Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[Cogidubnus]

I still think a large part of the pay-off for the murderer is the thrill of leaving a display, which like the mutilation, evolves as he goes on.

With Nicholls she's found on her back, legs akimbo, skirt raised. With Chapman similar...and noticeably her body is pointed directly towards that back door; (to show off what he's done....I think that position might not be down to pure chance).

Stride, assuming it's our man, well, we don't know how he would have left her, but Eddowes, again is displayed...with Mary Kelly the display speaks for itself, and we can be pretty sure the body was moved from the right side of the bed to a more central position...

So is the murderer saying to us "look what I can do, I'm not a commonplace killer, look how far beyond the bounds of propriety I can take things" ?

All the best

Dave

[Patrick S]

But just because he was prepared doesn't mean he knew who he was going to kill and when. He was just in a ghastly way like Superman, who didn't know when he would be needed but he always had the cape on under his suit (which had to be so uncomfortable).

I think this is a good description of a certaion variety of serial killer. Though, as with all things, there are many varieties. There have been those who identify, stalk, and meticulously plan their crime(s), selecting a victim in a manner mirroring some depraved idea of dating or courtship.

There have been those who resist and rage against their compulsions until they can simply no longer bear it. This variety, it seems, is often caught early in that they tend to become sloppy in their haste and desperation.

Still another and more common type is the killer who plans based upon opportunity. He's off on Friday, he feels the compulsion growing, he plans to kill....if he can. Thus he may or may not, based upon circumstances. If he fails, he'll be out again at the earliest opportunity. Based upon what we know of the case, I'd opine that JtR was a killer of this variety. Though, obviously no one can be certain.

PDS

[Errata]

That is why I suggested the discovery aspect as potentially being the thing that must be satiated. I get the feeling of pragmatism from the murders. Calculated might be applicable even. Compulsion doesn't seem to fit. There appears to be a calculating aspect that becomes difficult to ignore for me personally. Now, I am NOT as well versed in matters as others, but I do know not to disregard my intuitional prowess unless the needed data is there to refute it. I think there was an element of planning or forethought involved. Or at the very least a repitition that guided the actions. Sorry if that came out sounding like complete nonsense. I need to sleep as it has been a long while since it has been a long while since my last bout with the Sandman.

And you would be right. Serial killers are an odd breed. They don't just snap and murder the first person to come to hand. Those are spree killers. They are recreating a fantasy, and as such require certain scenery, certain props, and frankly a certain cast of characters. Like any other fantasy. If you always wanted to get married in the little church your grandmother was married in, if you go down to the courthouse to get hitched it's not going to be as satisfying. You take the effort to it the the way you want to.

But serial killers often either don't have a specific leading lady in mind, or that woman (or man of course) cannot be touched for whatever reason. Which is like having the fantasy about getting married where Grandma did, but that church burned down. In which case, you get as close as you can in a way that is most meaningful to you. You marry where your parents married. You marry in the church closest to where the burned church used to be. You marry in the Church Grandma was buried in. Whatever. Serial killers get as close as they can to the fantasy. But they don't always know who the victim will be.

Which is why they have the creepy habit of being prepared. The stage is lit, the scene is set, and when they happen across a leading lady they are ready. And who the leading lady will be is entirely dependent on how they are good enough in the way that is most meaningful to the killer. It may be appearance, situation, demeanor, proximity, any number of things. In this case, probably not proximity because the scenes are not ideal, nor do they have a lot in common. But it could be a word, a look, a gesture, a smell... anything. But just because he was prepared doesn't mean he knew who he was going to kill and when. He was just in a ghastly way like Superman, who didn't know when he would be needed but he always had the cape on under his suit (which had to be so uncomfortable).

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

And that's possible. I'm not saying that there is no way he didn't change his MO, just that he would only change his MO if he could still get what he needed from the murder. And to figure out a victim pool you need to...

For example if it was the throat overkill he needed, then any victim who showed that or some evolution of that would be in the victim pool, and those with only abdominal injuries would not be.

That is why I suggested the discovery aspect as potentially being the thing that must be satiated. I get the feeling of pragmatism from the murders. Calculated might be applicable even. Compulsion doesn't seem to fit. There appears to be a calculating aspect that becomes difficult to ignore for me personally. Now, I am NOT as well versed in matters as others, but I do know not to disregard my intuitional prowess unless the needed data is there to refute it. I think there was an element of planning or forethought involved. Or at the very least a repitition that guided the actions. Sorry if that came out sounding like complete nonsense. I need to sleep as it has been a long while since it has been a long while since my last bout with the Sandman.

[Errata]

He could have killed all the one he is suspected of killing easily. Look at The Green River Killer, Ted Bundy, Henry Lee Lucas. it has been mentioned that he tried to cut off the women's heads. So perhaps he succeeded at times and proceeded to cut off their limbs as well, i.e., the Torso Murders. Just saying...

And that's possible. I'm not saying that there is no way he didn't change his MO, just that he would only change his MO if he could still get what he needed from the murder. And to figure out a victim pool you need to figure out what he needed.

For example if it was the throat overkill he needed, then any victim who showed that or some evolution of that would be in the victim pool, and those with only abdominal injuries would not be.

[RavenDarkendale]

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.

He could have killed all the one he is suspected of killing easily. Look at The Green River Killer, Ted Bundy, Henry Lee Lucas. it has been mentioned that he tried to cut off the women's heads. So perhaps he succeeded at times and proceeded to cut off their limbs as well, i.e., the Torso Murders. Just saying...

[lynn cates]

insight

Hello Tom. Rare insight, as always.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Oh, do be quiet.

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Well, it we are thinking of the SAME symbolism, there would be MANY cuts. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Men tried for centuries to discover a way to shut women up. It proved impossible and we turned to more realistic pursuits, like alchemy and trying to solve a 125 year old murder case that stumped Scotland Yard.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well the theory is that if we talk constantly then you are likely to get the point in the nanosecond that you pay attention to anything other than sports, sex, and money. It's verbal flak. Throw up a bunch of explosives and maybe hit one plane.

I mean, you can't possibly expect us to take a chance on missing the tiny window in which we can get you to actually take out the garbage.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Men tried for centuries to discover a way to shut women up. It proved impossible and we turned to more realistic pursuits, like alchemy and trying to solve a 125 year old murder case that stumped Scotland Yard.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Tom Wescott!!!

[Tom_Wescott]

He also might have been trying to shut them the hell up.

Men tried for centuries to discover a way to shut women up. It proved impossible and we turned to more realistic pursuits, like alchemy and trying to solve a 125 year old murder case that stumped Scotland Yard.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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.

[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]

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.

[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?