Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[Errata]

To go back to the question - "Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?"

No, as the killer had no possible understanding of what an 'M.O' is, he would not be able to intentionally change it.

He would not likely change it in order to deceive police, but serial killers operate off of fantastical notions of perfection. They have a fantasy they try to get as close to as humanly possible, but if it's not working out, the fantasy can and does change. In a sense it's not that dissimilar to a drug addiction. There is a way they need to feel, and if one drug doesn't do it, they will switch to another one. And if a low dose doesn't cut it, the dose will get progressively higher.

But the more sophisticated, complex, or detailed the murder is, the less likely there will be any significant change from that point on. Jack likely did change his MO. But he did it before he was "Jack". By the time he got to Chapman he was locked in. He may have stabbed a woman 32 times or whatever in the beginning, but it didn't work for him so he changed. And one of the great mysteries in this case is what on earth happened between Nichols and Chapman? Either something went peculiarly wrong with Nichols, or Jack killed a few women between Nichols and Chapman. Because there should be evolutionary steps between the two, we just don't have those bodies. So either they are out there somewhere, or somehow something happened with Nichols that didn't allow him to do what he meant to do. And not an interruption, because what he did wit Nichols was different, not aborted.

[bolo]

Hi Mr Lucky and Lynn,

the excessive force with which the knife was used in both cases is what I'm getting at.

In my opinion, it could have been a consequence of a murderer who was inexperienced with throat-cutting and used way more force than necessary to make sure that he would silence/kill his victims as quickly as possible, thus almost beheading Polly and Annie but I doubt that this actually was his objective. The throat cuts - as deep and brutal as they were - always seemed like a technical necessity to me while his real focus was on the lower part of the body and the reproductive organs.

To me, this points to a murderer who changed his MO from strangling and stabbing (Tabram) which he may have found ineffective and too risky after his experience in George's Yard Building to strangling and throat-slashing.

Boris

[Wickerman]

Hi all,

some say that the murderer of Polly and Annie tried to behead them but the very deep cuts could also be seen as the result of a learning process...

If you have read the opinions of Prosector, the knowledge displayed by the locations of the cuts to Eddowes pretty much rules out any learning process.

[bolo]

If you have read the opinions of Prosector, the knowledge displayed by the locations of the cuts to Eddowes pretty much rules out any learning process.

Well, this would fit to a murderer whose learning process ended after either Polly or Annie, and that is what I'm getting at.

[lynn cates]

pre-jack

Hello Errata.

"Jack likely did change his MO. But he did it before he was "Jack"."

Right. Perhaps when he was Jacob?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

quick

Hello Boris. Thanks.

But could not one inflict multiple stab wounds QUICKER than mutilating and removing organs?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

skills

Hello Jon.

"the knowledge displayed by the locations of the cuts to Eddowes pretty much rules out any learning process."

Precisely. No lessons from Annie to Kate with respect to anatomy. And a distinct deterioration of cutting skills.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

learning his lesson

Hello Boris. Can you articulate what, precisely, was learned?

Certainly not how to cut, as Kate was a hack and mangle job. Perhaps that strangling was redundant? He seems to have given up on it after Annie.

Cheers.
LC

[bolo]

Hi Lynn,

one learning step took place between Tabram and Polly when he changed from stabbing to cutting which of course is way quicker.

Then he learned how to effectively use the knife against the throat after he had done away with Polly who received two throat cuts. He applied too much force, that's why he didn't properly hit the "hot spot" of the throat on the first go.

Perhaps he also changed his position for applying the cut beginning with Annie after that.

Thus endeth my little ripperological speculation of the day.

Best wishes,

Boris

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Bolo

Just a quick comparison between the Nichols and Chapman murders

Nichols murder

Here is a journalist mentioning decapitation -

"Apparently in the first instance the knife had been thrust into her neck behind the left ear, and a horrible wound inflicted. Then, thrust in, in a similar position behind the right ear, it was wrenched round with such force as to approach as to decapitation as was possible."

This journalist actually saw the body at the mortuary, interestingly giving us the viewpoint of a non medical man , notice the description of how the wound appear to have been inflicted. Below is the testimony of Dr Llewellyn

"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. The cuts must have been caused by a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence"

Re knife - I have intentionally used the version which describes the knife as 'long', other reports use the word 'strong in the same place;-

"The wounds must have been inflicted with a strong bladed knife, moderately sharp" - Daily News 3 sept 188

The clincher is the interview given by Dr Llewellyn, with the press given on Friday;-

"The weapon used would scarcely have been a sailor's jack knife, but a pointed weapon with a stout back--such as a cork-cutter's or shoemaker's knife. In his opinion it was not an exceptionally long-bladed weapon."

=======================================

Chapman murder

From Dr Philips testimony at inquest concerning the throat wounds ;-

"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."

According to Philips the wound goes all the way round her neck!

The knife used on Chapman;-

[Coroner] Was the instrument used at the throat the same as that used at the abdomen? - Very probably. It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer.
[Coroner] Is it possible that any instrument used by a military man, such as a bayonet, would have done it? - No; it would not be a bayonet.
[Coroner] Would it have been such an instrument as a medical man uses for post-mortem examinations? - The ordinary post-mortem case perhaps does not contain such a weapon.
[Coroner] Would any instrument that slaughterers employ have caused the injuries? - Yes; well ground down.
[Coroner] Would the knife of a cobbler or of any person in the leather trades have done? - I think the knife used in those trades would not be long enough in the blade.

At the end of day we all can choose to believe either the people who were there and saw the body or people who weren't and who say nonsense like 'Medicos say only Polly and Annie had parallel throat slashes'. The choice is ours.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Errata

He would not likely change it in order to deceive police, but serial killers operate off of fantastical notions of perfection. They have a fantasy they try to get as close to as humanly possible, but if it's not working out, the fantasy can and does change. In a sense it's not that dissimilar to a drug addiction. There is a way they need to feel, and if one drug doesn't do it, they will switch to another one. And if a low dose doesn't cut it, the dose will get progressively higher. But the more sophisticated, complex, or detailed the murder is, the less likely there will be any significant change from that point on. Jack likely did change his MO. But he did it before he was "Jack". By the time he got to Chapman he was locked in. He may have stabbed a woman 32 times or whatever in the beginning, but it didn't work for him so he changed.

If you forget about 'Jack' and go back to the Whitechapel murders (before and after), a common theme is strangling and stabbing either in the throat or the lower abdomen. Don't forget that there were two stab in Nichols privates that were not recorded in the press transcripts of the inquest, but were mentioned is Spratling's report of 31st August.

And one of the great mysteries in this case is what on earth happened between Nichols and Chapman? Either something went peculiarly wrong with Nichols, or Jack killed a few women between Nichols and Chapman. Because there should be evolutionary steps between the two, we just don't have those bodies. So either they are out there somewhere, or somehow something happened with Nichols that didn't allow him to do what he meant to do. And not an interruption, because what he did wit Nichols was different, not aborted.

I heartily agree !

[bolo]

Hello Mr Lucky,

At the end of day we all can choose to believe either the people who were there and saw the body or people who weren't and who say nonsense like 'Medicos say only Polly and Annie had parallel throat slashes'. The choice is ours.

I used the information found in the Sourcebook from Polly's and Annie's inquests and the testimonies of the doctors.

Maybe I have mixed something up, I'm a bit slow at times.

Still, the focus of the killer was not on the head but the lower regions. Why should he attempt to behead them, except perhaps for shock value?

Best wishes,

Boris

[Mr Lucky]

If you have read the opinions of Prosector, the knowledge displayed by the locations of the cuts to Eddowes pretty much rules out any learning process.

Hi Wickerman

The killer knows he is up against it time wise in mitre square, not necessarily quite the same pressure in the yard in Hanbury Street.

[Mr Lucky]

I used the information found in the Sourcebook from Polly's and Annie's inquests and the testimonies of the doctors.

Where did you got the notion that some one was trying to cut Nichols head off, it's not mentioned at the inquest. (prob. early press reports?)

Maybe I have mixed something up, I'm a bit slow at times.

We're all 125 years too slow on this one !

Still, the focus of the killer was not on the head but the lower regions. Why should he attempt to behead them, except perhaps for shock value?

The point I'm trying to make is the killer only tries to behead Chapman not Nichols.

Best wishes to you, too

[bolo]

Hi again,

Where did you got the notion that some one was trying to cut Nichols head off, it's not mentioned at the inquest. (prob. early press reports?)

I've followed some discussions in here where various people mentioned this possibility since the second cut went right down to the vertebrae, this also was a hot topic on the German JTR board a few years ago.

Having read a thing or two on throat-cutting, I think this does not have to be a beheading attempt as there's not a lot of "stuff" in the throat/neck that stands in the way of a knife which gets used with a lot of force (except for the spine of course), even if it was only moderately sharp as Dr. Llewellyn said.

We're all 125 years too slow on this one !

Indeed. A time machine, a time machine, my kingdom for a time machine (one that actually works to go BACK in time, which, as Stephen Hawking once mentioned, would be impossible due to wave feedback problems)...

The point I'm trying to make is the killer only tries to behead Chapman not Nichols.

I see. If he really tried to cut Annie's head off, I wonder what he wanted to achieve with it, that's my problem I have with the whole thing.

I mean, he also didn't behead Mary Kelly, even though he had a lot more time on his hands than in the other cases.

Best wishes,

Boris