Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[Sherlock Holmes]

For Wickerman and others that want to know

The yard ceased investigating these in 1892 (source JTR: the first serial killer- documentary)
Mr Holmes

[Wickerman]

For Wickerman and others that want to know

The yard ceased investigating these in 1892 (source JTR: the first serial killer- documentary)
Mr Holmes

Thankyou Mr Holmes.
As you obtained this from a documentary (the title sounds familiar), did they mention a source for this?
I only ask because we can assume an approximate date when they ceased investigating the case due to the latest surviving paperwork, but that does not tell us when the case was officially closed.

[Sherlock Holmes]

There was no mention of the source by the narrator
Mr Holmes

[Jeff Leahy]

When I interviewed Don Rumblow for the 'Definitive Story' documentary, he said the case was never officially closed. The papers were simply put away until more came to light or further victims were to be included. Which didn't happen.

I'm not convinced that JtR ever used an identical MO, he used some very different MO's if you include Smith and Tabram. I certainly believe that Serial killers per ce are capable of using very different MO's.

It rather depends on what it is they are getting out of the crime and the nature of their mental state or pathological illness.

Yours Jeff

[caz]

Just like there's no point in looking for your car keys in the place you just looked for your car keys. If they had been there the first time, you would have found them and the second search would be unnecessary.

Not necessarily, Errata. I take it you haven't been following the lengthy GSG thread. One argument there is the polar opposite of yours. It says that the large, bloody, smelly apron piece could easily have been in position the first time PC Long looked there, and only actually noticed by him when he looked a second time.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I'm not convinced that JtR ever used an identical MO, he used some very different MO's if you include Smith and Tabram. I certainly believe that Serial killers per ce are capable of using very different MO's.

It rather depends on what it is they are getting out of the crime and the nature of their mental state or pathological illness.

Yours Jeff

I agree entirely, Jeff.

Serial killers are nothing if not rules unto themselves. And each murder (or attempted murder) from the start would be a learning curve - an experiment that could go right or badly wrong. So why the hell would they stick to an MO that was any less than 100% perfect first time, second time, every time out?

If, for example, the killer of Emma Smith craved attention for this particularly depraved act of sexual violence, it backfired and gave him very little feedback. Nothing in the papers to speak of, and he would eventually be seen only as part of a gang in any case (whether he was or not). Next time (again a Bank Holiday) he could have inflicted all those stab wounds on Tabram, including the wound(s) to her genital area, in the hope that this would do the trick and get him noticed - which it most certainly did. But still, back indoors, he had nothing of any real substance to show for it, to convince him that this huge press reaction was all about him, and he wasn't just fantasising that he was the man centre stage. Was he too high on booze and adrenaline at the time, perhaps, to commit all the new sensations to memory so he could relive the same experiences the world was now reading all about?

Decapitating a subsequent victim (if he tried) would have kept the kettle boiling furiously, and taking body parts away would have served the dual purpose of feeding the media frenzy and feeding himself (literally or cerebrally) with the touchy-feely spoils of his work. The murder of the mysterious Mary Kelly, of course, was on another level, and has arguably kept him in free publicity ever since, as much as the fact that he was never identified.

A common link between several victims seems to be the killer's desire, or need, to inflict damage to their genital regions, but other factors could have been included, excluded or added to enhance the overall experience for himself as well as prolong it in the eyes of the world.

This was a very public series of London murders, in an age when newspapers were fast becoming available to, and readable by, vast numbers right across the globe. But in order to achieve and maintain such notoriety and not be caught, the killer had to remain a very private individual while in murder mode, responding in accordance with the climate he was himself creating.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

explanation

Hello Jeff, Caroline. I take it you have a ready made explanation for the parallel neck wounds on Polly and Annie?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi Lynn,

You're asking us if you take it?

Well if you don't know... (heh-heh)

Love,

Caz
X

PS A clue to my thinking on changing MO can be found in my words: 'If, for example...'

[caz]

Sorry, Lynn. I couldn't resist posting my response in Lynn-speak.

But seriously, if Jack wanted to attempt organ removal and/or decapitation with Nichols, for example to give the papers something more sensational to chew on (but not necessarily), the less than satisfactory outcome could have resulted in a repeat attempt the following weekend in Hanbury St, using the same method to render Chapman dead so he could gut her without saturating himself with blood. More time with this victim, and a bit more experience, may have accounted for the greater degree of success.

Love,

Caz
X

[Barnaby]

This probably belongs on another thread, but tonight I was watching a show on the Investigation Discovery Channel here in the States and they were discussing an unsolved series of murders outside of Denver in the 1970s in which the victims' bodies (young females) were posed nude with their legs spread within obvious sight along roads. What interested me was that the "profilers" were discussing this signature in terms of artistry and that this could be the work of a deranged artist. So many artist suspects here. So little time.

[lynn cates]

change

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Only to change again at Mitre sq?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi Lynn,

Well in my scenario he'd have been relatively sober at the time of night he encountered both Nichols and Chapman, but could have been somewhat impaired by the demon drink when coming across Stride that much earlier in the evening. I can see his judgement being poorer then, certainly, which would go a long way to account for the double event. The Mitre Square murder was daring and reckless, and he had to be in a hurry to get all that done before anyone disturbed him. Seems he was determined not to go home beaten and empty-handed that night, no matter what it took. I think he had to be high to take it on, but that may well have affected the way he undertook the job.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

drunk

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

And perhaps being drunk explains the hack and mangle job on Kate, instead of the earlier precise cuts?

Cheers.
LC

[Scott Nelson]

Yes, certainly. And with the Kelly murder?

[Wickerman]

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

And perhaps being drunk explains the hack and mangle job on Kate, instead of the earlier precise cuts?

Cheers.
LC

The killer did not draw attention to himself. And, he managed to engage these women in seclusion, successfully murder & mutilate without anyone seeing or hearing a thing, and leave each scene as if he had never been there.
I just fail to see how a drunk could be responsible for these crimes, and successfully escape every time?
How would a drunk manage to keep it quiet when he got back to the lodging-house?

No, this killer was not drunk (IMO).