Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[Michael W Richards]

The evolution of the killer known as Jack the Ripper, meaning the man who killed Polly and Annie at least, is clearly evident in the 2 murders. In that the privacy of the backyard solved the public venue issues he had with Polly. Everything about those 2 murders fits....both at work on the streets at the time, both somewhat incapacitated..one by drink one by illness, both throats were cut in almost identical fashion, twice...and both abdomens were attacked after the throat cuts. The fact that he did so much more damage to Annie has to do with his ability to do that kind of work rapidly, and the additional comfort he would have had not standing over a dead woman in the middle of a double ended street.

Those murders created a killer profile, one of a man with some medical knowledge and some skills with a knife.

I don't see any reason for that profile to have changed, unless of course one wishes to attach other murders to this same individual, murders that do not show the same killer attributes, or penchants.

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.

And Liz and Mary could have been killed by anyone with the will and a knife. There is no indication in either of those murders that any appreciable skill or knowledge was evident in the actions taken.

[lynn cates]

slow learner

Hello Boris. Thanks. But Annie had the same parallel deep cuts.

Perhaps he was a slow learner?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

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.

Hi Mr Lucky.
I entirely agree.
This killer learned nothing from Nichols, except perhaps not to pick that location again. And yet, his methodology was fully developed seven days later with Chapman.
Then again with Eddowes, he demonstrated a learned skill only perhaps compromised by time & location, but nevertheless he was no novice.

[lynn cates]

clear

Hello (again) Boris.

No, you have not mixed up anything. The reports are there for ALL to read.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

The evolution of the killer known as Jack the Ripper, meaning the man who killed Polly and Annie at least, is clearly evident in the 2 murders. In that the privacy of the backyard solved the public venue issues he had with Polly. Everything about those 2 murders fits....both at work on the streets at the time, both somewhat incapacitated..one by drink one by illness, both throats were cut in almost identical fashion, twice...and both abdomens were attacked after the throat cuts. The fact that he did so much more damage to Annie has to do with his ability to do that kind of work rapidly, and the additional comfort he would have had not standing over a dead woman in the middle of a double ended street.

The issue I have with this is that Nichol's killer did not try to disembowel her. Certainly there were abdominal mutilations, but there was no attempt to access the pelvic cavity. What he did to Nichols was different. Not aborted, not compromised, different. It isn't about comfort and speed. With Nichols it appears he wasn't entirely sure what he wanted, where with Chapman he definitely knew. Chapman clearly was eviscerated. It's a far cry from wanting to stab the pelvis to wanting to remove an intact uterus. Never mind even the skill involved. Just the fully formed desire usually takes a few kills. You would at least expect to see a woman with her abdomen completely open and with either nothing missing or a whole bunch of parts missing before you get such targeted mission.

[Beowulf]

Hello Barbara. Perhaps a distinction can be made between the spree killer and the serial killer?

Of course, ALL that is outside my area of expertise and interest.

Cheers.
LC

Ah! Instantly I understand! Thanks

P.S. Seems not at all to be outside of your area of expertise and interest

[lynn cates]

sick

Hello Barbara. Thanks for the kind words.

I know only a little--in passing, as it were. Really, both notions sicken and disgust me.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

Hi bolo,

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.

Re vertebra, the wounds on Nichols are literally 'overkill'. The throat wound of other victims by other killers are often far less dramatic. Llewellyn talks about the ferocity and brutality of the wounds.

Strangely Dr Llewellyn doesn't directly claim that Nichols was asphyxiated and he states that she had a hand placed over her mouth and her head pushed back before the throat wounds were inflicted. So he may be unaware of the key difference between Nichols and most other similar attacks on the throat, in that Nichols was prone and unconscious, and unable to protect herself. The killer can accurately target and also use maximum strength. Otherwise, if the victim is conscious they may be able to defend themselves to some degree, even just to flinch away from the attack, but not in this case.

As Llewellyn said the wounds were "extraordinary for their length and the severity" and unlike Chapman, not a hint of skill anywhere.

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.

Consider the viewpoint of the investigators pre Chapman killing. The Nichols murder was a display of excess violence just like Tabram murder. After the Chapman killing, the consensual belief then changed - now there is an apparent lack of violence at the Nichols murder! - the killer had now been interrupted - but ultimately, it's the killer who is responsible for this change of viewpoint, not the investigators.

If the killer had removed Chapman head, this would also change the consensual belief in exactly the same way, it would also hint of 'unfinished business' at the Nichols crime scene, just like the abdominal theft .

Is the killer misleading us ? - why?

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.

The killer didn't take away her uterus or her kidney either, but he managed to burn her hat!

Does it make sense - No , is it supposed too - No !

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)...

So you're a scientist ? Well to use an analogy that may suit, there are no linear solutions(adding more killers is just like adding more variables)! People have tried for over a hundred years and it's futile. We should try something else, we could try the equivalent of using some 2-dimentional numbers in our Boolean algebra, and treat the information in a totally different way.

Best wishes, bolo.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Mr Lucky.
I entirely agree.
This killer learned nothing from Nichols, except perhaps not to pick that location again. And yet, his methodology was fully developed seven days later with Chapman.
Then again with Eddowes, he demonstrated a learned skill only perhaps compromised by time & location, but nevertheless he was no novice.

Hi Wickerman,

Timing perfect (thanks to the accuracy of Victorian timepieces!) , not sure about the locations - on the surface, Mitre Square would have been a far better place for an interrupted killing, and Dutfields yard better for a bit of improvised surgery!

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Errata

The issue I have with this is that Nichol's killer did not try to disembowel her. Certainly there were abdominal mutilations, but there was no attempt to access the pelvic cavity. What he did to Nichols was different.

Yes, I agree - what the killer did to Nichols was radically different to what happened to Chapman.

Quick question - can you account for these differences with the fact the killer had used a totally different knife ?

[bolo]

Hello again, Mr Lucky,

Hi bolo,

Re vertebra, the wounds on Nichols are literally 'overkill'. The throat wound of other victims by other killers are often far less dramatic. Llewellyn talks about the ferocity and brutality of the wounds.

Strangely Dr Llewellyn doesn't directly claim that Nichols was asphyxiated and he states that she had a hand placed over her mouth and her head pushed back before the throat wounds were inflicted. So he may be unaware of the key difference between Nichols and most other similar attacks on the throat, in that Nichols was prone and unconscious, and unable to protect herself. The killer can accurately target and also use maximum strength. Otherwise, if the victim is conscious they may be able to defend themselves to some degree, even just to flinch away from the attack, but not in this case.

As Llewellyn said the wounds were "extraordinary for their length and the severity" and unlike Chapman, not a hint of skill anywhere.

As a sidenote, I always found one of the paintings from Rembrandt's workshop very fitting as a depiction of what happened in Nichols' case, I have attached the image to this post (taken from a Wikipedia entry on ritual human sacrifice through the ages).

The overkill is what I'm getting at in my attempt to find a change in MO from previous murders (Smith? Tabram?) to Polly. The murderer obviously kept it at putting too much force into his throat cuts because all victims with the exception of Liz Stride had these exceptionally deep throat wounds. To me, this looks like a murderer who was not used to throat cutting before, like a butcher or paid assassin who knows that all it takes is to severe one of the carotid arteries and the larynx (and thus cut through the vocal cords) to silence and kill a victim which does not take that powerful of a cut.

Consider the viewpoint of the investigators pre Chapman killing. The Nichols murder was a display of excess violence just like Tabram murder. After the Chapman killing, the consensual belief then changed - now there is an apparent lack of violence at the Nichols murder! - the killer had now been interrupted - but ultimately, it's the killer who is responsible for this change of viewpoint, not the investigators.

If the killer had removed Chapman head, this would also change the consensual belief in exactly the same way, it would also hint of 'unfinished business' at the Nichols crime scene, just like the abdominal theft .

Is the killer misleading us ? - why?

Interesting points there, Mr Lucky. Like Errata, I think that the abdominal mutilations inflicted on Polly was all the killer was able to do, he either was disturbed or simply acted out his fantasies for the first time but wasn't ready yet to go one step further. This step of his development (from stabbing/cutting open the belly and lower parts to actually ripping his victim open and taking out some organs) may have happened during the days between the killing of Polly and Annie.

Annie was the turning point but mutilations inflicted on her also pose a ton of new questions, namely the obvious skill involved in taking out her uterus, upper part of her vagina and parts of the bladder. It's impossible to reach this skill level in only a few days so the murderer must have been capable of this sort of thing before.

I don't know whether the killer wanted to mislead the police and general public but he sure knew how to create shocking sights. In my opinion, the shock value played a role starting from Annie and culminated in the arranged body of MJK.

The killer didn't take away her uterus or her kidney either, but he managed to burn her hat!

It is my considered opinion that the bonnet was used as a firestarter to burn some probably blood-stained clothes. Cheap bonnets back in the day were made of straw and tar colours and thus easily flammable. If it's done correctly, a fire started with an igniter light that will be fierce and hot enough to even burn wet (blood-soaked) clothing.

That's just another sidenote, though.

So you're a scientist ? Well to use an analogy that may suit, there are no linear solutions(adding more killers is just like adding more variables)! People have tried for over a hundred years and it's futile. We should try something else, we could try the equivalent of using some 2-dimentional numbers in our Boolean algebra, and treat the information in a totally different way.

No, I'm a fireworks manufacturer (see http://www.feuerwerksmanufaktur.de/ )

I just saw a TV programme with Stephen Hawking talking about wormholes, black holes and time travel just about at the same time when I posted in this thread: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8081 and thought that it might be a fitting commentary concerning the problems of travelling back in time.

My personal alternative approach to solving historical murder cases would be to apply certain aspects of chaos theory within social structures which I outlined here a while ago: http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...4&postcount=19

Of course that's just some sort of not 100% serious academic exercise on my part but interesting nonetheless.

Kind regards,

Boris

[lynn cates]

butcher

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

[Errata]

Hi Errata



Yes, I agree - what the killer did to Nichols was radically different to what happened to Chapman.

Quick question - can you account for these differences with the fact the killer had used a totally different knife ?

No. Even with a crap knife you would still expect to see a long central cut. The best I can come up with is that if what was done to Chapman was the goal, he might have used Nichols to figure out the best way to do it. Maybe. 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. But either way steps are still missing between Nichols and Chapman.

His goal was clearly different with these two abdominal entries. He wasn't trying to get an organ out of Nichols. None of the injuries line up with that goal. But I can't swear that I know what he was trying to accomplish. With Chapman it's clear what the goal was. Both are certainly steps in an evolution, but while Chapman appears to be the final step, I'm not sure where he was with Nichols. It could have been a few places. But since the intent was different, the differences are not because of external influences, like location or interruption or even his tools.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi bolo

As a sidenote, I always found one of the paintings from Rembrandt's workshop very fitting as a depiction of what happened in Nichols' case, I have attached the image to this post (taken from a Wikipedia entry on ritual human sacrifice through the ages).

I know someone who thinks the killer held Nichols' head in exactly same way as in that painting (though he thinks it was just an 'ordinary killing', not anything sacrificial)

The overkill is what I'm getting at in my attempt to find a change in MO from previous murders (Smith? Tabram?) to Polly.

Well, it may not be so much a change in M.O as all three appear to be throttled and stabbed in the privates, but a different way of asking the same question is why was the additional damage done to Nichols ?

The killing act is similar in the case of all three, but the stabs inflicted on Nichols have become rips tearing her open, (in Llewellyn's words;- incisions that begin or end at a point).

The murderer obviously kept it at putting too much force into his throat cuts because all victims with the exception of Liz Stride had these exceptionally deep throat wounds. To me, this looks like a murderer who was not used to throat cutting before, like a butcher or paid assassin who knows that all it takes is to severe one of the carotid arteries and the larynx (and thus cut through the vocal cords) to silence and kill a victim which does not take that powerful of a cut.

There is an explanation, He might not have known that these types of wounds would silence his victim until he read about it in the press, which would be after the Chapman murder. Stride was the first victim showing no signs of throttling - the killer learns

Interesting points there, Mr Lucky. Like Errata, I think that the abdominal mutilations inflicted on Polly was all the killer was able to do, he either was disturbed or simply acted out his fantasies for the first time but wasn't ready yet to go one step further. This step of his development (from stabbing/cutting open the belly and lower parts to actually ripping his victim open and taking out some organs) may have happened during the days between the killing of Polly and Annie.

But as Errata points out - there is very little time, so how did he change/learn (where are those 'missing links'?)

Annie was the turning point but mutilations inflicted on her also pose a ton of new questions, namely the obvious skill involved in taking out her uterus, upper part of her vagina and parts of the bladder. It's impossible to reach this skill level in only a few days so the murderer must have been capable of this sort of thing before.

Additionally, how can you have the level skill displayed with the abdomen, but be unable to remove her head? Another paradox

I don't know whether the killer wanted to mislead the police and general public but he sure knew how to create shocking sights. In my opinion, the shock value played a role starting from Annie and culminated in the arranged body of MJK.

The killer had certainly created something for us/them to think about, whether shocking , misleading or both.

No, I'm a fireworks manufacturer

Surely, Fireworks = science (the alternative is magic!)

My personal alternative approach to solving historical murder cases would be to apply certain aspects of chaos theory within social structures which I outlined here a while ago: http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...4&postcount=19

Of course that's just some sort of not 100% serious academic exercise on my part but interesting nonetheless.

Very interesting - my own take is that these killings are neither a conspiracy or a cover-up, but your description 'a puzzle' is a far better term as it implies that there is no missing information. In this case, for the solution to become evident the information just needs to be placed in the right context to be understood.

[Mr Lucky]

No. Even with a crap knife you would still expect to see a long central cut. The best I can come up with is that if what was done to Chapman was the goal, he might have used Nichols to figure out the best way to do it. Maybe. 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. But either way steps are still missing between Nichols and Chapman.

If the killer looked into the abdominal cavity, he appears to have largely put things back together afterward and also pulled her dress down - surely, another nail in the coffin for the interruption idea.

But since the intent was different, the differences are not because of external influences, like location or interruption or even his tools.

Very interesting, many thanks