "as if at the door", and Elizabeth, "faint-as if from the court". I think all that means is a female was in the court at that time, what she was alarmed about and who it was are unclear. My own opinion is that it was Mary, and she was at her door, and it was open.

My point with the above is that there is very little hard evidence available in general, and to date there is none specifically linking the women's murders to one killer. Therefore, analysis based on a series is at best premature.


All the best

[lynn cates]

simpler

Hello Mike. Regarding #7, I favour a really simple explanation. If my conjecture about Isenschmid is correct, he may have been watching proceedings at Harrison and Barber's slaughter yard on both occasions. In Annie's case they may have been further along in the slaughter process (disemboweling) than in Polly's.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike. Regarding #7, I favour a really simple explanation. If my conjecture about Isenschmid is correct, he may have been watching proceedings at Harrison and Barber's slaughter yard on both occasions. In Annie's case they may have been further along in the slaughter process (disemboweling) than in Polly's.

Cheers.
LC

Very interesting suggestion Lynn. That the extent of the injuries was influenced by what he saw.

Ive always held the belief that the reason Pollys clothes werent pulled up was because he was interrupted by noise and pulled them down before slipping away, lending itself to the belief that Annie more egregious injuries and clothing pulled up was a result of more privacy available.

Interesting.

Cheers mate.

[miakaal4]

Hi Phil.
Conjecture is okay if it stimulates debate. I read that Druitt was sacked for making advances toward some boy/s at the school he worked. And I feel there is a case that he was a mummys boy, again from bits of information I have read. None of this is known for sure, it's a puzzle with half the pieces missing and curry stains on the picture that is left!
Hi Michael.
Thanks for your observations, I will continue the numbers list to avoid confusion.
4. No, Chapmans. I had thought that the killer had re-covered her body, but have since learned it was a man who found her.
6. I'm sorry but I am convinced they are serial.
8. He may of.
9. I think he planned facial mutilations in advance. He did not have time to play around surely?
10. Yes, I am not convinced it was Kelly on the bed, poss her room mate? I also think it is possible she was afraid of someone, and that is why she did a vanish. Its a weak idea in some ways though, her ex, boyfriend would have been in on it, and kept it quiet from that day on. He could have made money from the truth later perhaps!

[Phil H]

You obviously relish thinking the worst of people, Miakaal. (Just joking).

But there are many other explanations for the serious trouble he is said to have been in at the school. It could have been financial (embezzlement or fraud); it could have been doing his legal job, or playing cricket during times he should have been teaching; or even that if a housemaster he was not where he should have been at certain times. I don't think we should seize on a sexual explanation before others.

in 1888 any of the alternatives I have mentioned could have meant social ruin for a "gentleman" and perhaps with the cricket club.

On your other points:

Chapmans. I had thought that the killer had re-covered her body, but have since learned it was a man who found her.

I think you are confusing Polly Nichols - covered by Cross when he found her. Chapman, so far as I know, was not covered.

Yes, I am not convinced it was Kelly on the bed, poss her room mate? I also think it is possible she was afraid of someone, and that is why she did a vanish. Its a weak idea in some ways though, her ex, boyfriend would have been in on it, and kept it quiet from that day on. He could have made money from the truth later perhaps!

I don't disagree with what you say, but it is all speculative. Whom do you mean by her room-mate? I didn't think any of them were missing.

How could Barnett have made money later - I don't understand your logic?

Phil H

[miakaal4]

Hey Phil, yeah I 've got some bad habits when it comes to old Jack. Okay, even though the impressions were/are that it could very well have been a homosexual advance that got him the sack, you are right, it is unproven. But then, even if we had the letter telling him he was dismissed and why, half the Casebook would be saying it was written in 2003 or something! The Nicols/Chapman thing is about the idea that Nicols was covered but Chapman was not, my theory was that Jack was getting into the idea of posing his victims, however it was pointed out on this board and elsewhere that someone covered Nicols, so that theory went West. Barnett could have made money by giving the tale of Mary Kelly surviving at the expense of some other harlot. Given the interest around the case, I think he would have done quite well?

[Phil H]

half the Casebook would be saying it was written in 2003 or something! The

That sort of attitude usually reflects pre-formed conclusions (often related it seems to financial interests in a book or similar), a not-invented-here mind-set, a lack of understanding of the case (which revealed itself over the Dutfield yard pic) or just plain eccentricity. Ignore it.

Barnett could have made money by giving the tale of Mary Kelly surviving at the expense of some other harlot. Given the interest around the case, I think he would have done quite well?

But he would surely have opened himself to charges of misleading the police, if not perjury. HE (Barnett) had identified the body - so IF he knew MJK had survived, he was either directly involved in a cover-up, or lied for his own reasons. Either way, I don't think it would have escaped notice.

And someone killed someone else - whether Mary or another girl - so someone died and barnett would have put himself right in the firing line as culprit. If he knew something - even if only at second hand - I don't think he could ever have breathed a word.

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

Back to the point of this thread, those like Dr. Neil Cream who was convicted of murder by poison should be eliminated from the Ripper crimes. (As if the fact that he was in Joliet Prison in Illinois, USA during the time JtR was operating in London doesn't already eliminate him!))

A slasher doesn't evolve into a poisoner, as a slasher gets off on the bloody and violent attack, not necessarily the actual death of the victim. The poisoner may want to watch the victim suffer, but there's no blitz attack and no blood.

Darkendale