Anything Goes

[caz]

A lot is made of JTR'S ability to wander the street's of East London, but,assuming Jack was a disorganized type who gave little thought to his appearance and general behaviour,how strange would the man have to be before alarm bells wrung?. I have lived in down at heel areas of the city, and i have seen some strange characters doing some unsavory things, but few people gave them a second glance.

Hi Scorpio,

I think too much is made of Jack's ability to wander those streets. Pretty much any adult male could have wandered those same streets, back then just as today, and been open to the cheap sexual services on offer.

It only took one such man to turn an offer of a threepenny upright in a semi secluded spot, lasting two minutes, into a five minute session of extreme violence, leaving the unfortunate woman dead at the scene and her 'customer' free as a bird to return whence he came.

If it's organised behaviour to go off with a woman for a bit of the other, with the funds to pay for it, then it's no less organised to go off with the same woman, armed with a lethally sharp weapon and itching to use it.

Men take their pleasure in many mysterious forms, and we are constantly told that most men would have carried knives at the time. Clearly Jack was one of them, but I doubt he only remembered the knife and what he could do with it when suddenly finding himself alone with a willing female in a suitable spot for some ripping.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

If you believe in psychological labels, that's correct. I don't. Anything is possible.

Mike

Hi Mike!

Yes, anything IS possible. That was what I wanted to say in my post. The fenced-off territories of "organized" and "disorganized" are sociological archetypes, construed to facilitate a world that will not let itself be facilitated. That is why we see crimes that seemingly have elements of both types in them.

Rational and irrational are better terms - especially since they allow for overlaps.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Actually no - one is either organized or disorganized as a type.

If you believe in psychological labels, that's correct. I don't. Anything is possible.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Can one be organized in some aspects of the crime and disorganized in others?

Actually no - one is either organized or disorganized as a type.

But another question can be brought up: Can one act rationally in some aspects of the crime and irrationally in others? Yes, one can do that.

Another question: Can a irrational killer do things that seem rational to us? Yes he can.

Third question: Does that mean that the whole discussion of organized/disorganized becomes somewhat slippery to handle? Yes it does.

Fourth question: Does that mean that the distinction is worthless? Not necessarily - but potentially so.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Barnaby]

Can one be organized in some aspects of the crime and disorganized in others? For example, how Jack approached and dispatched of his victims might be considered organized but the mutilations might be considered disorganized. I say "might" because this is all arguable.

Ted Bundy is often cited as being an example of an organized serial killer but he killed on a whim in high-risk situations and bludgeoning people to death isn't exactly neat and tidy. On the other hand, the strategies he used to lure victims to his car, etc., exhibit a good deal of organization. So which is it?


And to what extent do these labels have any predictive utility in apprehending serial killers?

[Phil H]

Maybe she was still too drunk to need it.

I don't have my books to hand to check so I'll take your word on that.

[lynn cates]

correction

Hello Phil. Slight correction. Kate had no signs of strangulation.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Onthe one hand, in the case of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes we have the following:

a) indications that the woman led him to the place of their deaths - all are reasonable choices for sexual assignation, with wooden panels to lean on - gates or fencing;

b) there is no indication of a struggle;

c) the method of killing - strangulation, laying the woman on the ground, slitting the throat in a way to avoid bloodstains/spurting.

All this, to me at least, suggests an organised "Jack", a man who gave the women nothing to suspect, who went with him willingly (indeed led him) and did not struggle. The murders seem organised and methodical (the MO I mean) with no sign of frenzy even in the facially mutilated Eddowes.

On the other hand, none of the woman I mention were in a state to be totally alert, or on their guard. So they might have been "jumped" but I see no evidence of that.

The situations locations where they died suggest a meeting, some token conversation (however brief) - "Will you?" and a walk together.

Doesn't this - on balance - suggest a murderer who is in control (however much he quivers with anticipation of what he knows he will do)?

I don't see much evidence for disorganisation, frankly.

Phil

[Wickerman]

...assuming Jack was a disorganized type

Maybe this is where the mistake lies.

[Scorpio]

A lot is made of JTR'S ability to wander the street's of East London, but,assuming Jack was a disorganized type who gave little thought to his appearance and general behaviour,how strange would the man have to be before alarm bells wrung?. I have lived in down at heel areas of the city, and i have seen some strange characters doing some unsavory things, but few people gave them a second glance.