Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[Michael W Richards]

The issue with why there was not at least an attempt to invade Ms. Nichols abdomen should be addressed by the very public venue and the fact that its possible that the murderer was in fact interrupted while over this victim. In no other case do we have witness testimony that the victim was thought to be still breathing when found, and with warm appendages....(legs)....and in no other case would the perpetrator be conducting his field surgery on a street, open at both ends...thereby making time with the victim after the throat cut a uniquely dangerous deal. A dark deserted passageway off a main street, a deserted square...off a main street, and a private room in a small courtyard, off the main street, do not present the same obstacles. They would of course have obstacles of their own, due to the number and accessibility of egress routes for one.

The formulaic manner in which victim 1 and 2 were dispatched, the level of skill and knowledge attributed, the very unique double cut throats, and the matching victimology...both active street whores, somewhat incapacitated...tip the scales towards a single killer of both those women.

They are the litmus test, or should be. Any earlier "Jack" murder should reveal acts that might naturally progress to the acts performed on Polly, in which case Martha does not fit, and any later murders should reveal a focus on the organs of the abdomen and a skill set that enabled the organ thefts to be viewed as the acts of someone knowledgeable in such things. Liz and Mary were not seen as skillfully and knowledgeable dispatched, one is missing the central focus and one has no mutilations at all,..and Kates injuries.... as perceived by the one physician who examined Polly and Annie were not seen as skillful or knowledgeable.

Without modifying the profile that is created with the first 2 murders, and using some known evidence as part of the explanation, explain why Liz Stride and Mary Kelly should be seen as other victims of that same man.

The sole reason that we have a Canonical Group is that subjective rationalizing has taken precedence over actual evidence. How many killers could be running around that small area at the same time? How many people would kill by slitting the throat? They were all prostitutes at some point in their desperate lives, so they must all have been soliciting the nights they were killed, that's why they were chosen.

Well....having read many Old Bailey cases of the period, and newspaper articles, and historical biographies, I can say fairly confidently that there were quite a few men in Whitechapel and its surrounds at the same time capable of committing murder, and some in fact did so....and that the knife was the cheapest and easiest to acquire weapon at the time... with the added value of silence,... even Kate carried one....that throat slitting wasn't terribly unusual but slitting them twice was unique, and that there is evidence that Liz Stride and Mary Kelly were not actively soliciting when they met their deaths. Both women had only recently, (9 days being the longest period), separated from long term relationships. Neither were dispatched by anyone with any appreciable skill with a knife or advanced knowledge of anatomy.

So did the killer change who he kills, where he kills, how he kills, what he does when he kills and most importantly... how skillfully he carries out the mutilations? Or was there more than 1 killer of the Canonical Group?

Which really seems more plausible??

Cheers

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Again,

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.

You previously claimed that he wouldn't be able to do that, "he can't just look it up on the internet ,Etc." - We seem to be going round in circles

As for the "Jack the Ripper" stuff, you'd have to believe that the actual killer did those things.

Of course it's the killer doing it!!, you seriously think I'm suggesting someone else is responsible, - following him around , taking the bit of apron to Goulston st. , breaking into Mjk home and burning her hat, etc

I'm try to work 'why' not 'who'

[Mr Lucky]

the very unique double cut throats

Either provide a contemporary citation or you're a liar.

[Michael W Richards]

Either provide a contemporary citation or you're a liar.

Civil disagreement... as usual. Be thankful you can write that to me...you wouldn't have the nads to say it. I guarantee that.

What are you challenging...that other people during the late 1880's were also killed or attacked with a knife, some with slit throats...or that double throat cuts were unique...as your capture seems to indicate?

If its the first...then the records are there for the perusing. Have at it. If its the second, then you have no idea what it is you're studying here anyway.

The double cuts are integral to this particular criminals habits, by virtue of their infrequent appearance in such knife cases.

If you think Im going to do your homework for you and provide you with nice tidy links to the knife cases on Old Bailey or in press snippets, ...well then, you probably made a key mistake by suggesting Im a liar.

When you've studied some more we can talk again.

[Mr Lucky]

Civil disagreement... as usual. Be thankful you can write that to me...you wouldn't have the nads to say it. I guarantee that.

Your implied threats of violence are noted , and then ignored....

When you've studied some more we can talk again.

It has been endlessly pointed out to you that the throat wounds on Nichols and Chapman are completely different, done using different knifes in a totally different way, yet you appear to be totally incapable of taking this very simple information on board.

Perhaps it is just too difficult for you to understand, whether things are ‘alike’ or ‘not alike’ , clearly the intrinsic nature of this type of assessment, this sesame street level of intellectual analysis is something beyond your capacity.

Once again, for the ‘hard of thinking’

Llewellyn on Nichols

"On the left side of the neck, about 1 in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 in. in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1 in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3 in. below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8 in. in length."

Philips on Chapman

"The throat was dissevered deeply. I noticed that the incision of the skin was jagged, and reached right round the neck."

"The throat had been severed. The incisions of the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck on a line with the angle of the jaw, carried entirely round and again in front of the neck, and ending at a point about midway between the jaw and the sternum or breast bone on the right hand. There were two distinct clean cuts on the body of the vertebrae on the left side of the spine. They were parallel to each other, and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures between the side processes of bone of the vertebrae had an appearance as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck."

[c.d.]

Well, there are certainly differences in the killings of the C5, no doubt about it. So if you want to argue that ANY difference between the killings implies a different killer, then we clearly have five different killers of the C5. When I see posters focusing their energies on enumerating those differences I can't help but wonder if that time would be better spent trying to determine if those differences are indeed significant and not simply the result of circumstances and human nature.

c.d.

[Errata]

Hi Again,



You previously claimed that he wouldn't be able to do that, "he can't just look it up on the internet ,Etc." - We seem to be going round in circles



Of course it's the killer doing it!!, you seriously think I'm suggesting someone else is responsible, - following him around , taking the bit of apron to Goulston st. , breaking into Mjk home and burning her hat, etc

I'm try to work 'why' not 'who'

Oh course he would be able to. I said the learning curve would be steeper, not impossible. It required research. He had to know how to get to the uterus and what it looked like. Which he could find out, but he would need an actual corpse, or at least some very technical highly accurate illustrations. Because a body wasn't found and chalked up to him doesn't mean there wasn't one. I'm saying there should be more bodies. Not that there should be more bodies but there aren't. Obviously he either got rid of them, killed them somewhere else, or they weren't "his" bodies. But somewhere between Nichols and Chapman he got his hands on a dead woman or two and figured it out. Or someone taught him, which is less likely and more scary really. His fantasy clearly changed. It didn't matter if he was interrupted with Nichols, he wasn't doing the same thing to her. He wanted something different from her than he wanted from Chapman. And that's pretty normal. But there is usually a few bodies between the change in fantasy and the perfection of the fantasy. So there should be one or more bodies that weren't found, or weren't "his". And I think they are there, we just don't know who it would be.

I thought you were talking about all the letters and the graffito, and I honestly don't think he did that. Yes, he dropped the apron. But I thought you were talking about publicizing himself, and that I don't think he did. And I don't know how much of it was a game. But if it wasn't important to him, he wouldn't play it. And it's not like serial killers don't act contrary to their own best interest kinda all the time. Of course they do. It usually gets them caught, or it should get them caught except someone was asleep at wheel. Sometimes their compulsions are more important than not getting caught, or they honestly believe they can't be caught. Some killers are very surprised when they get caught. They shouldn't be, clearly cops investigate serial murder, but they are. Serial killers tend not to be bright. And they tend to have raging egos. Put the two together it's surprising they run as long as they do really. And mostly, they only get away with it because they aren't killing people that society cares about.

As for the why, I think it always boils down to power. I certainly don't think these murders were about sex, any more than serial rapes are about sex. Power and control tend to be the bywords for this kind of thing. I don't know if he did it because aliens told him to, or he was an abused child, or because his brother married a prostitute and left him with a ruined business. I have no idea. I have some pet theories but no proof and not likely to get any. But I do think he killed these women and mutilated them to feel powerful. Not to feel aroused. Although it's not like there is a clear line between feeling powerful and being aroused.

[Hunter]

People with knowledge and skill would invariably be detectable again by the same people who proclaimed that the killer of Polly and Annie had these attributes, yet in the case that matches these two murders the closest, the Mitre square murder, the doctor who saw more victims in person than anyone else, professed that Kate's killer did not possess the same attributes he saw in the earlier murders.

Where did Phillips say that? What is the source?

[Sam Flynn]

Well, there are certainly differences in the killings of the C5, no doubt about it. So if you want to argue that ANY difference between the killings implies a different killer, then we clearly have five different killers of the C5.

Spot-on, CD. The same applies to many, if not all, multiple murderers whose (acknowledged) victims met their ends in slightly different ways.

[Mr Lucky]

Because a body wasn't found and chalked up to him doesn't mean there wasn't one. I'm saying there should be more bodies. Not that there should be more bodies but there aren't.

Hi Again,

Oops, sorry, I thought you were ruling this out !
O.k. are you considering a undertaker, mortuary attendant, or any one like that? or did he definitely kill them first ?

The tricky thing to explain is - if he is killing these women and no one noticed the victims are missing and nobody is finding their bodies , why not carry on doing that - rather than risk capture by killing in public ?

Or someone taught him, which is less likely and more scary really.

What about two killers working together, how do you feel about that ?

I thought you were talking about all the letters and the graffito, and I honestly don't think he did that. Yes, he dropped the apron. But I thought you were talking about publicizing himself, and that I don't think he did. And I don't know how much of it was a game. But if it wasn't important to him, he wouldn't play it.

No not the letters, the letter are a great big spanner in the works as far as the killer is concerned, that was totally unexpected! The killer had become what I have described as 'driven by the narrative', this is why his behaviour is influenced by the press, why he leaves 'clues' and he is desperately trying to give the investigators something to think about.

Ultimately the only rational explanation for the killers behaviour, is that there is no patently rational explanation. - yet the killer is clearly rational

Serial killers tend not to be bright.

Well, studying the murder cases prior to the ripper, particularly say a 100 years or more earlier, one thing to notice is that the killers and investigators are in a state akin to evolution, in that the murderers of the 18th century do some of the most stupid things - barely believable sometimes, however the detection and judicial processes (or at least adversarial trial) are also still in their infancy. Effectively, the murderers and detectives are both driven to become more and more cunning and effective, as time passes they both learn - popular culture with it's obsession with crime (by Victorian times the papers are full of these reports) which acts like a bank of knowledge for criminals - look at the apparent growth of the use of 'inheritance powder' - until analytical chemistry started to be used at trial.

[Errata]

Hi Again,

Oops, sorry, I thought you were ruling this out !
O.k. are you considering a undertaker, mortuary attendant, or any one like that? or did he definitely kill them first ?

The tricky thing to explain is - if he is killing these women and no one noticed the victims are missing and nobody is finding their bodies , why not carry on doing that - rather than risk capture by killing in public ?

It's possible he experimented on found corpses, or dug people up or broke into sealed coffins. It's also possible he was killing elsewhere. Especially if he was a sailor, which is not out of the question. It's also possible that he had a specific message he wanted to send, and bodies that did not live up to that message were disposed of. Or there in fact were not extra bodies, and he devoted himself to study rather than practical experimentation. Personally I think there are bodies. I think that Whitechapel was his gallery, and thats where his works were displayed (figuratively. Not that he thought he was an artist). But that his rough drafts were dumped, and women working say, the docks are extremely vulnerable to a body dump. What I know for sure is that he had to acquire extra knowledge between Nichols and Chapman. The fact that he did means he is a lot smarter than the average serial killer. How he got that knowledge, I don't know. But I'm betting on there being more bodies.

What about two killers working together, how do you feel about that ?

I know it makes sense it many ways. I don't feel good about it, but I can't deny the logic.

No not the letters, the letter are a great big spanner in the works as far as the killer is concerned, that was totally unexpected! The killer had become what I have described as 'driven by the narrative', this is why his behaviour is influenced by the press, why he leaves 'clues' and he is desperately trying to give the investigators something to think about.

Ultimately the only rational explanation for the killers behaviour, is that there is no patently rational explanation. - yet the killer is clearly rational

It's also possible that he made a series of dumb moves for perfectly rational reasons. Little clues or oddities are not necessarily there for the consumption of others. Any number of things can be explained by external forces driving him to do something counter intuitive. For example I don't think it means anything that he threw MJK's clothes in the fire. I don't think it was a message, I think he needed light without wanting people to think she was awake by leaving a candle burning. He may not have meant to ditch the apron piece, he may have simply heard someone coming. We don't really know what is internally influenced and what is externally influenced. I try not to factor anything which is not unequivocally purposeful. The murders and mutilations are purposeful. Anything else might just be a series of screw ups.

Well, studying the murder cases prior to the ripper, particularly say a 100 years or more earlier, one thing to notice is that the killers and investigators are in a state akin to evolution, in that the murderers of the 18th century do some of the most stupid things - barely believable sometimes, however the detection and judicial processes (or at least adversarial trial) are also still in their infancy. Effectively, the murderers and detectives are both driven to become more and more cunning and effective, as time passes they both learn - popular culture with it's obsession with crime (by Victorian times the papers are full of these reports) which acts like a bank of knowledge for criminals - look at the apparent growth of the use of 'inheritance powder' - until analytical chemistry started to be used at trial.

When I say serial killer's aren't bright, I mean that literally. Not that they aren't good at what they do, but their IQs are average. They tend not to be able to analyze information skillfully and predict with regularity what the consequences of their actions will be. Sure they know the cops will look for them. But they never think about someone they know going to cops and reporting them as a possible killer. They also never plan for something going wrong. They don't plan for someone getting away, or someone surviving despite their injuries. It just doesn't occur to them. Which isn't to say that this is peculiar to serial killers. It pretty common amongst adolescents, and anyone with an IQ of about one hundred. The live in a world where it's them and the cops. And while that's true, there is still family and neighbors and victims to consider, and they just don't. If Dahmer had thought about his neighbors he would have done better about the smell in his apartment. If Bundy had thought about his victims he never would have repeated a ruse once a girl refused to get into the car with him. Never mind all the serial killers identified by a victim who survived. They would have worn masks, or at least made absolutely sure someone was dead. They don't think about. They can't factor it into their plans. They just aren't bright enough as a rule.

People with a 100 IQ are perfectly normal. Absolutely average. They lead fulfilling and productive lives, they contribute to society. But what you CAN'T do with any regularity with a 100 IQ is fool everybody all the time. And there are only so many variables an average person can deal with. Serial killers rely on their ability to fool everyone 100% of the time, and to be able to deal with any contingency. And they can't. So betting everything on abilities they just don't have, that's kinda dumb.

[Mr Lucky]

What I know for sure is that he had to acquire extra knowledge between Nichols and Chapman. The fact that he did means he is a lot smarter than the average serial killer. How he got that knowledge, I don't know. But I'm betting on there being more bodies.

So you have a typical linear solution, a starting point and a fixed objective to his behaviour, but this doesn't fit with the evidence - so you have to create more murders between the killings of Nichols and Chapman ! Sadly, there is no evidence that these murders have happened. - I'm sorry to have to point this out, it's far more likely that the starting assumptions you are using are wrong.

For example I don't think it means anything that he threw MJK's clothes in the fire. I don't think it was a message, I think he needed light without wanting people to think she was awake by leaving a candle burning.

People would just ignore the candle light - it's normal, but the light from her clothes burning in the fire place would be unusual - far brighter than a normal fire, far more likely to draw attention - people would possibly think her room was on fire, and then to cap it all light from the fire wouldn't fall on her bed anyway!

Sorry - it simply doesn't make sense, and it didn't make sense at the time either - that's possibly why they sieved through all the ashes -What was the fire for? , they knew the killer didn't need any light at the other scenes so why would he needed it in Millers court (and if he did he would he would just use the candle) - ponder, ponder and here we are 120 odd years later still pondering. - Let's just leave 'ripperology' behind for a moment, and flip into reality.

He is risking his life to burn a hat - why ?

He may not have meant to ditch the apron piece, he may have simply heard someone coming.

That doesn't explain why he took it !, additionally the fact the whole area was still busy when he left mitre square suggests he would have 'simply heard someone coming' far closer than Goulston st.

People with a 100 IQ are perfectly normal. Absolutely average. They lead fulfilling and productive lives, they contribute to society. But what you CAN'T do with any regularity with a 100 IQ is fool everybody all the time. And there are only so many variables an average person can deal with. Serial killers rely on their ability to fool everyone 100% of the time, and to be able to deal with any contingency. And they can't. So betting everything on abilities they just don't have, that's kinda dumb

It's nothing to do with IQ tests, the killer learns, that the whole point - a non-linear solution - additionally the evidence strongly suggest the polar opposite of what you 'believe', the killer is clearly of exceptional intelligence other wise they would have caught him.

Anyway, I'll leave it there, nice talking to you.

[Errata]

So you have a typical linear solution, a starting point and a fixed objective to his behaviour, but this doesn't fit with the evidence - so you have to create more murders between the killings of Nichols and Chapman ! Sadly, there is no evidence that these murders have happened. - I'm sorry to have to point this out, it's far more likely that the starting assumptions you are using are wrong.

Actually it doesn't fit the other way. What was done to Nichols does not lead to what was done to Chapman. So there had to be a change in intent. Which is fine, happens all the time, but then it requires an explanation as to how he got really good at taking out a uterus in such a short period of time. And the only answers are practice or research. It isn't about a linear solution. It's about explaining an outlier that given it's importance in subsequent murders really does need explaining.

People would just ignore the candle light - it's normal, but the light from her clothes burning in the fire place would be unusual - far brighter than a normal fire, far more likely to draw attention - people would possibly think her room was on fire, and then to cap it all light from the fire wouldn't fall on her bed anyway!

Sorry - it simply doesn't make sense, and it didn't make sense at the time either - that's possibly why they sieved through all the ashes -What was the fire for? , they knew the killer didn't need any light at the other scenes so why would he needed it in Millers court (and if he did he would he would just use the candle) - ponder, ponder and here we are 120 odd years later still pondering. - Let's just leave 'ripperology' behind for a moment, and flip into reality.

He is risking his life to burn a hat - why ?

Whether or not it makes sense depends on his intent and fears. Which we don't at all know so we have to guess. Obviously he wouldn't do it unless it was important for some reason. But that doesn't mean it's significant to his psychology or profound in any way. For example, a candle would mean someone was awake in the room. If he was afraid of someone knocking on the door to check on her, he would put out the candle. if the room was darker than a moonlit night, he might need more light, so he built up the fire. Or he could have knocked a bunch of stuff in the fire while moving around and then kicked it all the way in so as not to set the building ablaze. I mean, it's possible that it was somehow symbolic to him, but that raises legions of other questions that need to then be answered. Why her and not the others? Why a hat and clothing, but not what she had been wearing? Occam's Razor really. The solutions with the fewest variables tends to be correct. I don't have an objection to it being significant. I just don't think it was, and I haven't heard particularly compelling argument on the topic.

That doesn't explain why he took it !, additionally the fact the whole area was still busy when he left mitre square suggests he would have 'simply heard someone coming' far closer than Goulston st.

It is far more likely he took it and then ditched it for a practical reason rather than some compulsive reason. He may have cut himself. His knife work was particularly sloppy. He was probably covered in feces since he severed the colon and that whole mess splashed about quite a bit. He may have just cut off a piece of cloth to clean himself up and then ditched it. He had real souvenirs. He didn't need a blood soaked rag. And he may have run into someone he knew, who called out to him and he ditched the rag rather than walk up to a neighbor with it and start chatting. Or he took it and dropped because that action had some arcane significance to him. There's really no way to know. But any action that can be either practical or profound is a dead end in determining significance. There is no practical reason for him to have cut up Kate's face. That's profound. There may be a practical reason why he cut off a piece of her apron. So it's not terribly useful.

It's nothing to do with IQ tests, the killer learns, that the whole point - a non-linear solution - additionally the evidence strongly suggest the polar opposite of what you 'believe', the killer is clearly of exceptional intelligence other wise they would have caught him.

We were talking about why serial killers in general do things that can get them caught. And the truth is that it's because often times their compulsions override their practicality, and a person has to be pretty bright or damned lucky to get away with that. But they aren't bright. They are almost always lucky. I think Jack was pretty intelligent. And I said that. I don't think he is swimming amongst the Ted Bundys of the world. I think he's up there with Joel Rifkin. Meaning that he could in fact deal with more variables than the average serial killer. But I don't think intelligence is what kept him from getting caught. I think a lack of modern forensics and identification methods did that. The only way he was going to get caught was to be seen doing it. And it is ridiculously easy to not be seen killing someone. I mean, if you think about it, it's very rare for a murder to be witnessed. Convenience store robbery gone bad, sure. Killing spree where the killer has no plan of surviving the day, yes. Premeditated murder? Very rare.

But the only absolute truth I can give you is that serial killers are creatures of compulsion. Consequently, they don't do anything that isn't important to them somehow. It may be practical, it may be arcane, and there doesn't even have to be a good or well thought out reason. It just has to be important. So he didn't do anything that wasn't important in that moment, but it doesn't mean that what he did is revealing in any way. It might be, but it equally might not be.

Anyway, I'll leave it there, nice talking to you.

Likewise

[FrankO]

They are the litmus test, or should be.

Why should they be, Mike?

Any earlier "Jack" murder should reveal acts that might naturally progress to the acts performed on Polly,...

Robert Napper killed Rachel Nickell in a fashion reminiscent of the Tabram murder and he later mutilated Samantha Bisset in a very similar way to the way Kelly was mutilated.

...and any later murders should reveal a focus on the organs of the abdomen and a skill set that enabled the organ thefts to be viewed as the acts of someone knowledgeable in such things.

Again, why should they reveal a focus on just the abdominal organs? What evidence is there to claim this? And why should the organ thefts reveal that they had been the acts of someone knowledgeable in such things? What purpose would that serve the killer, supposing he wasn’t a surgeon who was in need of certain cleanly cut out organs?

Cheers,
Frank

[John Wheat]

When I say serial killer's aren't bright, I mean that literally. Not that they aren't good at what they do, but their IQs are average.

What about serial killers with high IQs for instance Melvin Rees, Lucian Staniak, Carl Panzram, Kenneth Bianci and Werner Boost etc.

Cheers John