Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[Mr Lucky]

Or maybe with Nichols he finally got a look into the abdominal cavity (at least one cut was certainly deep enough) and that is what changed his direction.

Hi Errata,

Additionally, it was to dark at the scene to see the blood or the injuries, according to Paul and Cross, so how did the killer see inside the abdominal cavity?

[bolo]

Hello Lynn,

Hello Boris.

"To me, this looks like a murderer who was not used to throat cutting before, like a butcher. . ."

Butcher? Now you're talking.

Cheers.
LC

I've re-read the corresponding line in my post and now think that I might have worded it a bit confusingly. What I want to say is that the extreme force used by the killer does not fit to what a professional butcher or paid assassin would do if he goes about cutting a throat.

Then again, whether or not a butcher cuts right through to the vertebrae also depends on the animal he wants to slaughter. The larger the animal, the deeper the cut to make sure that the animal in question dies instantly. In practise, butchers who get paid by the number of animals they slaughter won't always cut all the way down to the spine to save some valuable seconds and also to avoid an uncontrollable spray of blood since they want to save as much of the proper red stuff as possible to make blood puddings and the like.

And yeah, a butcher could have done it.

Best wishes,

Boris

[lynn cates]

humour

Hello Boris. Thanks. I know what you meant. But an opportunity for humour does not always so readily present itself.

Cheers.
LC

[bolo]

Hi Lynn,

Hello Boris. Thanks. I know what you meant. But an opportunity for humour does not always so readily present itself.

Cheers.
LC

Haha, yes, quite right. I should really try to hone my English skills one day.

Kind regards,

Boris

[lynn cates]

well done

Hello Boris. Thanks.

You seem to do quite well.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

Hi bolo

I've re-read the corresponding line in my post and now think that I might have worded it a bit confusingly.

What I want to say is that the extreme force used by the killer does not fit to what a professional butcher or paid assassin would do if he goes about cutting a throat.

No, you were simply misquoted. Going back to the throat wounds, the extreme force that was so obviously present with Nichols was strangely absent from the Chapman murder, possibly because the killer had changed the type of instrument used from the short pointed weapon to a 'very sharp long bladed' knife. He may have simply realised that the same kind of force was no longer needed.

And yeah, a butcher could have done it.

Yes, a butcher would have had no problem removing her head.

[bolo]

Hi Lynn,

thank you.

my first encounter with the Ripper murders took place in the 80s when I read Knight's Final Solution in a public library on a hot summer day. I never bought the Royal Conspiracy but my interest was piqued and I started digging into it, and there we are now.

For some reason, I was convinced almost from day one (and still are) that the murders of Polly Nichols (and Mary Jane Kelly) contain they key to the case. There's something peculiar about Polly's murder, can't put my finger on it, though. Yet.

Kind regards,

Boris

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

Additionally, it was to dark at the scene to see the blood or the injuries, according to Paul and Cross, so how did the killer see inside the abdominal cavity?

He could see what he was doing to an extent. He has three parallel cuts, and that's something that requires visual input. I mean, it wasn't as though he was cutting blind. But I don't think he could peer into the pelvic cavity. Even in broad daylight that would take a penlight given the placement and length of the incision. I think he saw intestines bulge out when he had pressure on the abdomen. They would have, and I don't think he could have not seen that. But I don't know if that triggered a desire to get inside that had not been there before. On the other hand, if he was looking for the best way into the pelvic cavity, he didn't find it with Nichols because there was no central cut. Which we know he did decide was the best way, so there should be a body with a central incision somewhere out there.

There are killers who make the transition from destruction to removal. And except for eyeball people (who have their own weird little canon in the serial killer world) it usually happens either because of a desire to take something home with them, or because the destruction is so important that it cannot be left to chance. In other words, stabbing at a pelvis is too chancy. He has to be sure the uterus is destroyed, so he removes it entirely. Not that those guys necessarily object to souvenirs, but that's not the point. What we seem to be looking at with Jack is a killer who transitioned from destruction to removal. Otherwise Nichols' murder makes little sense.

But that requires something of a change in fantasy. It changes what the perfect murder looks like. Which would mean that he didn't start out as someone with a fantasy of evisceration. Which would mean that we have a far more practiced killer than we think we do. Nichols could not have been his first, and many people agree with that. But if the rate of kills remains relatively stable with what would be considered a normal progression, we are looking at about 10 previous murders. The first would be an accident. They usually are. Then it would be frenzied attacks concentrating on the abdomen, but no other method of death as part of the process. He would graduate to killing them then stabbing at the abdomen, probably killing them at first either by strangling them or head trauma. Then throat cutting and stabbing. Then throat cutting and cuts not stabs, and only then do we get to Nichols. And we are looking at something going wrong between just stabbing women in the abdomen and killing them first, like a woman surviving. And yet nowhere in this process of evolution does he get significantly better at what he does. We don't see a veteran of 10 murders in Nichols' killer. So he isn't fetishizing the cutting. Whatever he gets out of it, it's not an art to him. And it probably isn't about sex. It's probably about anger. Not that the two are mutually exclusive...

But then there should still be at the very least three murders between Nichols and Chapman. Or, and this would require him to be extraordinarily intelligent (which would be rare indeed) he decided to get an academic education between the two, rather than a practical one. In other words, he studied the female body and the layout of the organs instead of killing women to see what it looks like in there. In which case Chapman would be a recreation of an autopsy, something he had seen between the two murders. Probably seen a few times. He did research. And that is very abnormal, and the only serial killers who do research are the mission oriented ones. The ones who have a specific task they feel they are put on this earth to do. But those kinds of killers never stop. And they don't typically screw up. A mission oriented killer doesn't get interrupted. They don't get sloppy. Which would make the murders of Stride and Eddowes very peculiar indeed.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Again, Errata, many thanks

But then there should still be at the very least three murders between Nichols and Chapman.

Do you happen to have any other real life examples of this sort of progression ?

Or, and this would require him to be extraordinarily intelligent (which would be rare indeed) he decided to get an academic education between the two, rather than a practical one. In other words, he studied the female body and the layout of the organs instead of killing women to see what it looks like in there. In which case Chapman would be a recreation of an autopsy, something he had seen between the two murders. Probably seen a few times. He did research.

Perhaps he went to the waxworks on the corner of Thomas Street/ Whitechapel road. There was a display there that may have been a source of inspiration for the Chapman murder.

And that is very abnormal, and the only serial killers who do research are the mission oriented ones. The ones who have a specific task they feel they are put on this earth to do.

What about saving his own life, would that count as a mission?

[lynn cates]

prince

Hello Boris. Thanks.

I know what you mean. I recall being awoken from sleep once by a family member who announced a solution to the case--Prince Eddy. I was jubilant--well, for a while.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hi Again, Errata, many thanks



Do you happen to have any other real life examples of this sort of progression ?



Perhaps he went to the waxworks on the corner of Thomas Street/ Whitechapel road. There was a display there that may have been a source of inspiration for the Chapman murder.



What about saving his own life, would that count as a mission?

As for examples, yes, but then again no. We have any number of serial killer interviews involving evolution of the fantasy. Including Jeffrey Dahmer who went from an emotional accidental murder to trying to create sex zombies. Evolution on the theme of fear of abandonment. Mostly however we don't have good documentation of those in between murders. Most people don't pick up on serials until their fantasy is locked and they are killing regularly. And because many of the people serial killers target are on the fringe, we often don't even have a name and a body to put to a story after the fact. But there isn't anyone quite like the Ripper to be able to point to an analogue.

Any idiot could commit a Ripper murder today, because the information needed is easily available. Back then it wasn't. Today a person can start out with the fully evolved Ripper fantasy because they have seen people's insides before. We all have in some form or another. Back then anatomy just wasn't as matter of fact. So in the 1880s it just took longer to acclimate. So he would need a slightly longer evolution.

But the other reason we can't really point to an analogue is that everyone gets something different out of it. A disemboweler who gets sexual satisfaction works differently than a disemboweler who is running off of pure rage. The tendency is for there to be a sexual motive, but I don't think that's what we have here. So most serial killers performing similar acts are doing it for different reasons. Which kind of blows the average.

As for mission oriented, it typically means an extermination of a certain kind of person based on personal motives. So a guy killing prostitutes because his mother was a ragingly abusive prostitute, and he thinks the whole breed in going to ruin mankind... that's a mission. The only kind of life saving mission oriented murder I can think of would go along with a delusional belief that either god will reward certain kinds of murders with health, or that certain body parts are needed for consumption to survive. But even a severely deluded killer lashing out at people he thinks are trying to harm him does not have a mission. He is acting in self defense, no matter how deluded that may be.

[Mr Lucky]

As for examples, yes, but then again no. We have any number of serial killer interviews involving evolution of the fantasy. Including Jeffrey Dahmer who went from an emotional accidental murder to trying to create sex zombies. Evolution on the theme of fear of abandonment. Mostly however we don't have good documentation of those in between murders. Most people don't pick up on serials until their fantasy is locked and they are killing regularly. And because many of the people serial killers target are on the fringe, we often don't even have a name and a body to put to a story after the fact. But there isn't anyone quite like the Ripper to be able to point to an analogue.

Any idiot could commit a Ripper murder today, because the information needed is easily available. Back then it wasn't. Today a person can start out with the fully evolved Ripper fantasy because they have seen people's insides before. We all have in some form or another. Back then anatomy just wasn't as matter of fact. So in the 1880s it just took longer to acclimate. So he would need a slightly longer evolution.

Hi Errata,

Isn’t this slightly over simplifying the situation ? , perhaps if you seek you will find..., there were not only the local wax work with displays of murders, there were other source for this inspiration - the ‘anatomical Venus’ type models, vivisection had only just been outlawed, - in the press, there are reports of some very gristly accidents when people were run over by heavily loaded carts with their narrow steel rimmed wheels, these and railway (and other industrial) accidents were a regular occurrence. The killer could have been exposed to this type of image through an accident

Depending on the age of the killer, he may have had recollections of the local Parish graveyard pre- Burial Acts (mid 1850’s) and to be frank you can’t get any more horrifying than them - I’m surprised no one has ever suggested this is what the MJK killer was trying to recreate.

Talking of which, what about that case in Ireland that was eerily similar to MJK in the 1890’s, and that was a one off murder (IIRC, the man who killed his mother)?

As for mission oriented, it typically means an extermination of a certain kind of person based on personal motives. So a guy killing prostitutes because his mother was a ragingly abusive prostitute, and he thinks the whole breed in going to ruin mankind... that's a mission. The only kind of life saving mission oriented murder I can think of would go along with a delusional belief that either god will reward certain kinds of murders with health, or that certain body parts are needed for consumption to survive. But even a severely deluded killer lashing out at people he thinks are trying to harm him does not have a mission. He is acting in self defense, no matter how deluded that may be.

Oh, I believe the Whitechapel killer had a very real fear of judges wearing strange black hats, this the most likely motivation for all this ‘jack the ripper’ behaviour, based on a simple risk versus reward assessment

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

Isn’t this slightly over simplifying the situation ? , perhaps if you seek you will find..., there were not only the local wax work with displays of murders, there were other source for this inspiration - the ‘anatomical Venus’ type models, vivisection had only just been outlawed, - in the press, there are reports of some very gristly accidents when people were run over by heavily loaded carts with their narrow steel rimmed wheels, these and railway (and other industrial) accidents were a regular occurrence. The killer could have been exposed to this type of image through an accident

Depending on the age of the killer, he may have had recollections of the local Parish graveyard pre- Burial Acts (mid 1850’s) and to be frank you can’t get any more horrifying than them - I’m surprised no one has ever suggested this is what the MJK killer was trying to recreate.

Talking of which, what about that case in Ireland that was eerily similar to MJK in the 1890’s, and that was a one off murder (IIRC, the man who killed his mother)?



Oh, I believe the Whitechapel killer had a very real fear of judges wearing strange black hats, this the most likely motivation for all this ‘jack the ripper’ behaviour, based on a simple risk versus reward assessment

It's not the dissection of the body that is strange. I mean, it's strange but it's not what I'm talking about. Even today, with all the anatomy we study even before high school about 80% of the population would not be able to find the uterus in an actual body on the first try. Though just about everyone gets it in three tries. So when I say it wasn't as matter of fact back then, I don't mean that he had never seen a gross corpse before. He may well have. But he wouldn't have seen a gross corpse and said "Oh look! A uterus!" and then been able to locate it again. And mostly because the anatomical depictions of the uterus used even today look nothing like the actual organ. So he's not going by drawings, because nothing in a pelvic cavity looks like that. Never mind it's kind of deep down in there and not immediately apparent.

So unless he's been in a body before, he's not going to get the uterus on the first try. Which isn't a body we know about. He also needs to know the connections, which I think is why the women were posed the way they were, but I don't get a lot of agreement on that. So it's more than average 1880s exposure to death, which I grant you was considerable. It's getting in there and getting it wrong before getting it right. Either just a total mess of the pelvic cavity, or a removal of a huge bloc of organs. Bladder, uterus, vagina, some bowel. Because he can't go on the internet and google what it actually looks like in a pelvic cavity, he has to get in a corpse somehow. Either one of his or someone else's to figure it out. The anatomical figures are wrong, and it's exceedingly unlikely that the waxworks had a uterus in situ that he could study. It was there for shock value, not accuracy.

And while I don't know what you mean about execution being the motive for the Ripper, killing someone so they don't talk is not a mission. It's common sense, especially for rapists and sadists. Mission oriented killers are not self serving. Well they are in that all people are, but the people they kill are not just personal threats. They are threats to all men, all women, all humankind. Often these killers are also known as "community service killers" because the people they target tend to be criminals in some way or another. Jeffrey Dahmer was considered one, because he killed homosexual men and nobody was too terribly concerned about missing gays. The Green River Killer was another one because his victims were prostitutes, until his body count got to high and "normal" people started to become afraid of him. Sad reflection on our views of marginalized people.

[Mr Lucky]

So unless he's been in a body before, he's not going to get the uterus on the first try.

Errata,

Very interesting, I see what you mean now, So another quick question (if you don’t mind ) -

Had the killer decided to take the uterus specifically ? Or had he decided just take ‘something’ and it didn‘t matter what ?

As strangely, that second option would fit in with the aborted attempt to remove Chapman’s head. This apparent paradox created by the notion that he can both perform this skilful surgery on the abdomen with a specific and complicated goal in mind, and yet be unable to remove her head would then disappear.

It also brings back the points about the Eddowes surgery as mentioned by Wickerman, earlier.

And while I don't know what you mean about execution being the motive for the Ripper, killing someone so they don't talk is not a mission. It's common sense, especially for rapists and sadists.

No, that’s not what I mean at all, if he wanted to kill someone he would do just that, what I’m referring to is all the ‘Jack the ripper’ nonsense the killer is creating, playing to the audience - leaving clues, stealing body parts, writing messages, it’s nothing more than a distraction, but it’s a risk and the game he plays will cost him his life if he is caught. - so why risk so much ?

[Errata]

Errata,

Very interesting, I see what you mean now, So another quick question (if you don’t mind ) -

Had the killer decided to take the uterus specifically ? Or had he decided just take ‘something’ and it didn‘t matter what ?

As strangely, that second option would fit in with the aborted attempt to remove Chapman’s head. This apparent paradox created by the notion that he can both perform this skilful surgery on the abdomen with a specific and complicated goal in mind, and yet be unable to remove her head would then disappear.

It also brings back the points about the Eddowes surgery as mentioned by Wickerman, earlier.

No, I think it pretty much had to be that he specifically wanted the uterus. Like I said it's a tough find, never mind the fact that there are several more prominent organs up for grabs. Also he took it out intact both times, but without the surrounding organs. The easiest thing would have been for him to remove the uterus, vagina and bladder in one organ block. They are all attached in various ways. But he takes the time to separate out the uterus and take only it, maybe with just parts of the bladder and vagina. That's specific targeting, not grabbing what's handy.

As for the "Jack the Ripper" stuff, you'd have to believe that the actual killer did those things. And while I could see him writing a letter to a paper (especially one where he gets angry about the fake letters), I don't see him calling attention to himself. I don't think he did. But I could be wrong.