Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[JTRSickert]

In the words of Jack Nicholson from "The Shining," "I've been away...but now I'm back....it's good to be back." So, I'm glad to be back on the message boards after a long absence and I will try to make an effort to stay on. So, anyway, I am sure that this topic may have been brought up before on the message topics but hey, it's not too late in case some newbies would like to get in on it.... anyway.

In the U.S., there have been instances where serial killers will change their MOs. For instance, the Son of Sam first used a knife but switched to a gun out of convenience. Also, the Zodiac killer primarily used a gun but he attacked his victims at Lake Berryessa with a long knife and if he may indeed be the killer of Cheri Jo Bates in 1966, he used a knife then too.

So, does anyone here think that JTR may have changed his MO at some point (whether out of conveience or to throw the cops off his track)? Perhas he just killed Rose Mylett, Francis Coles, Alice McKenzie, and maybe even the Thames Torso victims because he was experimenting with different methods of murder, or to confuse the police, or because a quick murder was enough to satisfy his instincts? Anyone's thoughts?

[Errata]

Fetish killers only change their MO if they can get what they need using a different method. Most can't, which is why they don't change. So the question really becomes what was Jack's fetish if not organ removal, or throat cutting? What was it he was trying to get from the murders?

Zodiac and Son of Sam are the same kind of killer. I'm sure they got something from the murders themselves, but the real pay off was the fear and chaos they created. It didn't matter how they killed as long as they got column inches. Bundy and Chikatilo were the same kind of killer, in that they were pure sadists. That was the pay off. Both worked better if no one was paying attention, both were willing to change things up to a point. Dahmer and Gein were the same, both trying to fill a very screwed up emotional need for companionship and dominance, and only being able to do so with the dead. They may have changed certain aspects of the murder process, but they didn't change. Who is Jack like?

He's not like Zodiac. Even if he was reveling in the fear and chaos, his methods were too odd and consistent for them not to be extremely significant. He could be like Chikatilo, who was far less attached to method than Bundy, but nothing about these murders suggest he was a sadist. And if causing pain was the point, he clearly was not great at it. He could be like Dahmer and Gein. This could have been trying to fill an emotional need. But those kinds of killers don't change. For them it's all ritual and method. They will never get what they really want, so the process is the goal. It's like an alchemist looking for the philosopher's stone his whole life. The recipe changes in minute ways. A degree hotter here, a few ccs more there, but the method is never abandoned.

So if you think he changed his MO, you need to know what the pay off was. Could he still get what he needed by changing things up? And if not, then we know he didn't. If so, it means the pay off was not what we thought it was, which changes a ton of things. Which is fine, but it means that some supporting evidence drops away. Which is as it's always been.

[Paddy]

Motivation

I lean towards his fascination of the gutting of an animal, that somehow progressed to prostitutes (women to be compared to animals in his mind) I dont think he did change his mo. Although he did go further with Mary Kelly, but only because of more time and privacy.
Also he was insane and delusional !

Pat........................

[JTRSickert]

Most criminologists will tell you that, while a killer may change his M.O., his signature (the "ritualistic" attribute about the murder) never changes, since it is what ultimately satisifies the killer, at least for a short time.

So, what is JTR's signature? I honestly do not think it is the removal of the organs, I think that is just an added "bonus" he had for some personal trophies to collect. I think his signature was his desire ti attempt to cut the head off and, failing that, the mutilations of the abdomen. I think the mutilations in and of themself was enough to achieve the desired effect, removing the organs was, as I said, something extra to take with him since he had the time.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

How likely might it be that the consistent element of importance is the discovery of the victims? Let us say the method of dispatch is more a matter of practicality, the mutilations are meant to increase the effect once discovered. But the real satisfaction comes from knowing the body will be discovered. A matter of control and power. Not over the victim so much as the discoverer. Poor parallel, but like how flashers get off from the reactions of their victims, not so much the exposing of themselves. By the by, the best way to deal with flashers is to point and laugh.

[MrBarnett]

Hi,

Does anyone remember Rabbi Lionel Blue who used to occasionally turn up on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Thought For The Day’ slot? Where most of the ‘Thoughts’ were very uplifting but just a little bit boring, Rabbi Blue had a sense of humour and always included a little joke in his . This is the one that made me laugh the loudest.

An old Whitechapel sweat-shop worker is on her way home from work when a man in a raincoat steps out of a doorway and flashes at her. The old lady peers closely at what he is showing her and, a look of disgust crossing her face, she says ‘You call that a lining? ’.

MrB

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

MrBarnett.

Hi,

Does anyone remember Rabbi Lionel Blue who used to occasionally turn up on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Thought For The Day’ slot? Where most of the ‘Thoughts’ were very uplifting but just a little bit boring, Rabbi Blue had a sense of humour and always included a little joke in his . This is the one that made me laugh the loudest.

An old Whitechapel sweat-shop worker is on her way home from work when a man in a raincoat steps out of a doorway and flashes at her. The old lady peers closely at what he is showing her and, a look of disgust crossing her face, she says ‘You call that a lining? ’.

MrB

Nice. Very nice.

[Tom_Wescott]

How likely might it be that the consistent element of importance is the discovery of the victims? Let us say the method of dispatch is more a matter of practicality, the mutilations are meant to increase the effect once discovered. But the real satisfaction comes from knowing the body will be discovered. A matter of control and power. Not over the victim so much as the discoverer. Poor parallel, but like how flashers get off from the reactions of their victims, not so much the exposing of themselves. By the by, the best way to deal with flashers is to point and laugh.

You might be on to something here. One of the fascinating elements about these murders, from Tabram on, is the public display of them. In the case of Kelly, killed in her own room, her head was turned to face the window and door. He couldn't leave her outside, but he could still create a shocking display for whoever found her.

In regards to the killer changing his M.O., there are a couple of examples. If Tabram is accepted as a Ripper victim, then we have him moving from stabbing to cutting. Then, in the case of Nichols and Chapman, the neck is cut twice. It was speculated he was trying to decapitate the victims. If so, this was abandoned with Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Errata]

In regards to the killer changing his M.O., there are a couple of examples. If Tabram is accepted as a Ripper victim, then we have him moving from stabbing to cutting. Then, in the case of Nichols and Chapman, the neck is cut twice. It was speculated he was trying to decapitate the victims. If so, this was abandoned with Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

But then ask yourself what is the consistent pay off? Really it's how you find your victim pool. Of all the women who were murdered in the 5 years before and after 1888, he could not have killed them all. So if we say that Annie Chapman was a successful kill (in that Jack got what he wanted from the murder) then we have a few directions we can take. If the pay off was the organ removal, any murder where that attempt wasn't even made is not Jack. If the throat overkill is the payoff, then any victim who had abdominal mutilations but no throat wounds is out. Vice versa for an abdominal wound pay off. And notoriety seekers, the pay off is the attention. They don't collect organs. They collect newspaper articles.

[JTRSickert]

Perhaps the consistent payoff is simply the taking of someone else's life; all the other stuff (the mutilations, organ collection, etc.) are just bonuses for him. Let me make an analogy: let's say a brand new movie comes out on DVD, but with 2 different versions. One DVD is cheaper because it just contains the film; the other DVD is more expense because it has the film, but also lots of bonus features (deleted scenes, commentary, behind-the-scenes), etc. Now, between the two, I am sure most of us would choose the Special Features DVD. However, if for some reason we couldn't get it (Mmoney is tight or whatever), then we'll just but the cheaper one since it has what we're mostly interested in (the film itself)

Perhaps JTR is like that; if he has enough time (as he did with Kelly, which was several hours), he would do as much to the body as he possibly could. However, for minimum satisfaction, just the taking of someone's life is enough. This is, again why I do not believe that Stride was a victim. I don't think he'd want to risk getting arrested by killing again just because some few mutilations were not done.

By the way, I am not trying to downplay the seriousness of the murders by making a comparison to a DVD. So, please excuse the analogy but it is just what occurred to me at the time.

[lynn cates]

bingo

Hello Tom.

"Then, in the case of Nichols and Chapman, the neck is cut twice. It was speculated he was trying to decapitate the victims. If so, this was abandoned with Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly."

Yes, it certainly was.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

I don't think he'd want to risk getting arrested by killing again just because some few mutilations were not done.

I don't think that a rational person would take the risk but if the man had an obsessive compulsion which required him to do certain things as a minimum might he think differently?

[Errata]

Perhaps the consistent payoff is simply the taking of someone else's life; all the other stuff (the mutilations, organ collection, etc.) are just bonuses for him. Let me make an analogy: let's say a brand new movie comes out on DVD, but with 2 different versions. One DVD is cheaper because it just contains the film; the other DVD is more expense because it has the film, but also lots of bonus features (deleted scenes, commentary, behind-the-scenes), etc. Now, between the two, I am sure most of us would choose the Special Features DVD. However, if for some reason we couldn't get it (Mmoney is tight or whatever), then we'll just but the cheaper one since it has what we're mostly interested in (the film itself)

Perhaps JTR is like that; if he has enough time (as he did with Kelly, which was several hours), he would do as much to the body as he possibly could. However, for minimum satisfaction, just the taking of someone's life is enough. This is, again why I do not believe that Stride was a victim. I don't think he'd want to risk getting arrested by killing again just because some few mutilations were not done.

By the way, I am not trying to downplay the seriousness of the murders by making a comparison to a DVD. So, please excuse the analogy but it is just what occurred to me at the time.

I think the only problem with that idea is that there are too many similarities between at least three of the murders for the motivation to be as simple as killing. Take Kate Eddowes for example. If all he wanted to end a life, maybe even mess up the body some, there are about twenty easier ways to do that given his location and time constraints. Bashing her head open would have been simple, simple cutting her open and stirring about some with a knife would have created an enormous amount of damage. Cutting off her breasts would have been incredibly easy. He could have set er on fire or doused her in acid. Barring Mary Kelly, in all of his murders he was taking enormous risks to do what he did. Specific things. That's the mark of a fetish killer.

Henry Lee Lucas is a good example of a guy who killed because he liked killing. There is little commonality in his actual victim pool, no particular MO, no particular pattern. These guys are incredibly hard to catch as a rule. He killed for sexual gratification, he killed for convenience, he killed for self preservation... pretty much it was his answer to any problem. Knives, guns, fire, it didn't matter. Men, women, old, young, also didn't matter. These are the kinds of guys who only get caught if they are seen. And while Jack certainly was never caught, he had a pattern. He had a recognizable victim pool. He had signature injuries. And he risked being caught in order to accomplish specific goals.

[Errata]

Hello Tom.

"Then, in the case of Nichols and Chapman, the neck is cut twice. It was speculated he was trying to decapitate the victims. If so, this was abandoned with Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly."

Yes, it certainly was.

Cheers.
LC

He also might have been trying to shut them the hell up. There is a certain symbolism with throat injuries that could easily come into play.

[Errata]

I don't think that a rational person would take the risk but if the man had an obsessive compulsion which required him to do certain things as a minimum might he think differently?

Compulsions are possible (had Son of Sam been actually insane, that would have qualified as a compulsion), but generally a serial killer has a picture in his head as to what the murder should look like. Any number of things can develop that picture, but for example Jeffrey Dahmer in the end just wanted someone who wouldn't leave. Not how most of us would accomplish that, but whatever. But if Dahmer was not in a position to even attempt to get his wish, he wouldn't kill at all. H.H. Holmes wouldn't touch you if he couldn't financially benefit from you death. Buono and Bianchi wouldn't touch a man.

There is a fantasy they are trying to replicate in real life. The closer the murder is to the fantasy, the more satisfying it is. If there is no hope of approaching the fantasy, 99% of serial killers don't even bother picking up a victim, unless they expose themselves accidentally. And those murders look nothing like their usual murders. And in fact we will never know how many deaths are not attributed to a serial killer because they simply got in the way and were disposed of.